Yes, because a modern man doesn't have enough debts in real life, he also wants to become indebted in games, crippling his gameplay. Sounds like fun.
Avoiding Group Control...
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
- Status
Yes, because a modern man doesn't have enough debts in real life, he also wants to become indebted in games, crippling his gameplay. Sounds like fun.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's not meant to be fun - it's meant to deal with an exploit relating to deleting characters with large debts (possibly bounty induced).
If the fix causes more problems than it fixes, then it likely should not be implemented, and another approach taken.
I have serious reservations about the whole debt wordage in DDA documents, but I will wait until more detailed mechanics are in place to make judgment. Putting unsuspecting n00bs into crippling debt, forcing them to grind to get back out of it is a recipe for disaster, horrific reviews and word of mouth. No matter how many character slots or short cooldowns you have will not undo that damage.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What problems would such a restriction cause?
His "gameplay" as you put it is to live with and deal with the consequences of his actions. He shouldn't be able to simply remove all of that by pressing 'delete'. Where is the fun in that for everyone else who wants payback for all the wrongdoings that this character has done?
I like Jeff's idea too.
#303 for the first thing that pops to my mind about indebtness combined with cooldowns.
I re-iterate: lack of cooldowns is not enough. Crippling death will cause people to ragequit.
This question was raised in DDF due to possible exploits, basically the creation of a char (can have 4k credits at the start), transfer of that amount to main char (directly or through proxy), delete and recreation.
In Ironmode is far easier to justify the limit of the creation of new chars to a certain amount per time unit (once a week? a month?).
I don't agree with that. Grind is part of the game for a start (actually, for some, like me, it's an appeal of the game) but an "unsuspecting n00b" would not or should not have a large bounty to begin with that needs paying off. If a reviewer decided to go in all guns blazing & shoot everything in sight, then got penalised for it, and wrote a bad review because of it... well... I'd know whose reviews not to bother reading in future.
More likely the game would be praised for allowing any behaviour you want, but forcing consequences of that.
Then it's probably not their game. C'est la vie. It's dangerous out there.
To be clear though; we're talking about Ironman cooldowns aren't we? Death is meant to be pretty crippling in that mode... it's sort of the point.
I see it as a gameplay enhancement. Consequences and Reputation would seem to be an integral part of the game design judging by the various FDev posts.
To nullify all of that by pressing a button seems a bit easymode.
Careful consideration needs to be given, certainly at retail when we have an influx of new players who don't understand how various aspects of the game integrate and interact.
Perhaps a few hours grace for the first character that's created into a brand new character slot. That gives a new player three chances of learning that actions matter.
and also +1 to jeff's suggestion.
To nullify all of that by pressing a button seems a bit easymode.
Careful consideration needs to be given, certainly at retail when we have an influx of new players who don't understand how various aspects of the game integrate and interact.
Perhaps a few hours grace for the first character that's created into a brand new character slot. That gives a new player three chances of learning that actions matter.
and also +1 to jeff's suggestion.
Then it's probably not their game. C'est la vie. It's dangerous out there.
As long as there are clear warnings about the consequences of indebtness, and beta-style ganking has been eliminated.
Note this is coming from a hardcore PvPer; what I've heard of PB1 and PB2 sounds like PvP around stations has not been balanced, at al.
To be clear though; we're talking about Ironman cooldowns aren't we? Death is meant to be pretty crippling in that mode... it's sort of the point.
[/QUOTE]Fair enough. I've seen cooldowns have been suggested for normal mode in this and/or other threads.
I think that makes a lot of sense. A lot of people are going to be banging into station walls for the first couple of days of playing anyway.
Yep, that goes without saying. Plus Beta currently has none of the mechanisms in place really. Well it has bounties, but they would appear to be negligable and sometimes not paid out.
I don't see why it's not implemented across the board, apart from SP. As I said, you're effectively nullifying a complete section of gameplay if you don't. Bounties are worthless, making a bad trading call, exploring beyond the capabilities of you or your ship. None of it matters if you just press a button to make it go away. All the above situations are recoverable in game.
+ you have three character slots.
Possibly a cool down influenced by the amount of Rep/Debt that a character has built up.
As long as there are clear warnings about the consequences of indebtness, and beta-style ganking has been eliminated.
Note this is coming from a hardcore PvPer; what I've heard of PB1 and PB2 sounds like PvP around stations has not been balanced, at al.
To be clear though; we're talking about Ironman cooldowns aren't we? Death is meant to be pretty crippling in that mode... it's sort of the point.
Fair enough. I've seen cooldowns have been suggested for normal mode in this and/or other threads.[/QUOTE]
I've been playing since MP started and done a lot of trading during those times.
I haven't once been attacked around stations - some people clearly have but it doesn't seem widespread from my point of view.
Agree with the idea's around cooldowns and the inability to dump a character that's in debt.
I think that [a grace period for nexbies] makes a lot of sense. A lot of people are going to be banging into station walls for the first couple of days of playing anyway.
I don't see it.
You don't get debt from pancaking a stock sidewinder, so you'll only get debt from high bounties, or repeatedly crashing a ship you could barely afford to upgrade to in the first place.
If the character selection screen has in big red letters "This character cannot be deleted while in debt" scrawled across the avatar pic, the newbie ganker would know ahead of time that his other two slots would be locked by debt if they are stupid.
Maybe there could be a timer on the smallest debtor if all three slots are locked, to prevent the game from effectively encouraging you to quit.
TL-DR: Lock out debted characters from deletion, if it's made obvious in character selection, it won't be a problem after the first time it happens.
It's not so much control in a strict sense.
More control/dominate/disrupt, both in-game and in the meta-game.
To a degree, wargaming the obvious, and seeing if we can figure out how the current/proposed mechanics handle it.
I'm thinking of a guy who buys the game off the shelf, launches in his brand new Sidewinder, and says "Ooh look at that pretty blue and white ship with flashing lights on it - What happens if I press this button."
He's going to get a bounty and bad rep before he has a chance to figure out what bounty means.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
He also has two other Commander slots left.
Don't have a problem with that at all.
My original comment (that you quoted) was more about the cooldown timer on deleting characters. My point was that to begin with at least, people are going to be creating a lot of "test" characters before they settle down... meaning that the first few should be able to be deleted more or less instantly... or at least within the first week or so of account activation.
- Status