Accidents, Damage & Insurance

[POTKC]

I know this was a bit of a taboo topic in CA, and its hard to implement this sort of thing without getting morbid, but there's got to be a way. I suggest that the chances of any accident are made extremely low, if anything of the sort is put into Airline Enterprises.

The way this could be simulated is that every flight has a one in 5,000,000 (five million) chance of experiencing an accident. If a flight is the unlucky five millionth one, there is then more probability. For example (and these statistics are based on data from airline accidents in 2015), there is a 10% chance of the damage sustained being minor, 70% chance of it being substantial, and 20% chance of it being major. Major damage results in a hull loss automatically, substantial damage results in a hull loss 50% (or some other percentage) of the time, and minor damage does not result in a hull loss. If the aircraft is not destroyed, it then required money to be spent on repairs, the cost of which depends on the severity of the damage and the aircraft type (perhaps calculated as a percentage of the cost of a new aircraft of that type). 

This creates a possibility of being able to insure planes - either a (voluntary) monthly payment or a (voluntary) increase in the purchase cost which guarantees reimbursement of repair costs or the value of the plane if it destroyed. If even more depth is desired, these monthly payments/increase in price can depend on the maximum payout or aximum percentage covered by the insurance.

[Unknown98]

Lets see what others think. I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I think a better way to implement it may be to describe them as "incidents". The chance of an incident occurring would be relatively low, but there could be a variety of different types of incidents, each with their own probabilities, ranging from very minor to moderate or perhaps major if we want to go there. Anything from ground crew mistakes or airport delays that would result in nothing more than a delayed flight, to things like birdstrikes or running off the runway that would result in a damaged aircraft that would then need to be repaired (this is where insurance could come in).

Whether we want to get into situations that would result in hull loss or major damage, I'm not sure. That probability of something like this would have to be extremely low if it were to be implemented, and I also believe it should be able to be prevented by maintaining your aircraft in excellent condition.

[Carde]

I am all for it, things happen all the time, most incidents are rather minor screw ups and outside of perhaps some delays and repairs don't do much.

That said I am not sure how it would work with any age ratings in the US for this sort of thing, so might want to ditch the idea of full on crashes if that causes problems.



But yeah I am all for accidents and incidents happening, but with planes and passengers (drunk passenger) or maybe crew misbehaving because you barely pay them anything and want them to work long hours

[Unknown98]

But yeah I am all for accidents and incidents happening, but with planes and passengers (drunk passenger) or maybe crew misbehaving because you barely pay them anything and want them to work long hours

Haha now this I like Reminds me of how FsPassengers would get rowdy if you served too much alcohol.

And as far as I'm aware browser-based online games are not required to be rated by any agency seeing as they are not sold in stores or online anywhere. I mean look at the number of war-based browser games that exist and don't have an official rating.

[Carde]

And as far as I'm aware browser-based online games are not required to be rated by any agency seeing as they are not sold in stores or online anywhere. I mean look at the number of war-based browser games that exist and don't have an official rating.

It be wise to check none the less, better save than sorry.

[Unknown98]

It doesn't appear to be an issue, not in the US anyway. This is straight from the ESRB's website:

The rating system is voluntary, although virtually all video games that are sold at retail or downloaded to a game system in the U.S. and Canada are rated by the ESRB. Many U.S. retailers, including most major chains, have policies to only stock or sell games that carry an ESRB rating, and console manufacturers require games that are published on their systems in the U.S. and Canada to be rated by ESRB.

The ESRB is one of the founding rating authorities of the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), which administers a streamlined process for assigning age and content ratings to the high volume of digitally delivered games and mobile apps coming into the market today. The Google Play store and Firefox Marketplace are among the app storefronts that have deployed the IARC rating system, which facilitates the display of ESRB ratings on devices in North America.

While the ESRB does not have the ability to enforce its ratings at the retail level, it does work closely with retailers to display information that explains to customers how the rating system works. Moreover, major retailers have established their own store policies requiring age verification for the sale or rental of M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only) rated games, and ESRB actively encourages and supports these efforts

A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association/Entertainment Software Association) found that video games are a constitutionally-protected form of expression, and that laws restricting their sale or rental based upon violent content are unconstitutional.

So how I read that is, any video game, regardless of how it is distributed, is not required by law to be rated. But virtually all retailers and distributors won't approve your game for distribution unless it has a rating. However I'm not going to be distributing this game in any way other than accessing it directly on the website.

[asianmattdog]

Well, in anyhow, I'm up for "accidents" to happen, but only under certain circumstances. At any rate, yeah, there should be a near-impossible chance of one happening under normal-perfect conditions. But, if you have a poorly maintained aircraft, you hire cheap pilots, you skimp out on fuel, or whatever your odds of "accidents" rise. Dunno if there's a way to increase the odds within the game's mechanics, but if I go back to CA V3, aircraft maintenance percentages would've been my go-to stat for altering the chance of crashes. In addition, I would agree that if your plane does crash and burn, so should your airline's rating. If you were negligent and skimped costs like a Michael O'Leary, then you deserve to get your rating dropped a bit. Otherwise, if you keep your aircraft maintained, keep worker's wages competitive, and make sure your aircrafts are fueled properly, then you should be able to avoid having to worry about a plane going down or anything. Possibly, although, if we eventually add in a weather system, potentially trying to land in a situation like that of a thunderstorm could potentially affect your chances of crashing too. Idk, trying to make it more based off of real-life than a random number generator.

[skifans]

While I have no problem with accidents in its self, im wondering if it is worth development time on something which most people seem to think should only happen very occasionally and infrequently?

[asianmattdog]

True. Atm, it does sound very "Easter-Egg-ish" in sounding...

[Carde]

Is it worth the dev time right now? Maybe not, but down the road I think it is, a lot of details is what finally makes a game pop.