What to do re: PvP #2

[Iktomi]

This poll relates to this General post.

Insurance would work along the lines of:
a.) you buy an insurance contract for, say, 100,000 gold
b.) you die in PvP while wearing it, it goes to your bank account and the insurance is lost
c.) your killer instead receives 50% of the insurance cost as gold.

The price of insurance would vary depending on the value of the item.

The benefit of this is that people don't always lose their equipment, and it also provides an incentive for people to RP with robbers a little bit (I'll give you X and Y, if you don't kill me and make me reinsure all my gear).

[Chivay]

I think a system like this would have a negative impact on the economy in the long run. With enough money, gear losses in PvP would be minimal.

However, something similar to this would make a great addition to PvM pacts. One underlying problem in the current situation were trust issues on both sides, and ultimately that was the reason the proposed PvM pact wasn't signed. If a system like this was in place while PvM pact was active (essentially the first kill which broke the pact would be nullified but the pact would no longer be active), it would make pacts lasts longer and be a lot safer for hunters. The aggressor who broke the pact would still receive some monetary benefit for his deed, but the defender would not be pissed off with losing good gear.

[Biggs]

the rich stay richer and the poor loose everything. no thanks.

[Ares]

I'm going to implement this regardless of this post. I'd have preferred to keep it as a surprise feature.

The equipment will have variable costs of insuring them based on the quality of the item.

1. The better the quality, material and suffix the higher the price. That means that the "poor" can insure their items fairly easily as well unless they're wearing very expensive gear for some reason.
2. It'll decrease the amount of whine in PVP due to lost items. The loser will get to keep his items, the winner get's a compensation and the staff gets a goldsink in that the gear will have to be re-insured (costing up to 100k for an expensive set for example)
3. Yaay, goldsinks

Note: this is PVP only

[Biggs]

fair game then if insurence cost varies depending on items.

- biggs

[Gorath Blackmind]

This'll work too, I never pvp because im afraid ill lose the items. Not anymore! :>

[Johnny Walac]

Big no. Anything that will limit the looting will kill the game. (Seen it on Alterans era)

[Demian]

I'm going to implement this regardless of this post. I'd have preferred to keep it as a surprise feature.

The equipment will have variable costs of insuring them based on the quality of the item.

1. The better the quality, material and suffix the higher the price. That means that the "poor" can insure their items fairly easily as well unless they're wearing very expensive gear for some reason.
2. It'll decrease the amount of whine in PVP due to lost items. The loser will get to keep his items, the winner get's a compensation and the staff gets a goldsink in that the gear will have to be re-insured (costing up to 100k for an expensive set for example)
3. Yaay, goldsinks

Note: this is PVP only

This is just dumb. Everyone PvP in indys wee. Oh wait. Not everyone. What this really does is even further increase the gap between most people on the battlefield.

[Gorath Blackmind]

Well if it goes like 300k insurance while wearing indys and 25k when wearing radlius, i doubt that many will go full force with the gear.

[Ondoher]

Worst idea ever.