Death should be more than a minor inconvenience in Elite Dangerous?

[PIXEL]

Perma death, DayZ style, starting on the beach with flashlight or in this case with Sidewinder, no unsurance(this is for the noobs). Actualy sidewinder is good ship we need something made of paper like the Eagle and the firepower of a Hauler....without shields, engine boost and 5 min. oxygen left + space zombies truing to eat your hull.

On a serious note, ED should be more challenging, i agree.

Thank you +1 if it counts (-:

The point i'm making , is suggesting ED could be different in this day and age to 'inspire' folk to think out of the norm...

There are unsaid rules for MMO's etc etc etc and despite what we've all seen and experienced ED can be unique in terms of """"losing a life"""" - make it harder to come back... make it a problem to die, make it an issue to deal with rather than something that is easy to feel good about.

 

[CloneWarrior85]

(TL;DR) Too long didn’t read:
Should death be more than an inconvenience in a new game called: ELITE DANGEROUS

*looks at the thousands of topics of traders that got killed and came to this forum cry*

*then tries to find topics of pirates/bounty hunters/others who got killed and come to this forum cry*

Yes, i agree, as a PVP player who only trades to make more money for PVP i think that we should make death more punnishing, after all, we still don't have enough complains from these traders *evil grin*

 

[vonvonbraun]

Yawn ,

next

 

[PIXEL]

Then don't use it as the first argument of your post and hang everything else off it.

The consequence of dying in the game is you lose your ship and everything in it. This happens if someone blows your ship up, you boost into a big tanker coming into the station, the station takes a dislike to you and guns you to death or you get too close to a neutron star.

As a consequence, you slide down the snake to a lower number on the board, lost credits / ship / cargo of leathery eggs, whatever. Now, if you happen to have been making a million or two per hour in the game, that might not be a big drop, but for someone like me, with an Explorer Adder with about 300k in the bank I am dropping much closer to square one, do you see? Fear of Death is not the same in these two examples, I feel.

So why add any more complexity to the situation? I am genuinely interested on who this would help and what the min/max solution is in terms of players helped / inconvenienced?

BTW, I have no problem with thinking. In fact I'm not a one trick pony, I'm a field of ponies.

I'll respond to your full post..

I apologise if i offended you.. the incentive for going bravely forward should be more than that of a player who doesn't give a monkey's to come back another day - if a player (you for arguments sake) loses a fight then it should be difficult to come back to "life" to take vengence - that's all im saying..

...well, apart from the game mechanic which seems to encourage old school game values and opportunities to take vengeance in an unrealistic and therefore unfair way with a multi billion item universe

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

 

[Red Cypher]

The decisions for death and respawning were made and discussed with players a long time ago.

We want to encourage cooperative and competitive player interaction that might legitimately result in player death, whilst protecting against malicious griefing (which we loosely define as actions whose only purpose, outcome and gain is to punish and frustrate other players).

We want to get the balance right so that death is a meaningful threat that really does get the adrenaline pumping, without it being so punitive that it pushes away more casual players.

What you're suggesting is punitive, without balance. As far as I can tell, it's a punitive measure against attacking other players at random, but FD want to encourage competitive player interaction, so why would they discourage it by implementing harsher penalties for death? On that note, what about the players who aren't attacking anything - when they die, do they get treated the same way? Because if you're interested in any kind of balance, they should be. A player's demise should be treated with 'what's good for one is good for all' rules.

Given the wide range of forum threads where people are stomping their feet about dying, I think it's safe to say that ship loss is already inconvenient enough as it is, with a few exceptions that will be balanced in a measured manner, not with a full-blown overhaul.

 

[PIXEL]

Yawn ,

next

thank you for self adding yourself to an ignore list - pm me if u need waking up

 

[PIXEL]

<snip>..
Given the wide range of forum threads where people are stomping their feet about dying, I think it's safe to say that ship loss is already inconvenient enough as it is, with a few exceptions that will be balanced in a measured manner, not with a full-blown overhaul.

.. I'm ok with dying in this game.. it's part of learning and definitely part of the fun we have available to us within ED towards Elite

I merely suggest that Frontier have (ok lets say it) sold out the respawn crew... but as an observer since Alpha i suggest that FD implement some 'strange and unusual phenonemon' where death in Elite Dangerous is in fact 'Dangerous' and to be avoided...

I'm not talking about iron man mode as that player starts from zero (i believe) on death, it's about going back to where one started and facing the consequences of failing; ie death - nil point... flat line, can't come back, no zombie - at least for a few minutes in a different place

The NEW Winning should be rewarded with silence, gold and submissive gamers grovelling at ones feet begging for advice and wisdom - not the 'didn't you read the rules about a games we've played for 20 yrs' bbrigade

vive the ED revolution (-:

 

[Red Cypher]

.. I'm ok with dying in this game.. it's part of learning and definitely part of the fun we have available to us within ED towards Elite

I merely suggest that Frontier have (ok lets say it) sold out the respawn crew... but as an observer since Alpha i suggest that FD implement some 'strange and unusual phenonemon' where death in Elite Dangerous is in fact 'Dangerous' and to be avoided...

It's not really iron man mode as that a player starts from zero (i believe) on desth, it's starting back to where one started on a mission but with consequences of failing that mission - ( fill in gaps.. steal, kill, interdict, live etc etc )

I don't think you understand, which is made more apparent by the fact that you snipped the most important part of what I said, so allow me to reiterate:

The decisions for death and respawning were made and discussed with players a long time ago.

 

[PIXEL]

yeah took me a while to reply apologies

 

[FoxTwo]

Perhaps an easier solution for the "respawn revenge killing" is just simply to put the newly-revived commander in his spanking new ship into a SOLO instance until he makes his first jump into SC/next system again - same like how ED does it with brand-new commanders just created.

No new mechanics need to be created, no new code to write (ok maybe just a few lines to call the routine at new-commander-startup).

This would at least give the winner of the fight some time to at least make it to a station for repairs and/or trading before having to face the wrath of the victim (after he's come back from SC again).

 

[Skip Intro]

I'll respond to your full post..

I apologise if i offended you.. the incentive for going bravely forward should be more than that of a player who doesn't give a monkey's to come back another day - if a player (you for arguments sake) loses a fight then it should be difficult to come back to "life" to take vengence - that's all im saying..

...well, apart from the game mechanic which seems to encourage old school game values and opportunities to take vengeance in an unrealistic and therefore unfair way with a multi billion item universe

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

You can't offend me, I'm British, stiff upper lip and all that.

It is difficult to "take vengeance", except under a very specific set of circumstances. If it happens normally i.e. I haven't just flown out of a station, I will probably never see you again, unless I happen to be logged in at the same time and in the same close proximity, due to instancing. Even then, one of us moving to another station or sector will break this link and due to the spread of players in the game meeting again is unlikely in the majority of cases.

So, it is my opinion, that having to mess about with the existing Resurrection Shuffle, is both unnecessary and would be diverting resources away from things we want in the game - more content / Wings / better comms etc. The amount of players that would be affected by this is vanishingly small unless you can prove to me otherwise, as there are something close to zero percent of players complaining about the existing mechanic.

 

[PIXEL]

The decisions for death and respawning were made and discussed with players a long time ago.

...with all due respect..a long time ago doesn't make them right... i merely ask for a discussion on the apharent easy consequences of death in game - or words to that effect - the we've been doing it this way for years doesn't quite work with me, and I suspect a few others

 

[Zvanya]

...with all due respect..a long time ago doesn't make them right... i merely ask for a discussion on the apharent easy consequences of death in game - or words to that effect - the we've been doing it this way for years doesn't quite work with me, and I suspect a few others

With all due respect, you're asking for a core game mechanic to be reworked because it doesn't feel right to you. That doesn't quite work for me, and I suspect a few others.

 

[Skip Intro]

...with all due respect..a long time ago doesn't make them right... i merely ask for a discussion on the apparent easy consequences of death in game - or words to that effect - the we've been doing it this way for years doesn't quite work with me, and I suspect a few others

God loves a trier, it is said. The use of apparent* in your statement is the crux of the matter. Apparently, you see a problem, others do not. Red Cypher has said that this has been done to death YEARS ago, when there was a chance to change the mechanic. We got what we have now and neither you nor I, nor any of your "suspected" others will cause FD to divert time and resources to something that isn't worthwhile to the vast majority of players in the almost 100% set of circumstances it triggers at the moment.

*seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.

 

[Red Cypher]

...with all due respect..a long time ago doesn't make them right... i merely ask for a discussion on the apharent easy consequences of death in game - or words to that effect - the we've been doing it this way for years doesn't quite work with me, and I suspect a few others

Personal problems are not, never have been, and never will be a justification for sweeping changes to game mechanics.

 

[PIXEL]

Personal problems are not, never have been, and never will be a justification for sweeping changes to game mechanics.

come on that's just not cricket... personal problems etc..

 

[PIXEL]

God loves a trier, it is said. The use of apparent* in your statement is the crux of the matter. Apparently, you see a problem, others do not. Red Cypher has said that this has been done to death YEARS ago, when there was a chance to change the mechanic. We got what we have now and neither you nor I, nor any of your "suspected" others will cause FD to divert time and resources to something that isn't worthwhile to the vast majority of players in the almost 100% set of circumstances it triggers at the moment.

*seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.

yes i see something, it might not be a problem with most but hey I've got an opportunity to open it up to debate.. why should ED be just like all the other games where one can spawn (re-live) to take vengeance on an aggressor so easily... or more to the point why is dying in game not more of a challenge to avoid.

 

[Sc00py]

not expecting anything i say matters but just to clarify:

the problem is not death cost not enough
the problem is killing is not rewarded enough
the focus of balance should make a radical shift from penaltys towards rewards

having a death cost in a multiplayer (action) game is the most stupid idea ever seriously

if u put a cost on dying basically the richest guy wins
like in the example mentioned: both guys keep respawning back and killing eachother till one of them is broke (lol?)
but suppose the same example in my world: player A kills player B and gets 100k reward then player B kills player A and gets 100k reward too (no penaltys)
all i see is 2 happy players with bragging rights instead of 2 players down a couple 100k insurance complaining on a forum about balance

what u want in a multiplayer game is not all players trying to avoid dying (u get 0 gameplay)
on the contrary u want them to actively seek kills

How on earth have u guys decided on this long ago?
maybe u wanted to make elite a singleplayer game?
ironman mode in a multiplayer game? really?
if anything is a singleplayer feature its ironman mode


i see no point in a penalty for dying and i have yet to see a convincing argument for it

 

[Skip Intro]

why should ED be just like all the other games where one can spawn (re-live) to take vengeance on an aggressor so easily...

I'm sorry, but that simply is not true and saying it again does not make it so. Dying does have a consequence in game, you lose your ship and everything in it. This may or may not be more than an inconvenience until you get to your "end game" shiney that you don't want to lose or to have to go back to grind credits to fix it back up to A1+ standard.

Nothing needs to be changed.

 

[PIXEL]

not expecting anything i say matters but just to clarify:

the problem is not death cost not enough
the problem is killing is not rewarded enough
the focus of balance should make a radical shift from penaltys towards rewards

having a death cost in a multiplayer (action) game is the most stupid idea ever seriously

if u put a cost on dying basically the richest guy wins
like in the example mentioned: both guys keep respawning back and killing eachother till one of them is broke (lol?)
but suppose the same example in my world: player A kills player B and gets 100k reward then player B kills player A and gets 100k reward too (no penaltys)
all i see is 2 happy players with bragging rights instead of 2 players down a couple 100k insurance complaining on a forum about balance

what u want in a multiplayer game is not all players trying to avoid dying (u get 0 gameplay)
on the contrary u want them to actively seek kills

How on earth have u guys decided on this long ago?
maybe u wanted to make elite a singleplayer game?
ironman mode in a multiplayer game? really?
if anything is a singleplayer feature its ironman mode


i see no point in a penalty for dying and i have yet to see a convincing argument for it

""i see no point in a penalty for dying and i have yet to see a convincing argument for it""

I rest my case..
There should be a harsher penalty (deterrent) for dying in-game otherwise its just too easy to be re-born to fight another day - and with certain mechanics it's an advantage