Quote:Each part of the economy can be changed to reflect the increased risk of actual death on death. It's as simple as changing a batch of numbers (I would vastly increase trade revenues and lower prices of most ships for example). What these arguments show is the failure by people to consider that along with an introduction of loss on death, a lot of other changes would happen as well.
' Wrote:Yes, and most of those games, by losing your are not punished by having the hours you spent on gaining an inch of ground smashed into oblivion because of a rotten circumstance. With many of the games I can think of, death means you die; it also means that you go back to a previous save point without much loss. The death mechanic in Disco now is exactly that, you have loss but you return to your save point and continue playing.
Even in the most impossible games back in the day that DID punish you for dying/losing often had a mechanic called lives, where you could die 2 or 3 times and still continue where you left off. After which there was indeed a game over.
I understand the old "game over" nostalgia but it just doesn't work in the way that Disco is run.
I wasn't inferring that the game would be over if you died, the game is far from over. I think the entire social aspect of the game is being overlooked as well. If you are flying a battleship which as many have mentioned costs a great deal of money (which, its cost can be adjusted mind you) you undoubtedly have made contacts within the community. I highly doubt someone is flying around with their battleship stalking level 40's all by themselves!
Hardships bring people together - it builds teams and alliances. I realize it's just a game as Ursus says, but it could be a lot more immersive as a role playing experience.
Is it possible that the high current prices of battleships is merely a product of inflation?
' Wrote:Quite simply, it would lead to bomber raids just to screw cap owners over.
5 Bombers, at say 15m each(with a SNAC) is 75. Say they take down three/four caps, that's 500-750m+ in damages.
Risk < Reward
It would ruin all capital ship roleplay; no more would we see fleets, because most don't have the, ahem, 'capital' to be able to support them.
That's just a military view; expensive transports are a whole new matter. If you have a load of ore, you still lose millions; the extra is unnecessary, in my opinion.
The game is supposed to be enjoyable, and adding such factors would eliminate much of that. Same as you play FPS because they're fun, but you wouldn't want to be on that crappy situation in real life. Its not supposed to be realistic.
It would be a minority vote.
That's an issue of balance! That could totally be addressed if the mechanic surrounding player death was tweaked. And again, I think it would promote even closer knit teams. You wouldn't go by yourself with a valuable load of ore if you knew it, and your ship were at risk. You'd actually have a reason to group up with people. Hell, people could even charge credits to be your escorts. I think the more you make the game a sandbox, the more you open up additional alternatives for RP'ing.
Posts: 1,058
Threads: 63
Joined: May 2011
Staff roles: Coding Developer King of FLServer
To be honest,I think the idea of keeping the current ship/eq prices, setting a "death fee", scaling with the stock price of the vessel will be at least close to the best compromise possible, snubs can still be more or less... expendable you could say, while caps/transports will not, as it should be in my opinion.
' Wrote:This environment is different from the one that faces everybody in reality, and unrepresentative of anything that calls itself "roleplaying".
I think this is the biggest mistake you are making McNeo. Roleplaying emulates reality, it is not reality. In fact, the word play is part of the word itself. If it was a Freelancer reality server... well, I was going to provide examples about time and age but you get the point.
Look, my point is that we are playing roles within a gaming system, not a real life system. I'm actually a reenactor in real life and I do the same sort of stuff.... If I'm reenacting a 16th century mercenary and I get a giant gash from a halberd I'm going to go to the hospital, not put leeches on my wound, suture, and pray to god.
The drawbacks of having a perma-death type system far outweigh the benefits of "more real".
<Some quote that says I'm basically proposing a system that needs loads of work to be properly functional>
Then why fix what's not broken?
Loads of rebalance and price change and whatnot just to make people pissed when they die cause they'd know as cheap as the equipment they have to replace might be, they still have to spend 2 hours flying around and rebuying them all, while the more subtle method to enforce a death penalty would be something along the lines with Kuraine's example.
And here's the thing - It's a game, not a job. It shouldn't be grindlancer cause not everyone have 14 hours of free time a day to be totally ok with losing 10 hours of work just because of makin a wrong move and turnin into pretty fireworks. Those who do have the time, can be my guest and delete their character upon death just so they'd be satisfied with their "more real grindpool" while anyone else who barely gets enough free time to even trade for ammo money would still be free to play the actual game without the need of mindless grinding hour after hour.
I don't mind a small moneysink just to spice things up, but anything that'd turn the game into a mindless grinding loop is one thing I don't want to see in disco.
' Wrote:The dev team, especially Cannon, are interested in creating some "money sinks". Events that cost the player money in some form or another where they cannot then make that money back (like they can by selling ships they pay for once they are bored of them. What these moneysinks will be though, we haven't really figured out. Destroying ships on death is not an idea we like very much. It makes us too much like EVE, and would seriously increase tensions and hate between community members. In EVE, you rarely know the guy who kills you. On Disco, we aren't a community of a couple dozen thousand, we're a community of about a thousand.
Furthermore, it'd seriously damage the ability to have PvP. Every fight would turn into a gank by whatever team can bring in more players, so as to avoid the loss of ships.
It would just be bad all-around. Think about it. If we institute a "death means death" policy, and your ship doesn't get replaced on death, it might be good roleplay, it might be more realistic, and it just might result in 90% of the playerbase moving to a server where that does not happen.
Sorry for +1, b but it really says it all.
EvE-style UberGanks + Player Hatred + Eve Style Faction Spies + other nasty things. Sirius will suddenly become dead-serious.
' Wrote:EvE-style UberGanks + Player Hatred + Eve Style Faction Spies + other nasty things. Sirius will suddenly become dead-serious.
You think that would really happen? I mean, the player base here is a) more fragmented b) fewer in number and c) better acquainted with one another so I'm not convinced that Discovery would turn into a Goonswarm Blobfest haha. I think there's a great community that has been built here, one that lends itself to this kind of dynamic a lot more then the cold universe of EVE.
' Wrote:I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive?
You think that would really happen? I mean, the player base here is a) more fragmented b) fewer in number and c) better acquainted with one another so I'm not convinced that Discovery would turn into a Goonswarm Blobfest haha. I think there's a great community that has been built here, one that lends itself to this kind of dynamic a lot more then the cold universe of EVE.
Just because people know each other better on Discovery doesn't mean that people are nice to each other.
Shiploss on death is a bad idea all around, as previously mentioned. However, I think it wouldn't be a problem if there was a much higher penalty for death than there is currently.
What about having ships respawn with some amount of damage to them? Or, since that can be worked around with nanobots, some kind of limitation where you have to pay X% of your ship's cost before you can get up and running again.
Make it like insurance--add another armor-like slot for "insurance papers," or just have it be something that sits in your hold. Get blown up without insurance? Pay 50% of your ship's value when you die before you can take off again. Spring for the top-level insurance? Pay 5% of your ship's value when you die.
' Wrote:You think that would really happen? I mean, the player base here is a) more fragmented b) fewer in number and c) better acquainted with one another so I'm not convinced that Discovery would turn into a Goonswarm Blobfest haha. I think there's a great community that has been built here, one that lends itself to this kind of dynamic a lot more then the cold universe of EVE.
Exactly. That's human nature. Once you put humans in such harsh conditions, they will, by any means necessary, avoid being "killed" and, at same time, will do anything to guarantee that their enemy will lose their ship.
Your account is kinda new here... have you been in large fights, already? have you been in no-win situations, like 1:10 fights? or, more like 5:15 ? Ganks and large fights happen very often here.
You're also forgetting the amount of indies arriving into this server.
I most of players here, and all admins remember good old Dublin. Remember the amount of PvP abuse, hatred, re-engagements and other not-so-funny (for Admins, that is) things were happening there because it felt really bad when you were losing 1 hour of your hard work, especially for new players. While I, personally, liked atmosphere there, because things were more "hardcore" and "realistic" (we even started to develop relations with Molly groups/players, while playing on indie BMM, like it'd happen in reality)...
BUT - Imagine that on the x10 scale, and not just in 1 system/corridor, but on the whole server
EDIT: With that in mind, I wouldn't mind paying a significantly higher price for being killed in Battleship, then in a fighter, with same significant increase in my survivability in large team fights. Like, 3k range solaris with 2.500 speed and higher DpS, and other stuff that will make me feel myself in a battleship. (of course all stats are given just an example)
Sadly, a system where "Bigger ship survives for longer in large combat" will require a total rebalance of the game, because it's the opposite now.
![[Image: cu7MfeX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/cu7MfeX.png)
![[Image: gcproject%20final_export.png]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_P6yHtBMIT_M/TDt2O-P2KHI/AAAAAAAACSM/oZTc5fptJN4/s800/gcproject%20final_export.png)
