I cannot, sadly, find the exact quote, but the only reason why we currently are not losing our stuff upon death, in relation to cloaks and JDs and such, is because Cannon forgot to turn it on.
So, with that in mind, is it a good thing? Let us face it, large cloaks have the potential of turning tides in a large battle, caps allowing to sneak on others and then slip away if they are fast enough.
Should this be something we want to have frequently?
This is coming from someone who has been on both sides of the cloaked gun, mind you.
So the question is, should we keep it as it is and do not fix what is not (too) broken, or do we, say, cut the items we need for the item production by 4/5ths and make the cloaks, JDs and whatnot destructabable upon death.
--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------
How about making it destructible, able to take a decent amount of damage, and absurdly expensive to repair. Much like shooting the turrets off of large ships, this sort of thing would lead to new opportunities for combat tactics.
Knocking out a cloak, damaging it to cost the player money, and having the "upkeep" of operating a cloak through radiation (when it has high cost repairs everytime) would be a reasonably realistic downside to having a cloak.
Also the idea of a "powerplant", an item like an armor upgrade that'd increase powercore, could possibly be another option for the CM slot. This would offer an interesting variety of ships with CMs for evasion/defense, cloaks for tactics/escapes, or heavy powercores for firewpower/special weapon setups.
-
[5:57:11 PM] InfernalTater (Lewis) [Formerly TLI-Inferno]:meanwhile, Aces 'I don't always miss my destinations, but when I do, I'm on the other side of house space.'
Well in that case they would have to cost WAY less then they do now...I mean who wouldn't be pissed at loosing a 400-450 Mil worth item just like that I certanly would...
meh, leave them as they are. I understand where you are coming from, but this would make the game agitating aka less fun. I think we all miss the point of Disco sometimes, to have fun.
Losing stuff upon death is a tried and true concept imho. It makes everything PvP-Related a lot more interesting and intense.
EVE did this with, in my opinion, great success. Recently we also have DayZ that utilized "perma death".
I played EVE from Beta and DayZ from almost day one, and they respectfully hold the most enjoyable PvP experiences of my 23 years of gaming.
However, I believe a game would need a more stable economy (in DayZ that would be NO economy) for it to be interesting. Then again, this sort of money sink is what could make the economy more of a factor in Disco.
I think it is a good idea and worth testing. I even think it could be extended far beyond cloaks and JD's. Making you lose stuff when dying would make every aspect of the game more intense.
I'm not in favor of the idea of always losing player built items after death, but I do like making it a set probability to be destroyed/lost(unless prices are balanced to the fact).
Why not make the player built items use "ammo" fuel, while such "ammo" was only built in player bases?
Maybe the fuel could be refined forms of those fuel commodities we already have.
Then the demand would increase, but the items wouldn't be lost so aggressively, while just using said items would increase the demand by itself.
(02-17-2013, 03:58 AM)Himura Suzume Wrote: Losing stuff upon death is a tried and true concept imho. It makes everything PvP-Related a lot more interesting and intense.
EVE did this with, in my opinion, great success. Recently we also have DayZ that utilized "perma death".
I played EVE from Beta and DayZ from almost day one, and they respectfully hold the most enjoyable PvP experiences of my 23 years of gaming.
However, I believe a game would need a more stable economy (in DayZ that would be NO economy) for it to be interesting. Then again, this sort of money sink is what could make the economy more of a factor in Disco.
I think it is a good idea and worth testing. I even think it could be extended far beyond cloaks and JD's. Making you lose stuff when dying would make every aspect of the game more intense.
Discovery is a casual roleplaying environment. If you want ironman mode, this isn't where to look.
Stop trying to make the game more stupid than it already is people.
(02-17-2013, 03:58 AM)Himura Suzume Wrote: Losing stuff upon death is a tried and true concept imho. It makes everything PvP-Related a lot more interesting and intense.
EVE did this with, in my opinion, great success. Recently we also have DayZ that utilized "perma death".
I played EVE from Beta and DayZ from almost day one, and they respectfully hold the most enjoyable PvP experiences of my 23 years of gaming.
However, I believe a game would need a more stable economy (in DayZ that would be NO economy) for it to be interesting. Then again, this sort of money sink is what could make the economy more of a factor in Disco.
I think it is a good idea and worth testing. I even think it could be extended far beyond cloaks and JD's. Making you lose stuff when dying would make every aspect of the game more intense.
Discovery is a casual roleplaying environment. If you want ironman mode, this isn't where to look.
Stop trying to make the game more stupid than it already is people.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you were the only one dictating how Disco should be. My apologies.