Return to “Polls”

How should death be handled in LT?

Permanent Death
Total votes: 10 (5%)
Limited Respawn
Total votes: 18 (10%)
Unlimited Respawn
Total votes: 18 (10%)
Save/Load
Total votes: 66 (35%)
All of the above
Total votes: 70 (37%)
Custom idea
Total votes: 7 (4%)
Total votes: 189
Post

Re: Death in LT

#181
Neandertal wrote: I like this idea a lot but I would prefer that the escape pod take up a utility hardpiont. Then you can choose not to have one and also choose the quality of the escape pod. So the more expensive one you buy the higher your chance of escaping with it.
Which lifeform with the desire to survive would regard an escape pod as an optional system?

They would be basic systems, included in every ship.

When we assume full-immersion controls with spinal taps or other connected neuro hardware it would be counter-productive for the pilot to ever leave the escape pod.
the pilot would be floating in an fluid to dampen the effects of inertia, plugged into the systems of the pod, which relays the connection to the ship.

So your time to reach the pod would be 0, as you would never leave the pod.
And it would not take a hardpoint, as it is not optional, but integral to the ship.
Post

Re: Death in LT

#182
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Neandertal wrote: I like this idea a lot but I would prefer that the escape pod take up a utility hardpiont. Then you can choose not to have one and also choose the quality of the escape pod. So the more expensive one you buy the higher your chance of escaping with it.
Which lifeform with the desire to survive would regard an escape pod as an optional system?

They would be basic systems, included in every ship.

When we assume full-immersion controls with spinal taps or other connected neuro hardware it would be counter-productive for the pilot to ever leave the escape pod.
the pilot would be floating in an fluid to dampen the effects of inertia, plugged into the systems of the pod, which relays the connection to the ship.

So your time to reach the pod would be 0, as you would never leave the pod.
And it would not take a hardpoint, as it is not optional, but integral to the ship.
Imagine a trader that has never encountered a battle and thinks of itself as a good pilot, when given the choice to install an escape pod this trader would look back at its past experiences, he would think 'Hmm if I don't buy that escape pod I would have X-amount of extra cargo space (installing cargo module instead of escape pod module), with that amount of extra cargo space I could transport x-amount of ore, possibly giving me x-amount of extra profit per trade run. But it would also mean that I have a higher chance of dying when I would encounter pirates, hmm, but as far as I know there aren't any pirates in the sectors I'm flying in, and if I would plan going to more dangerous sectors I could always choose to install an escape pod anyway. I'm also a good pilot so bumping into astroids won't be a problem neither."
By following this reasoning a pilot could come to the conclusion that it would be more profitable not to install an escape pod based on his experience, personality (a cautious person would prefer an escape pod while a risk-taker would not care that much) and purpose of the ship that is being used.

To have a real world comparison; Each car has seat belts but often people choose not to wear them (what is stupid but muh), this is even more illogical than not placing an escape pod (time save by not using a seatbelt is neglect able, thus we could say that not wearing a seatbelt wouldn't have any advantage compared with wearing one, while choosing not to install an escape pod could have a potential advantage (like improved cargo space, extra shield, extra weapon, better scanner, better hull,...))

I certainly would prefer that either way (standard non-hardpoint pod or non-standard hard point pod) would have the possibility to be upgraded (so upgrade pods would have a higher chance of escape success while basic ones would have a lower success change). I also would prefer intercept ability of escape pods.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Death in LT

#183
In your analogy every car has an "escape pod", seatbelts.
So every starship has an escape pod integrated as cockpit.
it isnt optional because nobody builds ships without pods, as nobody builds cars without belts.
Which transport company trades of seatbelts versus that cubicdecimeters of storage?

I personally think of the pods as independent ships that you switch to when your old ship gets destroyed.
So "intercept propability" is a function of the pilot and not of the pod.
nothing prevents you from upgrading the "miniship".
It would be your avatar when you arent in a ship
Post

Re: Death in LT

#184
Cornflakes_91 wrote:In your analogy every car has an "escape pod", seatbelts.
So every starship has an escape pod integrated as cockpit.
it isnt optional because nobody builds ships without pods, as nobody builds cars without belts.
Which transport company trades of seatbelts versus that cubicdecimeters of storage?
My analogy was meant to illustrate that not everyone uses a safety mechanism or thinks that he needs it.
The analogy obviously doesn't work (and was not even referring to it) for the storage argument I used since you can imagine that a seatbelt would take far less space than an escape pod would.

also note that I'm not saying that it shouldn't be optional but that it could be.
I personally think of the pods as independent ships that you switch to when your old ship gets destroyed.
So "intercept propability" is a function of the pilot and not of the pod.
nothing prevents you from upgrading the "miniship".
It would be your avatar when you arent in a ship
I don't argue with the intercept probability being based on piloting skills (and maybe a bit on the autopilot of the pod when a pilot choses not to pilot it himself).
I won't go as far as saying 'miniship' in terms of upgradability, meaning that certain things you can do with a real ship shouldn't be possible with a pod (e.g. weapons; pods are meant to bring you quickly to safety not to keep fighting, thus they should be focused on speed, hull and shielding).
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Death in LT

#185
Cha0zz wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:I personally think of the pods as independent ships that you switch to when your old ship gets destroyed.
So "intercept propability" is a function of the pilot and not of the pod.
nothing prevents you from upgrading the "miniship".
It would be your avatar when you arent in a ship
I don't argue with the intercept probability being based on piloting skills (and maybe a bit on the autopilot of the pod when a pilot choses not to pilot it himself).
I won't go as far as saying 'miniship' in terms of upgradability, meaning that certain things you can do with a real ship shouldn't be possible with a pod (e.g. weapons; pods are meant to bring you quickly to safety not to keep fighting, thus they should be focused on speed, hull and shielding).
I didnt imply something fancy.
Maybe just a switch between pod mk1/2/3/4 whatever.
pods should only consist out of life support+engine+generator+basic sensors around an sensory-deprivation tank like system where the pilot is in, connected via neuronal hardware.
For a human this could be as small as an star trek photon torpedo casing with twice the volume, encasing everything you need
Post

Re: Death in LT

#186
Cornflakes_91 wrote: I didnt imply something fancy.
Maybe just a switch between pod mk1/2/3/4 whatever.
pods should only consist out of life support+engine+generator+basic sensors around an sensory-deprivation tank like system where the pilot is in, connected via neuronal hardware.
For a human this could be as small as an star trek photon torpedo casing with twice the volume, encasing everything you need
ah, ok, thanks for clarifying.
I was also thinking that while this view is ok for simple ships, it maybe isn't ok for larger ships (depending on how/if josh wants to implement crew), on larger ships escape pods should also be available for crew and thus they should be small 'shuttles' located in the ship.
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Death in LT

#187
Whatever the defeat mechanic(s) will be, I wouldn't want it to be too involving unless the involvement is actually fun. Making after-destruction options diegetic (inside game world and knowable to player character) through buyable/researchable clones or escape pods sounds nice. But not giving me automatic continuation after death is a no-go for me (like losing all your assets). There should always be default continuation and penalty at death. Being able to actively tweak them is always nice (IRON MAN :evil: ). Doing so in a diegetic way would preferably only add flair.

Concerning saves, I'd say that every and any exploration based, procedurally generated world is a unique entity and should be treated as such, meaning that the game provides only one instance of each world. However, game owners should also be able to make a backup of their world file, for safety, sharing and any reason they can think of. I guess both ends are met when you simply allow players to copy world files through their operating system, and allow them to only make new and choose available worlds inside the Limit Theory interface.
Last edited by Eery Petrol on Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:57 am, edited 4 times in total.
Post

Re: Death in LT

#188
Cha0zz wrote:
I would however rather see 'spawn as a random NPC' replaced with 'start a new life from scratch in the same universe'
I would also like to see escape pods be a standard feature on ships (or maybe ships starting from a certain category) and the only thing they would do is giving the NPC/ the player using the ship a chance to survive when their ship explodes, this could be combined with the possibility of escape pod interception, if your escape pod gets destroyed you would have to chose one of the above options.

These options could also be automized:

Code: Select all

If there is a clone; 
respawn as your clone
elif there is an heir appointed;
respawn as your heir
else
respawn as fresh character/ random NPC
By doing this we would avoid immersion breaking menu's.

The option of save/load would always require you to press the 'esc' button and select the file you want to load and is a possibility that is always available
I don't mind changing "spawn as random NPC" to "start a new life", that actually works better for permanent death players. Having escape pods could help save players and NPCs the cost of clones, but like everything there is the risk that the escape pod may be destroyed. This idea seems to be forming pretty well, let's keep adding to and editing it.
Image
Post

Re: Death in LT

#189
BlackWolve202 wrote:
ThymineC wrote:You say there's "no need for QM explanations" by employing the many-worlds feature of my QM explanation... :?
I was using your QM theory to explain why you wouldn't need to transition to a universe where you survived, because there'd be one where you survived every time.
But the very same argument can be applied to my own original proposition. Either you imagine the game "seamlessly transitions" to a new universe where you survived during a death event, or you "just happen" to be playing in the one special universe out of trillions where you survive every death event you encounter.
BlackWolve202 wrote:Another issue is that to emphasis the idea of infinite universes in a sandbox like game where you build your character from scratch is that it would speak on the futility of all of your actions.
Every decision we make is meaningless. Because somewhere, on a parallel Earth, we've already made the opposite choice. We're nothing...less than nothing.

However, our actions would be just as futile whether or not there were infinite universes. :)
BlackWolve202 wrote:If you play in a universe where you build up a good amount of wealth, resources, and following, then you die, you died. You lost all of that if you look at it based on your theory.
You're misunderstanding the theory. The game "chooses" a universes only out of the set of universes that differ based on events that occurred after your death event. You can lose assets in between the time of the death event and the time that you wake up, but the game can't pick a universe in which your assets retroactively never existed.
BlackWolve202 wrote:You don't want the player to feel insignificant. You want them to feel normal. Equal to others, at least initially so. But the point of being who you want to be and growing up, and building up is to defy that equality, and normalcy and strive for uniqueness. You want that. LT needs that.
And my idea doesn't change that fact at all. From the POV of the character you control, you will be one normal guy out of thousands or millions, and the only special thing about you is that from your own perspective you seem to get very lucky when it comes to dodging death, which in turn allows your character to continue to grow and strive for uniqueness.
BlackWolve202 wrote:Not the idea that nothing you do is special, because in one universe, you save the world. In another one, you destroy it. You are bound to do everything you possibly can, thus why do anything here and now?
Why do anything at all, whether or not there are infinite universes? Everything you do is ultimately meaningless either way.
BlackWolve202 wrote:Thus if there's another universe out there with the exact same circumstances, and the exact same reasoning behind my actions, the exact same thing happens. I die. So a universe where 'I' didn't die, that is not me. None of his belongings are mine. None of his friends, power, or influence is mine. Because I'm dead. The fact that he's not means many other things were different too. He probably did things I wouldn't do in the situations he faced. Thus he is not me.
And then we end up delving into philosophy of identity. What makes you even think that "you" remain the same person from one moment to the next? Most of your cells will have been replaced by completely different ones over the course of decades, so do you remain the same person as you were at a younger age? Does a ship remain the same if you replace all of its constituent components? Did not Janeway and Picard die the very first time they used a transporter. How can one argue that a person that steps out of a transporter is not best described as simply a clone of the original and now deceased individual?
Last edited by ThymineC on Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Death in LT

#190
Cha0zz wrote: These options could also be automized:

Code: Select all

If there is a clone; 
respawn as your clone
elif there is an heir appointed;
respawn as your heir
else
respawn as fresh character/ random NPC
By doing this we would avoid immersion breaking menu's.

The option of save/load would always require you to press the 'esc' button and select the file you want to load and is a possibility that is always available
Yes, that's a nice way of preserving immersion. The issue for that with me is that I desire to play one and only one character throughout the entire game unless I optionally choose to assume the role of another character e.g. through Sheoth's New Game + idea.
Post

Re: Death in LT

#191
Eery Petrol wrote:Making after-destruction options diegetic (inside game world and knowable to player character) through buyable/researchable clones or escape pods sounds nice. But not giving me automatic continuation after death is a no-go for me (like losing all your assets). There should always be default continuation and penalty at death. Being able to actively tweak them is always nice (IRON MAN :evil: ). Doing so in a diegetic way would preferably only add flair.
Automatic continuation with assets will always be available as long as you the player have a minimum of 1 clone backed up prior to death or have willed all of your property to a heir.
Image
Post

Re: Death in LT

#192
ThymineC wrote:
Cha0zz wrote: These options could also be automized:

Code: Select all

If there is a clone; 
respawn as your clone
elif there is an heir appointed;
respawn as your heir
else
respawn as fresh character/ random NPC
By doing this we would avoid immersion breaking menu's.

The option of save/load would always require you to press the 'esc' button and select the file you want to load and is a possibility that is always available
Yes, that's a nice way of preserving immersion. The issue for that with me is that I desire to play one and only one character throughout the entire game unless I optionally choose to assume the role of another character e.g. through Sheoth's New Game + idea.
Well there are two ways to solve this problem;
  • Perma-death option: this option can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; when you die, so does the universe, your dead means the universe gets deleted.
  • Infinite clone option: Option that can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; It essentially means that there is always a clone available and thus you can always respawn as a clone
  • escape pods that never fail option: Option that can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; It means that the chance of successful reaching your escape pod is 100% and it disables escape pod interception
  • make use of the save/load mechanism
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Death in LT

#193
These are good suggestions, but I'm picky and so far my own Many-Worlds suggestion is the only one that completely satisfies my own set of preferences. Different people have different preferences, though, and you can't usually say any one set of preferences is better or worse than any other. :shrug:

To briefly explain the issues I have with these suggestions:
Cha0zz wrote:Perma-death option: this option can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; when you die, so does the universe, your dead means the universe gets deleted.
I want to be able to continue playing a single game continuously, not just a particular character within a game.
Cha0zz wrote:Infinite clone option: Option that can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; It essentially means that there is always a clone available and thus you can always respawn as a clone
Either you're forced to break player-NPC parity, or you allow for perma-respawn for NPCs, which most people seem to be against, including myself.
Cha0zz wrote:escape pods that never fail option: Option that can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; It means that the chance of successful reaching your escape pod is 100% and it disables escape pod interception
See above.
Cha0zz wrote:make use of the save/load mechanism
Damages immersion.
Post

Re: Death in LT

#194
Eery Petrol wrote:Whatever the defeat mechanic(s) will be, I wouldn't want it to be too involving unless the involvement is actually fun. Making after-destruction options diegetic (inside game world and knowable to player character) through buyable/researchable clones or escape pods sounds nice. But not giving me automatic continuation after death is a no-go for me (like losing all your assets). There should always be default continuation and penalty at death. Being able to actively tweak them is always nice (IRON MAN :evil: ). Doing so in a diegetic way would preferably only add flair.
Continuation after death will always be possible (and automated if you look to the after-dead scheme I propose) as long as there is at least 1 clone or an heir appointed. If you don't want to spend money on clones (and thus be limited by the money), I refer to the infinite clone option I propose in response to ThymineC.

A penalty after dead is also a given when using the clone/heir mechanism; you will lose the ship you died in and everything that was in the ship. If this isn't enough penalty for you, a money penalty could also be used (wreckage cleanup cost: the larger the ship you died in; the higher the cleanup cost).
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Death in LT

#195
Spoiler:      SHOW
ThymineC wrote:These are good suggestions, but I'm picky and so far my own Many-Worlds suggestion is the only one that completely satisfies my own set of preferences. Different people have different preferences, though, and you can't usually say any one set of preferences is better or worse than any other. :shrug:

To briefly explain the issues I have with these suggestions:
Cha0zz wrote:Perma-death option: this option can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; when you die, so does the universe, your dead means the universe gets deleted.
I want to be able to continue playing a single game continuously, not just a particular character within a game.
Cha0zz wrote:Infinite clone option: Option that can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; It essentially means that there is always a clone available and thus you can always respawn as a clone
Either you're forced to break player-NPC parity, or you allow for perma-respawn for NPCs, which most people seem to be against, including myself.
Cha0zz wrote:escape pods that never fail option: Option that can be chosen at the beginning of a universe; It means that the chance of successful reaching your escape pod is 100% and it disables escape pod interception
See above.
Cha0zz wrote:make use of the save/load mechanism
Damages immersion.
In that case, I propose that at the start of a Universe the player has to choose for 'regular death mechanism' or 'ThymineC™ approved death mechanism'; where the first is the death mechanism I proposed an the latter you Many-Worlds interpretation (or an option 'combined' where if no clones available you seem to live in a lucky universe where you just managed to survive) :ghost:
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron