These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Renting ships (contract)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Acca Larentina
Lithos Sarkophagos
#1 - 2016-06-26 09:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Acca Larentina
o/

Just an idea...

How about making new types of contracts just for renting ships or modules ?

example. mission runners. They could train for a ship, but dont want to buy one.
They rent a ship, pay collateral for it, (insurance ?) do whatever they want to do with it.
Lets say 10mil for a day, or payed per hour for a max of xxx hours/days. With modules or not etc. (ammo wouldnt be included as it could be used up, and the contract couldnt be finished because of missing/used up ammo etc.)
No renting of damaged ships and/or modules because of scamming possibilities.

It would actually be like a courier contract except you get a usable item and the pickup/dropoff location could be the same (or must be the same)

Contracts should include required skils for the ship and modules.
Freighters ?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#2 - 2016-06-26 12:24:36 UTC
No

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Acca Larentina
Lithos Sarkophagos
#3 - 2016-06-26 14:03:19 UTC
Your post didnt dissapoint me Minion lover.
Iain Cariaba
#4 - 2016-06-26 16:01:41 UTC
Yeah, this idea wouldn't get abused to **** at all.

Put ship together.
Create rental contract.
Mission runner accepts contract.
You now know exactly who got it and exactly what they're flying, so let the ganking commence while you profit off their loss.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2016-06-26 17:23:24 UTC
Since they'd be paying at least as much in collateral as the hull is worth, why not just buy the damn ship?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#6 - 2016-06-26 17:51:37 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Since they'd be paying at least as much in collateral as the hull is worth, why not just buy the damn ship?

This.

Loan contracts used to exist. They did not work (or were used for scamming) for the simple reason quoted above.

If the colllateral of the loaned product is higher than the actual price, the person who made the contract has every reason to see you fail redelivery.
If the collateral of the loaned product is lower than the actual price, the person who accepted the contract has little reason to complete it.

How did you Veterans start?
Market Launderer
Stratton Oakmont Inc
#7 - 2016-06-26 19:50:18 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Since they'd be paying at least as much in collateral as the hull is worth, why not just buy the damn ship?

This.

Loan contracts used to exist. They did not work (or were used for scamming) for the simple reason quoted above.

If the colllateral of the loaned product is higher than the actual price, the person who made the contract has every reason to see you fail redelivery.
If the collateral of the loaned product is lower than the actual price, the person who accepted the contract has little reason to complete it.


This kind of logic is like saying "Oh you shouldn't have PVP because somebody is going to abuse it" or "The margin trading skill shouldn't exist because it's exploitable" or even "The trade window should be removed from EVE because of scammers".

I know of several occasions during which I would have wanted to use a loan contract. Lending a ship to an untrustworthy (or new) corp mate, holding on to a collateralized fixed-term loans and so on. You think everything is about the guy who tries to **** the other guy over but did you consider all the people that actually could make use of these?

This kind of narrowmindedness is what ruins the best, most engaging complex games by making trivial things extremely difficult. It's very easy to accept a collateralized loan with item exchange contracts, but how easy is it to return the collateral for the loan and so on? It's actually quite a bit harder, because you need two transactions instead of one.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2016-06-26 20:09:25 UTC
...What, is selling the guy the ship and then buying it back after really that much of a hassle?

Outside of the extremely niche situation of lending a ship to a new corpmate, when am I going to put 100mil (or more likely more) in collateral for a ship when I can just spend that same 100mil on the market and buy one?
darkneko
Come And Get Your Love
#9 - 2016-06-27 04:19:16 UTC
-1
Cade Windstalker
#10 - 2016-06-27 04:57:43 UTC
Market Launderer wrote:
This kind of logic is like saying "Oh you shouldn't have PVP because somebody is going to abuse it" or "The margin trading skill shouldn't exist because it's exploitable" or even "The trade window should be removed from EVE because of scammers".

I know of several occasions during which I would have wanted to use a loan contract. Lending a ship to an untrustworthy (or new) corp mate, holding on to a collateralized fixed-term loans and so on. You think everything is about the guy who tries to **** the other guy over but did you consider all the people that actually could make use of these?

This kind of narrowmindedness is what ruins the best, most engaging complex games by making trivial things extremely difficult. It's very easy to accept a collateralized loan with item exchange contracts, but how easy is it to return the collateral for the loan and so on? It's actually quite a bit harder, because you need two transactions instead of one.


This isn't narrow mindedness, this is saying that there is no reason a rational actor would make use of a system like this *except* in a way that is abusive towards the intent of the system. Other than the areas open to flagrant abuse everything that this system does can be done with existing contracts.

If you want to loan something out to someone like you describe with that corp-mate you can do it now with two contracts, one trading your ship for ISK and another trading that ISK back for the ship, though it's extremely questionable what this would actually do to benefit you over simply asking him to contract it back to you.

The only way I can think of to not run into the "why not just buy the ship" issue is to make the penalty paid on failure to deliver the ship back, but there's no guarantee the person will have the money and if the penalty can send a wallet negative then it becomes extremely easy to abuse this and send a newbie into debt they will basically never get out of, or avoid paying the penalty at all if it can't.

The current system, where you just make two contracts, is *much* less open to abuse and is amazingly easy to navigate.
Acca Larentina
Lithos Sarkophagos
#11 - 2016-06-27 08:26:30 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Market Launderer wrote:
This kind of logic is like saying "Oh you shouldn't have PVP because somebody is going to abuse it" or "The margin trading skill shouldn't exist because it's exploitable" or even "The trade window should be removed from EVE because of scammers".

I know of several occasions during which I would have wanted to use a loan contract. Lending a ship to an untrustworthy (or new) corp mate, holding on to a collateralized fixed-term loans and so on. You think everything is about the guy who tries to **** the other guy over but did you consider all the people that actually could make use of these?

This kind of narrowmindedness is what ruins the best, most engaging complex games by making trivial things extremely difficult. It's very easy to accept a collateralized loan with item exchange contracts, but how easy is it to return the collateral for the loan and so on? It's actually quite a bit harder, because you need two transactions instead of one.


This isn't narrow mindedness, this is saying that there is no reason a rational actor would make use of a system like this *except* in a way that is abusive towards the intent of the system. Other than the areas open to flagrant abuse everything that this system does can be done with existing contracts.

If you want to loan something out to someone like you describe with that corp-mate you can do it now with two contracts, one trading your ship for ISK and another trading that ISK back for the ship, though it's extremely questionable what this would actually do to benefit you over simply asking him to contract it back to you.

The only way I can think of to not run into the "why not just buy the ship" issue is to make the penalty paid on failure to deliver the ship back, but there's no guarantee the person will have the money and if the penalty can send a wallet negative then it becomes extremely easy to abuse this and send a newbie into debt they will basically never get out of, or avoid paying the penalty at all if it can't.

The current system, where you just make two contracts, is *much* less open to abuse and is amazingly easy to navigate.


One contract gets accepted and the other not - you "lend" someone a fitted ship, or to put it the other way - you sold it to someone without the insurance that youll see the ship ever again with little or no profit.

Why not buy the ship ?
Maybe because ppl dont want to put rigs on the ship because maybe they would like to sell it later on without using a contract of a ship with rigs (many pilots are lazy, they dont want to do that and wait for the contract to finish, plus the driving of the ship to a place someone will want to fetch it. IF it gets accepted). Because those contracts dont sell very well. Not mentioning that those contracts are usually only in trade hubs available, not in mission areas for example.
Freighters are a different storry.

Wallet on minus ?
How ? If you cant afford the contract... Well then you cant afford it
This thing wouldnt be much different than normal courier contract.
To put it simple - it would have to be the same drop-off location as the pickup loc.
You pay collateral +isk/h/day for how long you want to use it.
If you cant finish the contract (you fail the same as with courier ones - you are left with the product)

Gankers would know what you are flying!
If they want to know what players are flying they will find ways to know that (and they have ways for that and you know it)
They know where to gank no matter what.
Difference here is you can refit the ship as you want (only finishing the contract matters, bring back as it was).
If they are looking for a mission ship - they will find them no matter what and theyl know how the ship is fitted more or less - not even a scanner is required for that.

To take the logic that its a great help for gankers - courier contracts are worse - if its above certain levels of cubic meters - you know what type of defenseless ship theyl be flying (just the faction of the ship would differ)

The game is complex, devs trying to make it not simpler - but more like "that new and old players get a better, easier grasp of stuff in game"
This here is something that makes the game more complex, though its that simple, but its intuitive because most of pilots were thinking - i would like to rent a ship, see how it behaves or i just need this as one time thing because that is not the thing i normally do, or ill do all the time.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#12 - 2016-06-27 16:00:36 UTC
Acca Larentina wrote:
The game is complex, devs trying to make it not simpler - but more like "that new and old players get a better, easier grasp of stuff in game

Again... this system you are proposing WAS in the game.

You are literally trying to bring back a dead feature that was removed because it saw little to no use... and what use it saw was from people who abused it.

Acca Larentina wrote:
its intuitive because most of pilots were thinking - i would like to rent a ship, see how it behaves or i just need this as one time thing because that is not the thing i normally do, or ill do all the time.

If you can afford the collateral for the full value of the hull and mods, buy the ship and then sell it back at a later date.. Because that is literally what you are doing.

That is why there is no point behind this feature.

How did you Veterans start?
Cade Windstalker
#13 - 2016-06-27 16:33:45 UTC
As Shah said, this feature was in the game and there's no good reason to bring it back. 99% of the use-case for this feature is scams and abuse, and the other 1% or less is the people who are either loaning something to someone they already trust, making this feature extremely redundant. The one legitimate use-case here is if one of the few people looking to rent a ship because they're too lazy to buy one and re-sell it later randomly manages to find one of the very few of this type of contract that wouldn't be bait or a scam.

If there was any demand for ship rentals someone would have setup a third-party application for it. They haven't, there's no significant demand. CCP's dev time could be better spent on one of a hundred other things here.