A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Have an idea or suggestion for PULSAR: Lost Colony? Post it here!
User avatar
casauchi
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:55 pm
Location: Wales, United Kingdom!

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by casauchi » Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:20 am

BinaryExterminator wrote: simulate making each other friendship bracelets
Backed this on Kickstarter, can't wait for Alpha!

In all serious though, I don't believe it would hamper communication between players, instead it would probably increase it as the players all discuss the matter. I believe this mechanic would be fun and interesting.
Image

User avatar
Zukaro
Alpha Tester
Alpha Tester
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by Zukaro » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:08 am

BinaryExterminator wrote:
GwaziMagnum wrote:Except it's not adding anything of want or value.
It's a mechanic whose sole purpose is to divide friends up, reduce communication, and risk causing drama.
Games should be designed to bring gamers together, not drive them apart.
No, games should be designed to be enjoyable and challenging, not as circlejerks where you and your BFFs can simulate making each other friendship bracelets while periodically passing comment as to how your biggest problem these days is finding enough purple string.

Adding a mechanic like this (obviously at a very low chance of encounter) would REINFORCE bonds between players when they're forced to evaluate the usefulness and emotional attachments to each other. Also, did you miss my suggestion to allow a delayed respawn, or did you just completely ignore it?

And as a side note, I'm glad I don't have any friends who would be 'driven away' by being forced to leave a co-op game. Sounds like it would be more a problem with the kids themselves than the actual game.
*can't tell if you're angry or not :v*

Personally, I'd rather not get kicked out of the game cuz of a mechanic like this. At the same time, it could be fun to have sometimes as well. But obviously there's those who'd rather not. On top of that, as it is currently you respawn anyways so it would kind of be irrelevant, unless you kick the person out for the whole game. Which isn't fun for the person who got kicked out. As for just making a new character, I have no clue how characters are gonna work. But if it's you make a character and then level them up, and then have them killed off and have to grind all those levels again; that's not really fun either. Of course, I don't know how characters will be implemented though.

But assuming that characters work as they do now where they're all the same, then rejoining would be irrelevant. And assuming you have to level up characters, no one is going to want to level them up if they lose all those stats. Unless of course those stats are only on a per game basis in which case you lose them after each game anyways. In which case it doesn't really matter. But again, if the person can just make a new character it still kind of takes the weight off the decision as you'd just make a new character and grab all the same stats again, and then that's just tedious.

I think what would work better is a hardcore mode where you run into situations like this. And on top of that, in the hardcore mode you could have it so that you don't respawn under normal circumstances either (possibly).

Also, a game can still be challenging without excluding people. And frankly I think it's more enjoyable if you don't have to exclude people.




Basically:
I don't really see how this would add much to the game.
1. If the crew member can respawn it doesn't make for much dilemma, it's just a matter of do you need your scientist or engineer or what for this particular part of the game
2. If the crew member is kicked out of the game it excludes people, and while it may be interesting for the captain, it's not fun for the person who's being excluded
3. If the crew member can just make a new character it depends on how characters are implemented
3a. If characters remain the way they are now it's irrelevant as you just rejoin and lose nothing
3b. If you improve your character throughout multiple games only to lose all that work that'll likely just make people not want to play (depending on how difficult it is to improve a character)
3c. If you improve your character on a per game basis it might work, but players will likely just make the exact same thing

In order for it to work best I think the way it should be implemented is:
1. Characters should be on a per game basis and have various random base stats, this way you might get something really good at the start and the dilemma is losing that
2. Players should be able to rejoin the game with a new character, this way people aren't getting excluded from the game
3. If we want characters that can be carried over from game to game, this should be part of a hardcore mode (which you select upon character creation)

Not sure what else to say. But I don't really think the dilemma of having to kill off a player works very well as you either exclude the person from playing as a result, or they just make a new character. So the dilemma would have to be related to their character more than to losing a crew member. Unless the dilemma was losing a crew member for a certain amount of time and then getting them back later; in which case the dilemma is being at a disadvantage during a certain portion of the game.

I do think there are cases where it could work, but it really depends on how it's done and how character creation is done. But it also depends on if we actually kill off the character, or if we say, have the character held prisoner and the rest of the crew has to save them.

I think having a crew member held prisoner works a lot better than having them killed off personally, as this can be done in such a way where no one is excluded. For example, the captain makes a deal with some Mafia type guy who controls a lot of sectors, but then fails to live up to the deal. While on an away mission one of your crew members is captured and held prisoner for a ransom. As the captain you can decide to go save them or just pay the ransom. As the prisoner you can try to escape, as well as potentially sabotage their operation or even gain knowledge you can later sell or use.

This would also be a lot of fun as you could get a mission where you (for example) have to infiltrate a gang hideout and grab information needed to take them down or whatever. And then one of your options would be to let a crew member get captured and then help them escape with the information or something along those lines.

I realize games are supposed to be challenging, but to be challenging you don't have to exclude people. I'm not worried about possible drama/people being driven away or anything, I just think it's more fun for everyone to be a part of the game. There definitely have to be penalties and things you can lose, but I don't think the ability to continue playing while the game is still going should be a thing you can lose. Essentially, games have to be challenging, but also still fun.

While it could work to lose your character and have to make a new one, that really depends on how they're implemented. If the stats are on a per game basis and have randomized base stats it would work. But if it's a character you carry from game to game you should really have a hardcore mode for that, as some people don't find it fun to lose all the stuff they've worked to get. But at the same time I can understand how that can be fun as well, as it adds tension when faced with death.

When it comes to losing things in games, I prefer to lose items than stats. I liked how in Runescape if you died you lost your things, it made it a lot more fun. But you didn't lose your entire character, and if you did I wouldn't have found it fun due to the amount of grinding you have to do to get anywhere in that game. Another good example is Minecraft; I'm perfectly fine with losing my stuff as long as I can keep the base I made, or can fight to get my base back.

Essentially, losing too much kills the game for some people. It becomes a matter of once you've lost everything you're done with the game, at least for awhile. Whereas if you lose the right amount of stuff it can actually add quite a bit, as it makes death a real threat without killing the entire game for you. So that's why I say it really depends on how characters are implemented as to if this would really work or not. I think characters being made on a per game basis work best for this idea, as then you're not losing too much. You still lose quite a bit, so it adds tension to death, but it's something that you'd have lost once the game ended anyways (regardless as to if you win or lose). So as a result you don't lose so much that it kills the game for you.

However, if you just get kicked out of the game and can't rejoin that's no fun. The reason you can kill off NPC's for good is cuz they're not players. The most you can do is kill of a players character in a game, but you still need a way for them to continue playing; otherwise it's no fun for the guy who just got kicked out unless they were looking for that specifically. In which case a hardcore mode could be implemented and would work well for this sort of thing.

So the dilemma would have to come in the form of losing a particular crew members stats (as in, the character dies and they make a new one; but it's essentially the same thing as just changing the characters stats since the player will just make a new character). Which is why I think doing stats on a per game basis and having the base stats randomized works best for this as then the player doesn't lose so much that the game has been killed for them.

The reason for randomizing the base stats is so it's not a mater of tedium, but rather a matter of you were lucky at the beginning of the game and got something great, and now you could potentially lose that and end up with something much worse. So as a result you'd want to rebuild your character anyways to account for these new base stats.
Zukaro Travon
Robotic Fox
Image

User avatar
Edinstein
Leafy Developer
Leafy Developer
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:39 pm

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by Edinstein » Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:47 pm

This is an awesome discussion, I absolutely love conversations about game design!

There is another co-op game in recent memory that has the killing off of a player's character.

*SPOILERS*
Valve's Left For Dead 2 attempts to tackle this question. At the end of the campaign the players are forced to decided which one of them will die while the others escape. From this example we can see what kind of decisions they made and potentially learn from them.

1. The players are always still "together". The event happens at the end of the campaign or "movie", almost directly after the credits begin to roll. The surviving players don't continue down the road for another 15 minutes afterwards. The game ends for them at the same time so they are all included even if one of them has died.

2. The "sacrificing" player chose to do it. It was their own choice, on top of that they actually need to follow through and complete an objective. It was through THEIR actions that the rest of the players survive.

There's probably a lot more we can learn from this specific moment, and the countless other games out there. But I think the decisions made by Valve were the best ones at keeping the experience enjoyable for everyone.

This is a co-op game first and foremost, anything we add should strengthen this fact.

Okay so now on to Pulsar! Here are some of the raw thoughts I have about this subject I like to ask lots of questions and figure out the bigger problems as quickly as possible.

We have re-spawn mechanics at Atriums but we can always find a way to work around that if necessary.

The scenario in question is one in which the captain would need to choose between two players which one of them should live and die. I assume the players are temporarily stuck or incapacitated during this decision.

When the captain makes his/her decision the player is basically kicked from the game? What's to stop him/her from re-entering?
If they aren't kicked but spectating do they continually fill the slot of their class until a "new" character is found?
While spectating if they get bored and leave, would a new player be able to join the game and play or would they be stuck spectating as well?
Perhaps they aren't kicked or spectating, maybe they just get an usually long re-spawn time at the atrium? I think this would diminish the initial effect however.

Before the captain makes their decision, what's to stop the players in question to disconnect the game? Does this scenario grab two new crew members to fill in the roles of the ones that disappeared? That seems a bit strange.

What if the game is only being played by 2 people?

Perhaps the captain just needs to choose any player from the crew roster to die. What would happen if everyone planned for this and disconnected simultaneously! (Welcome to the wonderful of drop-in drop-out btw)

We also don't want mechanics to have a good or beneficial outcome by kicking a respectful player.

If a scenario like this existed, I can only assume crews of friends and those at LAN parties would never want to stumble upon it.

These are just some of my initial thoughts on the subject, I'd be happy to discuss them further with anyone who's interested!

User avatar
yacabo
Alpha Tester
Alpha Tester
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:31 pm
Location: USA, Florida

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by yacabo » Fri Dec 19, 2014 1:57 pm

This may shed some light on my first post (and Edinstein may of poked some holes into it)

My original thoughts when creating this is based on what Zukaro considered to be the "Hardcore mode" and weight of the choice is the who will lose their progress, kind of like FTL. This also assumes that the atrium is inaccessible and that it relies on the death mechanic to work that a crew can continue on without a crew member if they die, and not that if one person dies without a chance of revival than it's game over for everyone.

How this would effect the rest of the crew under how would they do without their class really depends on how crews are made; if the crew is like how it is now like drop in and drop out type of gameplay then someone can literally take his place five seconds later

But personally I use this post I made http://pulsarthegame.com/forums/viewtop ... f=4&t=1175 as a template of how the game would work

Now bringing up the level The sacrifice does bring up and interesting theory so that if you do things wrong than at the very end when you're done doing whatever your doing in the lost colony than this could happen


(Oh and that thing were if everyone disconnects simultaneously, just give them a warning that if you disconnect before who ever needs to die dies, then they die themselves
I love space

User avatar
Zukaro
Alpha Tester
Alpha Tester
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by Zukaro » Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:59 pm

Edinstein wrote:This is an awesome discussion, I absolutely love conversations about game design!

There is another co-op game in recent memory that has the killing off of a player's character.

*SPOILERS*
Valve's Left For Dead 2 attempts to tackle this question. At the end of the campaign the players are forced to decided which one of them will die while the others escape. From this example we can see what kind of decisions they made and potentially learn from them.

1. The players are always still "together". The event happens at the end of the campaign or "movie", almost directly after the credits begin to roll. The surviving players don't continue down the road for another 15 minutes afterwards. The game ends for them at the same time so they are all included even if one of them has died.

2. The "sacrificing" player chose to do it. It was their own choice, on top of that they actually need to follow through and complete an objective. It was through THEIR actions that the rest of the players survive.

There's probably a lot more we can learn from this specific moment, and the countless other games out there. But I think the decisions made by Valve were the best ones at keeping the experience enjoyable for everyone.

This is a co-op game first and foremost, anything we add should strengthen this fact.

Okay so now on to Pulsar! Here are some of the raw thoughts I have about this subject I like to ask lots of questions and figure out the bigger problems as quickly as possible.

We have re-spawn mechanics at Atriums but we can always find a way to work around that if necessary.

The scenario in question is one in which the captain would need to choose between two players which one of them should live and die. I assume the players are temporarily stuck or incapacitated during this decision.

When the captain makes his/her decision the player is basically kicked from the game? What's to stop him/her from re-entering?
If they aren't kicked but spectating do they continually fill the slot of their class until a "new" character is found?
While spectating if they get bored and leave, would a new player be able to join the game and play or would they be stuck spectating as well?
Perhaps they aren't kicked or spectating, maybe they just get an usually long re-spawn time at the atrium? I think this would diminish the initial effect however.

Before the captain makes their decision, what's to stop the players in question to disconnect the game? Does this scenario grab two new crew members to fill in the roles of the ones that disappeared? That seems a bit strange.

What if the game is only being played by 2 people?

Perhaps the captain just needs to choose any player from the crew roster to die. What would happen if everyone planned for this and disconnected simultaneously! (Welcome to the wonderful of drop-in drop-out btw)

We also don't want mechanics to have a good or beneficial outcome by kicking a respectful player.

If a scenario like this existed, I can only assume crews of friends and those at LAN parties would never want to stumble upon it.

These are just some of my initial thoughts on the subject, I'd be happy to discuss them further with anyone who's interested!

One of the main reasons the character death mechanic worked so well in Left 4 Dead was because the levels were short, so no one was left out for too long. But with Pulsar I would assume that each run could potentially take a month or more if players wanted to explore everything and didn't just head straight for the goal. So if characters were perma-killed and the player unable to rejoin they'd be left out of a long campaign. I'd say being left out for 10 to 20 minutes is about the maximum that the majority of players would tolerate (obviously it could be more or less though; it also depends a lot on the specific game). But in L4D you dying wasn't a result of the party leader, it was always in some way your fault or just bad luck (I've not played through the entire story mode however, so I could be wrong for some of the levels).

If Pulsar was more of a drop in drop out game killing off a crew member permanently could work, but Pulsar seems to be aimed more at friends playing with friends, or people putting together a crew on the forums. Basically, it's a game where you generally want to play with people you know rather than random people. Obviously some people may want to join random crews, but I think the majority of players plan to play only with friends or on crews they've set up ahead of time.

If we really want to have situations where crew members dying matters then it would likely need to reduce stats. Perhaps a temporary stat debuff would work? But more than just a few minutes, maybe an hour or two depending on the situation. Of course, that depends on how stats and such will be implemented as well.

Although something that I think would be much more interesting which is somewhat similar, yet still different enough would be things like a crew member getting changed in some way where it has both a negative and positive outcome. For example, lets say you encounter the infected. In order to escape you need a distraction, so you teleport a crew member onto an infected ship to try and create a distraction. Your crew member manages to cripple the infected ship so the rest of your crew can escape, but as a result of being there the crew member you sent has become infected. Maybe it takes a few hours, days, whatever for you to succumb to the infection and become a zombie, yet being in this state gives you some sort of a stat boost. After a certain amount of time this crew member is overtaken by the infection and turns against the rest of their crew (not sure how that would work gameplay wise, but I'm sure we can figure something out). However, in order to avoid your crew member succumbing to the infection you can have your science officer take samples from the infected to work on an antibiotic or even just something to slow it down. And it could lead into a quest line to find a cure for your crew member. Not sure what to do in the circumstance that you fail though.

This would also give reason to have a robawt fox crew member on board :p :3 cuuuuz, synthetic life would be unaffected by the infected (since the infected is organic (unless of course you plan for them to also be able to infect electronic stuff too :p but personally I think there should be a separate being for that as then your ship could turn against you and you could have something only the science officer can help with)) so in this situation you could just send the robawt fox in to save the daaaaay and avoid all the bad stuff. :P But then there would have to be another potential event which could happen where synthetic life can't just save the day like that (such as the potential for enemies to hack synthetic life forms and use them against your crew).

Although assuming your crew member died, perhaps he/she could come back as a hologram just like in Red Dwarf? :P And then you go on a quest line type thing to clone them a new body cuz for some reason the Atrium can't (maybe the Atrium doesn't keep backups and the only version of you on file is the infected version, so instead of restoring that you create a hologram which only consists of how they look and their mind). As a hologram they could do some stuff like help with navigation, but they would be unable to impact their environment cuz they dun has the hard light thing yet. :v
(they also need an H on their head :P cuz Red Dwarf :V :P)

That would make it a lot more interesting. This way you're still without your crew member, yet the player isn't left out and it could even potentially open up new possibilities for them (such as the ability to actually go into the enemy computer and use it to spy on them, or for the science officer to hack an enemy AI and put you into their body (and if you are the science officer even better cuz now you can connect directly to the computer :P)). Essentially this would take an organic life form and temporarily make them a synthetic life form until their original body could be restored. And potentially could allow a race change as well, so the holographic crew member could decide they want to be a synthetic life form now or even be put into an organic body of a different race.
Zukaro Travon
Robotic Fox
Image

User avatar
GwaziMagnum
Alpha Tester
Alpha Tester
Posts: 896
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:35 pm
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by GwaziMagnum » Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:00 pm

BinaryExterminator wrote:games should be designed to be enjoyable and challenging
Of course.
But it shouldn't be at the expense of players being able to play.
Or people not being able to play with a friend, even if it's a multiplayer game and there is room that said friend could inhabit.
I mean there are single player games, why you don't have a friend for those is self-explanatory. But for a game like Pulsar? Where the whole purpose is to keep players cooperating and working together?
Everything in the game should reinforce that, not go against it.

No game is going to become the master of everything, that's why there are so many genre's of games and not just say "Skyrim, The cooking, flying, singing, goat, truck simulator with Kerbals and Dragons".
BinaryExterminator wrote:Adding a mechanic like this (obviously at a very low chance of encounter) would REINFORCE bonds between players when they're forced to evaluate the usefulness and emotional attachments to each other.
Only for the player that stays.
For the player that left it is basically a way to going "I like this person better and find them more useful. So you can go now".
BinaryExterminator wrote:did you miss my suggestion to allow a delayed respawn, or did you just completely ignore it?
I addressed it right at the start.

"It would only work if the death was permanent, the whole weight of the choice is gone if it's just a matter of respawning instantly or once the crew returns to the ship.
Otherwise this is just a tedious thing to have that only leave people sitting around/not engaged".
Zukaro wrote:-everything-
^Basically a far longer, in depth and better worded way of saying what I'm trying to get across.

However, in regards to the random starting stats and investment to keep a good roll.
The reverse is also true, if you get a bad roll such a thing could just be seen as a fresh opportunity to re-roll.
That's assuming re-rolling wasn't something you could do by just quitting and rejoining the game constantly at the start.

Now, technically the same can be said for something like D&D and getting killed by the DM.
But the difference there is that in D&D it's not just the numbers you're invested in, but the personality, identity and persona you created for that character.
While with video games you are generally playing as yourself, putting yourself in the situation.
Therefore dying isn't to lose a personality or persona, it's just to a change of the numbers.

Plus, the same can be said for race changing.
Death will lose all appeal of being a penalty, and rather become a benefit because it means a respec.
Where honestly I'd rather the ship get something like an operating table (bought later or has at start) that players can go to and respec.
But at a considerable XP or credit cost in order to avoid abuse of simply respeccing to specific builds anytime it's convenient.

Now, the operating table is a bit lose in explaining such a race change.
But we got games like fallout and secret world as well where 'meat artists' and 'underground scientists' can use rudimentary tools to completely change your appearance.
And these are in post apocalyptic and/or modern worlds, not futuristic sci-fi ones where there's better technology for such things.

[quote="Edinstein]We have re-spawn mechanics at Atriums but we can always find a way to work around that if necessary.[/quote]

I think this should be looked at. At the moment stuff like ship boarding honestly just becomes a game of respawn as a result, spawn enough times to gun down all the robots.
There should be moment's it's turned off and the players need to wait for the area to be safe, or certain situations where respawning isn't possible for a time, or it is but you're locked out of the area you died in until the others are done there.

Though if this were to happen I'd also suggest making the players more buff/tanky. Because at the moment droids are basically extreme marksmen who take a player down in two rapid shots. Where such a quick and sudden death although realistic, doesn't really give the player much reaction or engagement, or is that fair gameplay wise if it means a long respawn timer or being locked out of a certain event.
Edinstein wrote:If a scenario like this existed, I can only assume crews of friends and those at LAN parties would never want to stumble upon it.
Agreed.

Like I said in an earlier post, I can see this being the kind of event where players essentially treat it as a game over and restart the game as a result.
In order to avoid having to exclude/leave a friend of there's out.
yacabo wrote:My original thoughts when creating this is based on what Zukaro considered to be the "Hardcore mode" and weight of the choice is the who will lose their progress, kind of like FTL. This also assumes that the atrium is inaccessible and that it relies on the death mechanic to work that a crew can continue on without a crew member if they die, and not that if one person dies without a chance of revival than it's game over for everyone.
FTL has two different things going for it though.

1. All crew members are you. So losing a member isn't kicking out a player, it just acts as a cripple/penalty for an action that you as the player made.

2. FTL is quick. Games of FTL only last an hour or two (assuming you're lucky) while Pulsar can be something people sit down and play for a long time.
yacabo wrote:if the crew is like how it is now like drop in and drop out type of gameplay then someone can literally take his place five seconds later
True, the effect to the crew would be minimal.

But the effect to the kicked player is huge, so you essentially just punished a player severally (for something the captain did even, not the player in question) for about little change of pace or difficulty for the rest of the crew.

User avatar
BinaryExterminator
Alpha Tester
Alpha Tester
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:45 pm
Location: Belly of the Deep Space Cthulhu
Contact:

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by BinaryExterminator » Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:37 am

Gwazi, I'm afraid I have to point out that

"It would only work if the death was permanent, the whole weight of the choice is gone if it's just a matter of respawning instantly or once the crew returns to the ship."

is absolutely nothing like what I suggested. My suggestion is that whenever players join the game they don't spawn in the ship, but rather in a semi-random galactic hub (with plenty of things to keep them occupied). The Captain of the ship would then be sent a message informing him that a new person would like to join the crew - whether it's a perma-death'd friend respawning, or a random drop-in player who's just joined the server. The captain would then decide if he should recruit them and pick them up right now, or if the ship can do without them immediately and meet them a little later or perhaps at a different hub - or even just reject their offer of service. I just thought this might be a good way of allowing the Captain to filter who he allows on board, as well as encouraging players to fill crews while the ship is near a Hub, instead of just asking all your friends to magically materialize on your ship in deep space to help you complete difficult tasks. To tie this back to the topic, because of the nature of Pulsar, a player rejoining the crew in the manner I suggested would have to wait a minimum of a few minutes before pickup, and quite possibly longer, depending on how much the crew wanted them back, the state of the ship, and where they spawned in relation to it.

Continuing my wildly off-topic idea, it'd be quite cool to see various hubs be predominately inhabited by only one or two races. A random generating base-character might be a really good way to maximise elements like this. Likewise, introducing a very basic random-gen'd backstory might add some more flexibility to my idea, for example you might spawn as the only human on a deep space mining station with the backstory of "Experienced smuggler. Born in a spaceport, no known relatives. Talented at avoiding trouble and being in the right place at the right time", which would on the one hand mean you spawned with no more than 10 credits to your name, but on the other hand allow you to travel to a different hub by completing a short quest, allowing faster pickup by your new crew (as well as other uses later in the game, perhaps?). The backstory generation could tie in to the chance of spawning at certain hubs. The fact the character in the example is a smuggler would increase the chance he was on a deep space station, and the fact that he's human makes it more likely that he'll be among humans.

Just an idea, I just write the shit down so I don't forget it before I can be bothered to make a new thread

Anyway...

Zukaro, holy shit, I don't even know where to start with your posts :P
You have some really good ideas, but I'm gonna refrain from offering opinions on them until the devs tell us a little more about how character persistencey and drop-in/drop-out play will be handled in the game, since we've speculated a LOT so far and debated ideas based on information we've just presupposed.
"You win again, gravity!"

I usually play as Wilson505 in Pulsar, so now you know who to send angry PMs to when I accidentally break things on your ship...

Image

User avatar
GwaziMagnum
Alpha Tester
Alpha Tester
Posts: 896
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:35 pm
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by GwaziMagnum » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:54 am

BinaryExterminator wrote:Also, there's the possibility that the player could make a new character and "respawn" at a random Galactic Hub to re-enter the game
Keyword = Possibility

You suggested it as a alternative, not as the main idea.

And regardless, my point would still stand.
Except with a slight rewording to "Once the crew get's to the hub".

The player comes back, all you've done is increase the respawn timer basically.
Just one where they can run around on a small hub in the meantime.
It takes away all of the weight from the choice if the Captain is simply going "Hey guys, who minds dying and sitting around at a Hub for a few minutes?".

Plus, such a system would really slow down the process of gameplay and new players joining.
Every time a person joins, they risk having to be rejected instantly cause the crew doesn't want to make the trip. So they have quit, find another game and possibly do this multiple times.
And on the crews end, it means everyone has to stop what they're doing and backtrack rather. Which although realistic, would take away from engagement in the game. And if the crew does decide to do the backtracking the player who joined is basically sitting around for a while doing nothing, and it's not even a penalty for dying (therefore earned) but simply for trying to play the game.

User avatar
BinaryExterminator
Alpha Tester
Alpha Tester
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:45 pm
Location: Belly of the Deep Space Cthulhu
Contact:

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by BinaryExterminator » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:59 am

Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough. I meant this in conjunction with the idea of the player making a new character.

Also, you've missed the point of non-ship spawns, which is to discourage drop-ins when the ship is in the middle of nowhere. While fine and actually quite fun (I've made some good friends on public lobbies) for the arcade style gameplay of alpha, I see it being really immersion breaking to have new crew members just materialize once the crew is engaging in story and plot. Changing the crew of a vessel should be a pretty big event, in my opinion. And if what you said in an earlier post is true, you'll have organized your full crew's session well in advance, so surely you could wait for them to turn up before wandering off into the galaxy, the same way as you'd meet up with a party in an MMO
"You win again, gravity!"

I usually play as Wilson505 in Pulsar, so now you know who to send angry PMs to when I accidentally break things on your ship...

Image

User avatar
GwaziMagnum
Alpha Tester
Alpha Tester
Posts: 896
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:35 pm
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Re: A scenario with a harsh dilemma

Post by GwaziMagnum » Sat Dec 20, 2014 6:27 am

I got the point, I'm just saying there's a big negative to it that takes away from the gameplay.

And you can set the game to private or open mind you.
Open games people would materialize out of nowhere, Private games is just you and your friends.
So as long your friends aren't randomly popping up mid-way then there's no materializing going on.

I do see the appeal of this, but if it were to be implemented it should be an optional feature. One a player can turn on and off in the options menu.
I mean we can also rematerialize in the ship countless times after dying, it's not a far stretch to have someone materialize aboard.

Post Reply