@evolgrinz said in Contracts?:
An exploit that is happening in EVE is people set up a contract or something worthless, put up a high collateral value on it and a good payout. They also usually pick a location with 1 way in and out and then just camp there when someone picks up the contract and when the person who took it gets into the system they jump him and destroy the ship.
Since the delivery failed, they get the collateral value payed out to them.To counter this you simply could add a thumbs up or down vote in the end of a contract so it's easier to spot who the trustworthy ones are and who not.
This is another reason why an insurance feature would be of great help. In this instance, let's say the insurance features are:
- collateral aligned with value
- a premium 'safe'
An example:
A Trader goes into a contract with A Courier to move goods of let's say 500 gold worth of value.
The courier charges maybe 250 gold for his/her services.
- The contract should ensure that the collateral is not higher than the estimated value of the goods
- Security should be paid for by the courier- let's say - 20 gold to each member of the security team upon delivery
- Supplementary insurance feature - let's say a premium "safe and key" created by a player master smith/enchanter, costing said creator 30 gold to produce.
- The Courier might decide to buy this safe at let's say 50 gold. The key is then handed to the trader. The trader could also buy the lock, apply it to the goods and keep the key.
- If the courier is robbed during transit, the thieves will need the key to get into the safe.
- The only other way to break into the safe would be to use a master 'thief' skill and a premium lockpick that costs more than 50 gold.
This way, a lot of player occupations are involved - merchant, Smith/enchanter, courier, trader, thieves.
I'm not saying there won't be loopholes to exploit regardless. What I stated above is just a simple example, not very well thought out.
My main point is - an insurance feature should be in place for a true player-driven trade system to succeed but said insurance feature should not make it impossible for bandit roles to succeed either.
Obviously, the matter of how plausible it is to implement such features is another thing entirely.
Just here, throwing out crazy ideas :man_playing_handball_tone4:
