BinaryExterminator wrote:games should be designed to be enjoyable and challenging
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".
^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.
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.