Return to “General”

Post

Dying

#1
Something in another thread reminded me of the way X3:AP handles death > Essentially if the ship you're piloting at the time is blown up, you have to reset to a previous save.

Does anyone know what the current plans for how death is handled in LT are? Personally I would like to see something completely different to AP's system and honestly have character death be basically non-punishing.

The player shouldn't be afraid to take part in battles because they'll get hit by a stray missile and have to reload to a save before realising their last save was 10 hours ago. Further, one of my pet peeves in X3AP was the fact that the autopilot sucked and that you could only save on docking or with an in-game consumable. This means that on long trips back and forth without docking, if your autopilot has a seizure and commits suicide with you under its control, you've lost massive amounts of progress.

It was simply a frustrating mechanic that I definitely wouldn't like to see in LT.

So, what do you guys think: Non punishing death that practically means nothing or some spectrum of punishing all the way up to deleting all your save files and pissing on your real life grave as it calls a hit squad?
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: Dying

#2
I would have it just like in Eve: you eject (escape pod/capsule) or respawn in a station nearby.
The blown up ship is lost, but maybe it can be repaired later (wreck).

I like that same mechanic in Empyrion, where the optimal strategy for the player is not to constantly hit save and reload, but actually cope with a loss and adapt.

But as long as there is always the option to save and load at any time, the type of death does not matter. The player will just hit load.

-> eg, the type of death directly depends on the save/load system.

BTW: another good system in X3 and also Elite is that subsystems can get destroyed, not only on complete ship destruction.
Post

Re: Dying

#3
Black--Snow wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:07 am
Something in another thread reminded me of the way X3:AP handles death > Essentially if the ship you're piloting at the time is blown up, you have to reset to a previous save.

Does anyone know what the current plans for how death is handled in LT are? Personally I would like to see something completely different to AP's system and honestly have character death be basically non-punishing.

The player shouldn't be afraid to take part in battles because they'll get hit by a stray missile and have to reload to a save before realising their last save was 10 hours ago. Further, one of my pet peeves in X3AP was the fact that the autopilot sucked and that you could only save on docking or with an in-game consumable. This means that on long trips back and forth without docking, if your autopilot has a seizure and commits suicide with you under its control, you've lost massive amounts of progress.

It was simply a frustrating mechanic that I definitely wouldn't like to see in LT.

So, what do you guys think: Non punishing death that practically means nothing or some spectrum of punishing all the way up to deleting all your save files and pissing on your real life grave as it calls a hit squad?
I don't know what the current plans for death are, but there are several great ideas in the Death in LT thread. For me, I was thinking of a limited respawn approach where the player could buy lives for themselves. The number of lives would be limited because the price for a backup life would square every time it is purchased. This is to ensure that AI do not live forever. However, I also suggested that along with this system the player could also have an heir to whom they give their possessions to. So if you have limited funds to buy additional lives, on death while you lose your ship you could still continue playing as that assigned heir. I believe both systems work well in LT because it allows the player to continue playing the same game even after death. A third option is also possible, which would be that at the time of death have the game prompt the player with the choice to play as a random NPC. So then it would be possible to continue the same game but from an allies or opponents perspective.
Image
Post

Re: Dying

#4
I don't know what the current plans for death are, but there are several great ideas in the Death in LT thread.
Im pretty much on the point ThymineC made in the discussion back then.
A save/load system is completely opposite to a respawn/continue system.
In the first case, the player can jump back in time, and reset any (negative) changes, in the second case the world continues after the death-event keeping the state-changes.

With a save/reload system, death is unimportant, as the only viable option is to hit load then. Death then is nothing more than a "try that again" event. (And learn to hit F5 more regularly). The player could just trial and error through any situation, or avoid it, if a battle cannot be won.

(Its a pretty important decision, that will define how the game will be played)

The solution in X3 was, that there was no respawn, but the player had some obstacles to just save shortly before every encounter (limited mobile saves, normal saves only in stations).
No everyone liked this solution, but it was done on purpose to increase the magnitude of encounters. (A similar -lighter- mechanic is to prohibit saves when nearby enemies)

Or in other words: if the battles in LT are going to be short and happen suddenly, and the main focus is on the actions in the larger game-world, then save/load is totally fine, as short term save/reload will not affect much the progress in the game - as affecting long term decisions would mean loading a savegame far back in time.

If, on the other hand, the battles must be planned (loadout, tactical analysis), can be detected beforehand and take some time, then a respawn (or limited save) system is better, as the player has the choice to engage (taking risks) or avoid them. The player can then choose if he rather explores/trades or risks the current ship in an engagement.
Also a respawn should not be more punishing than loosing that current ship, and be relocated to some save position.
Post

Re: Dying

#5
This comment in the Death in LT thread still covers my viewpoint nicely.

Short version: people like different kinds of fun. Preferences for character termination mechanics vary accordingly.

I personally suspect LT will wind up being more of an exploration game than an action game. If so, then the penalty for getting 'sploded should be light so that players can return quickly (with little loss of state) to exploring the systems of the game.

But it sure looks like there's action, too, so I also support some mechanic -- for those who want it -- that "punishes" the player for failure as a way of enforcing challenge.

Behemoth wrote:
Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:38 am
This game is going to have SO many sliders...

:lol:
Post

Re: Dying

#6
Its a single player game. Give me a working quicksave system (preferrably with a bumber of rotating quicksave slots or even some smart system that keeps the spacing between quicksaves somewhat fractal/logarithmic. So if you save a lot in the last 5 min it keeps them for a while, but the 20 ones from that battle 10 hours ago get overwritten until 1-2 from that period remain)

Anything with respawning opens up a gigantic can of worms which is better to be avoided in my opinion.

there may be systems, like escape pods, which make ship destruction survivable. But those aremt an always working solution that gives you a new ship and a pat on the head.
The escape pod just gives you an extra (possibly extra slippery) chance to run to safety, what you do with that chance is your problem.

Any "emergency teleporter" or whatever people may enjoy having needs to have a specified receiving point which can be found out and neutralised.
To remove the question on how and where to reappear when. (Because otherwise that question just becomes a giant clusterfork)
Post

Re: Dying

#7
For the sake of player experience, I'd support at least the option of auto saves and anywhere-anytime saving. But for player-npc parity, I think purchasing clone/resurrection pods would be the best option.

By clone pods I mean a purchasable item that is typically stored on a planet or in a station, that upon your death, you respawn, losing whatever you were carrying when you died, but your other assets remain... If you don't have any clone pods, then if you die, and have no saves, game over.

I can imagine having a clone pod storage company, with heavily armed stations to protect the safety of all their customers.
Image
If you're trying to fill the multiverse, and you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
Post

Re: Dying

#9
I had a whole post typed up, but I think I forgot to post it.

Anyways...

I think that death should essentially mean nothing. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before but character death and any associated penalties just reduce the likelihood of the player actually taking part in battles. In fact, I would argue that a better system is that your character is essentially remote controlling the ships (though lore'd a bit better because that's kind of lame) meaning that if you die, you can simply zwoop back into the fight in another ship.

This encourages player participation rather than just hiding behind RTS mode. Rather, it doesn't /discourage/ it like actual death would (So there's no reason not to just sit In RTS if you feel like it, but the same can be said for piloting).

I know personally something like this would make me more inclined to stick with my losses and not save scum, as long as ships don't blow up because autopilot is shit or something.

As for saving.. I'd vote for a comprehensive save anytime/anywhere, load anytime/anywhere system. It gives more flexibility to the user and doesn't necessarily compromise the game. If this worries some people (Or like me they'd be tempted to simply save/load scum) it should be relatively simple to create an ironman game option for starting a new universe.
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: Dying

#10
There are only two options here really.

Save/Load
or
Death Penalties.

To prove this:
1) Ending the players game when they lose one fight is "Not Fun(tm)"
2) Allowing Save/Load and including penalties for Death results in Save Scumming which is "Not Fun(tm)"
( Incidentally this is why XCom is best as Ironman ( or Bronzeman ) )
3) Death without Penalties means that Death has no consequences, thus fights don't matter. Not mattering is "Not Fun(tm)"

While allowing an Ironman option is easy and thus should be included. It should be an option, as most players like to avoid Losing. Losing is "Not Fun(tm)" for most people and most games.
( Dwarf Fortress is an outlier to the statistics )

For the Main Game, you should thus pick between a Save/Load system, and Death Penalties.
Basically a choice between Freelancer and Dark Souls.

Since this is a Freelancer Spiritual Successor.
Since both systems require a Save/Load feature to be able to continue between sessions.
Then my vote falls on Save/Load.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Dying

#11
Silverware wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:52 pm
3) Death without Penalties means that Death has no consequences, thus fights don't matter. Not mattering is "Not Fun(tm)"
I disagree!

You're assuming that consequences focused on the player are the only ones that matter. Death without penalty simply means that fights only matter in the assets you lose and the damage done to your other assets.

Fights mattering is important, but I don't think that should be achieved by incentivising hiding.
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: Dying

#12
Black--Snow wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:40 pm
Silverware wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:52 pm
3) Death without Penalties means that Death has no consequences, thus fights don't matter. Not mattering is "Not Fun(tm)"

I disagree!

You're assuming that consequences focused on the player are the only ones that matter. Death without penalty simply means that fights only matter in the assets you lose and the damage done to your other assets.

Fights mattering is important, but I don't think that should be achieved by incentivising hiding.

This is pretty close to what I was going to say.

Another way to put it is that if you can reload to before a lost fight, then OK, that fight doesn't "matter" in the sense that you-the-character didn't lose any material wealth tokens. But it certainly can matter in that you-the-player enjoyed the excitement of the fight (even if you lost). It could also matter if you-the-player learned something new and useful about NPC combat tactics.

I agree with the overall conclusion that the game needs a Save/Load feature no matter what, so it doesn't make sense to try to hide that from players (as the original Far Cry tried to do). But I wouldn't use "reloading makes fights not matter" as one of the arguments in favor of open saving/loading.

...too picky?
Post

Re: Dying

#13
Black--Snow wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:40 pm
Silverware wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:52 pm
3) Death without Penalties means that Death has no consequences, thus fights don't matter. Not mattering is "Not Fun(tm)"
I disagree!

You're assuming that consequences focused on the player are the only ones that matter. Death without penalty simply means that fights only matter in the assets you lose and the damage done to your other assets.

Fights mattering is important, but I don't think that should be achieved by incentivising hiding.
erm... where did you read that the only penalty would be "game ends"?

penalty is anything you wouldnt want.
including losing assets.
Post

Re: Dying

#14
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:37 am
Black--Snow wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:40 pm
Silverware wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:52 pm
3) Death without Penalties means that Death has no consequences, thus fights don't matter. Not mattering is "Not Fun(tm)"
I disagree!

You're assuming that consequences focused on the player are the only ones that matter. Death without penalty simply means that fights only matter in the assets you lose and the damage done to your other assets.

Fights mattering is important, but I don't think that should be achieved by incentivising hiding.
erm... where did you read that the only penalty would be "game ends"?

penalty is anything you wouldnt want.
including losing assets.
Because Silver said if dying has no direct consequences then fights don't matter.
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: Dying

#15
Black--Snow wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:51 am
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:37 am
Black--Snow wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:40 pm


I disagree!

You're assuming that consequences focused on the player are the only ones that matter. Death without penalty simply means that fights only matter in the assets you lose and the damage done to your other assets.

Fights mattering is important, but I don't think that should be achieved by incentivising hiding.
erm... where did you read that the only penalty would be "game ends"?

penalty is anything you wouldnt want.
including losing assets.
Because Silver said if dying has no direct consequences then fights don't matter.
Yes.
Penalties include but are not limited to:
- Loss of skills
- Loss of assets
- Loss of cash
- Loss of progress

Dark Souls has a great system, you lose your current onhand cash, but can go and reclaim it on the next life. (if you die again it's gone forever)

A penalty is simply *anything* that sets the player back.
I have no idea why you wouldn't think of Loss of Ship/Assets as a penalty, you know I play EVE. (or rather have played)
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron