Forums » Suggestions
A suggestion:
Repairing will always take a relatively annoying amount of time, expanding exponentially towards completely wrecked. Meaning: If you need 90% repair, then it will take 60 seconds. If you need 45% repair, then it will only take, say 10 seconds (sorry, I didn't even attempt and do the math). So if you are a trader or a miner, and don't usually get harmed more than 50%, then repairing will only take a small amount of time.
Dieing will always be instantaneous when it comes to how fast you can get back into your chosen ship.
And as far as running goes, well, I think I made my point.
Repairing will always take a relatively annoying amount of time, expanding exponentially towards completely wrecked. Meaning: If you need 90% repair, then it will take 60 seconds. If you need 45% repair, then it will only take, say 10 seconds (sorry, I didn't even attempt and do the math). So if you are a trader or a miner, and don't usually get harmed more than 50%, then repairing will only take a small amount of time.
Dieing will always be instantaneous when it comes to how fast you can get back into your chosen ship.
And as far as running goes, well, I think I made my point.
I agree.
I dislike this suggestion. I think it would result in the game being less fun. Let us consider: what is this suggestion meant to accomplish? I assume it is meant to decrease the occurance of running. Now, I have three reasons for disliking this suggestion. First, I do not consider running to be a problem, therefore it does not need a solution. I can think of two reasons why players run, one positive reason, and one negative. The positive reason is for the running player to save his ship and cargo. The negative reason is for the running player to prevent the attacker from gaining the kill. If the negative reason (preventing the other player of the fight from gaining the kill, i.e. to harm the other player) were the ONLY reason, then I would agree that running is a problem, however it is NOT the only reason, there is also the positive reason (saving the running player's ship and cargo, i.e. to help the runner), which is why I do not consider running to be a problem.
Second, even if running was a problem, would this suggestion be a valid solution? If the runner's goal is to prevent the other player from gaining a kill (the negetive reason), then making repairing take time would not help at all. The runner would still run, which would achieve the goal of preventing the other player gaining the kill, and does not require the runner to repair. The runner can still just sell the damaged ship & buy a new one, or even just /explode. Even if the runner /explodes, he is no worse off than he would be if the other player had destroyed him, so if the runner's goal is to prevent the other player from gaining the kill, adding a time requirement to repairing would not change that at all.
And third, repair time is time that the player is not having fun. Even if there was a problem, and making repairs require time solved that problem (neither of which I think is the case), I would still say the best case scenario is break-even - any additional fun that is generated by repairs taking time is counterbalanced by the fun that is lost during the time the repairs are going on and the player is not having fun.
Second, even if running was a problem, would this suggestion be a valid solution? If the runner's goal is to prevent the other player from gaining a kill (the negetive reason), then making repairing take time would not help at all. The runner would still run, which would achieve the goal of preventing the other player gaining the kill, and does not require the runner to repair. The runner can still just sell the damaged ship & buy a new one, or even just /explode. Even if the runner /explodes, he is no worse off than he would be if the other player had destroyed him, so if the runner's goal is to prevent the other player from gaining the kill, adding a time requirement to repairing would not change that at all.
And third, repair time is time that the player is not having fun. Even if there was a problem, and making repairs require time solved that problem (neither of which I think is the case), I would still say the best case scenario is break-even - any additional fun that is generated by repairs taking time is counterbalanced by the fun that is lost during the time the repairs are going on and the player is not having fun.
First off, there are a considerable amount of people whos fun is being reduced by those who chose to engage in group battles and then bolt when things look desperate. I feel that this would simply counterbalance the fun/irritation that both sides are feeling.
I do agree with you that the playter can simply buy another ship, and head back out. But we're a still talking 15 seconds or so to do so. This 15 seconds will still make a big diffrence in group battles.
The problem is that people can run, go repair, and be back in the midst of the fight launching swarms or agting, or whatever (not tacticts that are wrong) within moments.
There needs to be a balance. Those who chose to stay and fight it out need to have a reason, and a reasonable chance of surviving, or else this game is going to degenerate into an ugly mess of players who come in, swarm, and run.
Either that or there needs to be some reward, somehow, for making someone run. But I don't have a clue how that would work.
I do agree with you that the playter can simply buy another ship, and head back out. But we're a still talking 15 seconds or so to do so. This 15 seconds will still make a big diffrence in group battles.
The problem is that people can run, go repair, and be back in the midst of the fight launching swarms or agting, or whatever (not tacticts that are wrong) within moments.
There needs to be a balance. Those who chose to stay and fight it out need to have a reason, and a reasonable chance of surviving, or else this game is going to degenerate into an ugly mess of players who come in, swarm, and run.
Either that or there needs to be some reward, somehow, for making someone run. But I don't have a clue how that would work.
Snax, I seriously doubt your suggestion would stop many people from running. You've got the delay in the wrong place.
Why not have a 3-second countdown timer prior to each in-system jump where the player must remain motionless (as though they were logging off?) As a neat graphical doohiky the two arrows on either side of the clearance bar could gradually come together, like a kind of progress meter. A text notification could read "Calculating Hyperjump Solution" or somesuch.
Either that or there needs to be some reward, somehow, for making someone run. But I don't have a clue how that would work.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/10788
Why not have a 3-second countdown timer prior to each in-system jump where the player must remain motionless (as though they were logging off?) As a neat graphical doohiky the two arrows on either side of the clearance bar could gradually come together, like a kind of progress meter. A text notification could read "Calculating Hyperjump Solution" or somesuch.
Either that or there needs to be some reward, somehow, for making someone run. But I don't have a clue how that would work.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/10788
Interesting post, I'll read the full thing when I get a moment. We do agree on this then, that somehow, running needs to be a victory for the person you are running from (except in the case of traders running from pirates).
> First off, there are a considerable amount of people whos fun is being reduced by
> those who chose to engage in group battles and then bolt when things look desperate.
Why? Why should it detract from your fun if one of your foes runs from you? I honestly have a hard time understanding this. So your kill count doesn't go up. Why does that matter for your fun?
> I feel that this would simply counterbalance the fun/irritation that both sides are feeling.
I disagree. Even if someone running from you detracts from your fun (which I don't understand), detracting from their fun as well would not add to your fun. At least, it should not - if it does, it means you enjoy causing other people to not have fun, which quite frankly, would make you a "bad person" in my opinion. Think about it, we have F, which is the fun players are having in the game. If a player runs, and that subtracts from your fun (again, I don't see why), then F=F-R, where R is the amount of fun you lost because of the runner. What you're suggesting is to also subtract an equal amount of fun from the runner, which means F=F-R-R. You are suggesting removing more fun from the game. That is not a good thing.
> I do agree with you that the playter can simply buy another ship, and head back out.
> But we're a still talking 15 seconds or so to do so. This 15 seconds will still make a
> big diffrence in group battles.
So why suggest adding repair time? If they're going to run & repair, right now they already lose the 15 seconds or so that it would take to run & buy a new ship. Requiring time to repair wouldn't change anything here.
> The problem is that people can run, go repair, and be back in the midst of the fight
> launching swarms or agting, or whatever (not tacticts that are wrong) within moments.
But if you add repair time, people will still be able to run, go buy a new ship, and be back in the midst of the fight launching swarms or agting, or whatever (not tactics that are wrong) within moments.
> There needs to be a balance. Those who chose to stay and fight it out need to have a
> reason, and a reasonable chance of surviving, or else this game is going to degenerate
> into an ugly mess of players who come in, swarm, and run.
>
> Either that or there needs to be some reward, somehow, for making someone run. But I
> don't have a clue how that would work.
Now here, I very much agree with you. But I don't think repair time would help to achieve the balance. What I think would be a solution, is more combat oriented missions, that do not have a certain kill-count as the objective. That's actually one of the things I'd like to see changed on the Border Patrol mission. Rather than have "kill three enemy ships" as the goal, I think it should be "clear the sector of enemies," and have three enemy bots spawn in the sector for every player taking the mission. So, if only one player is taking the mission, he kills the three bots, sector cleared, mission accomplished. If there's one player on each side, then there's three bots on each side; the players have a nice PvP fight, and if one runs, the remaining player kills the rest of the enemy bots, sector cleared, mission accomplished.
Other missions could have timers on the mission: if one of your foes runs, then they have that much less time to defeat you in the mission, and you become that much more likely to succeed in your mission.
> those who chose to engage in group battles and then bolt when things look desperate.
Why? Why should it detract from your fun if one of your foes runs from you? I honestly have a hard time understanding this. So your kill count doesn't go up. Why does that matter for your fun?
> I feel that this would simply counterbalance the fun/irritation that both sides are feeling.
I disagree. Even if someone running from you detracts from your fun (which I don't understand), detracting from their fun as well would not add to your fun. At least, it should not - if it does, it means you enjoy causing other people to not have fun, which quite frankly, would make you a "bad person" in my opinion. Think about it, we have F, which is the fun players are having in the game. If a player runs, and that subtracts from your fun (again, I don't see why), then F=F-R, where R is the amount of fun you lost because of the runner. What you're suggesting is to also subtract an equal amount of fun from the runner, which means F=F-R-R. You are suggesting removing more fun from the game. That is not a good thing.
> I do agree with you that the playter can simply buy another ship, and head back out.
> But we're a still talking 15 seconds or so to do so. This 15 seconds will still make a
> big diffrence in group battles.
So why suggest adding repair time? If they're going to run & repair, right now they already lose the 15 seconds or so that it would take to run & buy a new ship. Requiring time to repair wouldn't change anything here.
> The problem is that people can run, go repair, and be back in the midst of the fight
> launching swarms or agting, or whatever (not tacticts that are wrong) within moments.
But if you add repair time, people will still be able to run, go buy a new ship, and be back in the midst of the fight launching swarms or agting, or whatever (not tactics that are wrong) within moments.
> There needs to be a balance. Those who chose to stay and fight it out need to have a
> reason, and a reasonable chance of surviving, or else this game is going to degenerate
> into an ugly mess of players who come in, swarm, and run.
>
> Either that or there needs to be some reward, somehow, for making someone run. But I
> don't have a clue how that would work.
Now here, I very much agree with you. But I don't think repair time would help to achieve the balance. What I think would be a solution, is more combat oriented missions, that do not have a certain kill-count as the objective. That's actually one of the things I'd like to see changed on the Border Patrol mission. Rather than have "kill three enemy ships" as the goal, I think it should be "clear the sector of enemies," and have three enemy bots spawn in the sector for every player taking the mission. So, if only one player is taking the mission, he kills the three bots, sector cleared, mission accomplished. If there's one player on each side, then there's three bots on each side; the players have a nice PvP fight, and if one runs, the remaining player kills the rest of the enemy bots, sector cleared, mission accomplished.
Other missions could have timers on the mission: if one of your foes runs, then they have that much less time to defeat you in the mission, and you become that much more likely to succeed in your mission.
I like this idea. A lot! Not because I think that running is bad, not that I think that waiting is good. I like it because without cost in death, living is no fun. I like to know my retarded descisions are going to cost me. I like to feel the pain of lasers eating into the hull of my ship. I like the semi reality that if I slag some guys ride down to nothing but a cockpit and engines he will accually be out of the fight, at least for a little while. Attrition means nothing if the enemy cant die, or stay harmed.
Edit: Though for the same reasons I think repairs should cost money.
Edit: Though for the same reasons I think repairs should cost money.
...which is why there oughta be a small xp penalty for death; 1% of total xp, capped at 500 per license category.
And repairs can cost credits again.
And repairs can cost credits again.
But the problem is, Forlarren, it doesn't make dying more expensive, it makes living more expensive. It would make it quicker and more fun to be killed, than to run & live to fight another day.
[edit]
> ...which is why there oughta be a small xp penalty for death; 1% of total xp, capped at 500 per license category.
Argh, no! /me hates any and all XP penalties. I don't like the ones we have now, on bounty deaths & killing n00bs (although the killing n00bs one doesn't bother me as much as the bounty deaths). Losing XP is incredibly frustrating to me, even if it's only a small amount.
[/edit]
[edit]
> ...which is why there oughta be a small xp penalty for death; 1% of total xp, capped at 500 per license category.
Argh, no! /me hates any and all XP penalties. I don't like the ones we have now, on bounty deaths & killing n00bs (although the killing n00bs one doesn't bother me as much as the bounty deaths). Losing XP is incredibly frustrating to me, even if it's only a small amount.
[/edit]
I may be sick but I vote for all 3 combined. Make death hurt. Would require a rebalance though. Tougher ships, less death overall but more costly death.
@ Beolach: Thats because the economy is very poorly balanced.
@ Beolach: Thats because the economy is very poorly balanced.
No, I'm not talking about expensive as in game-money, I'm talking about the actual cost of dying - you want it to be something that actually means something, because it has a penalty. I'm saying that making repairs require time doesn't give dying a penalty, it gives living a penalty.
Ok what about escape pods then. Every time you loose a ship your ejected. Unless an enemy destroyes you, you would have to travel back to a station and buy a ship, or travel back to a station that has a ship of yours in storage. If you are destroyed in your escape pod you are returned to your home station in 10sec. You would loose all XP from the last time you saved. Saving your XP state would cost X$. Basicly the system from Star Wars Galaxies. Heck if you want me to I can even write up the techno babble that would explain the cloning process and brain recorder stuff. I have a copy of transhuman space lying around here somewhere.
I agree with Beolach, the problem with Snax's original suggestion is that it makes dying a better option than living. That makes no sense.
Argh, no! /me hates any and all XP penalties.
Hey, BioCom claims to have a 99% or better memory recovery rate at all its cloning facilities, but you can't expect to be atomized and retain every single one of your neurons.
Seriously though, why the strong aversion to an xp penalty? Money takes time to earn, xp takes time to earn. How is having an xp penalty any different from the penalty incurred by the cost of your ship? Each one takes at least a little time to recoup. This is something that can be balanced.
Snax: We do agree on this then, that somehow, running needs to be a victory for the person you are running from (except in the case of traders running from pirates).
Yep... in combat if your enemy retreats, it's your victory. They may have cut their losses but they've given up their ground.
Argh, no! /me hates any and all XP penalties.
Hey, BioCom claims to have a 99% or better memory recovery rate at all its cloning facilities, but you can't expect to be atomized and retain every single one of your neurons.
Seriously though, why the strong aversion to an xp penalty? Money takes time to earn, xp takes time to earn. How is having an xp penalty any different from the penalty incurred by the cost of your ship? Each one takes at least a little time to recoup. This is something that can be balanced.
Snax: We do agree on this then, that somehow, running needs to be a victory for the person you are running from (except in the case of traders running from pirates).
Yep... in combat if your enemy retreats, it's your victory. They may have cut their losses but they've given up their ground.
Re: Forlarren
Escape pods & a delay on reviving yourself after dying have been suggested before, and they have the problem of time spent not having fun. If death was a rare thing, it wouldn't be much of a problem, and I would agree with you that it would add more fun to escaping death. But, in VO death is an incredibly common thing, and it would require a massive amount of changes to make death rare, and it would dramatically change the type of game VO is. I'm pretty sure the devs have said that they don't want to make death something that has much of a penalty.
The thing is, VO is actually intended to be a hybrid of the FPS and RPG genres. In most RPGs, death is very rare, and can therefore have a large penalty, so that when players come close to dying, but ultimately escape death, they get a big rush from it. But in FPS games, the fun comes from killing your foes, not escaping death yourself. VO has the twitch based combat of a FPS game, but twitch based combat is most enjoyable when the player doesn't have to be too concerned about dying. If I'm in a fight and I'm down to 5% health, and my enemy is at 20% health, I'm probably going to lose - but I might still be able to pull of a win. Because the game has twitch based combat, I would rather stay & try for the win, hoping I can prove I am skilled enough to pull of the win. But if death has a big penalty, then I would have to run from the fight, which to me means admitting defeat, and is therefore less fun.
So anyway, unless the game was changed dramatically, I would be opposed to making death having much more of a penalty.
[edit]
Re: Phaserlight
> Seriously though, why the strong aversion to an xp penalty? Money takes time to earn, xp
> takes time to earn. How is having an xp penalty any different from the penalty
> incurred by the cost of your ship? Each one takes at least a little time to recoup. This is
> something that can be balanced.
The difference is my expectations. I expect to spend money, which means I'm going to have to earn more money to recoup what I've spent. I do not expect to lose XP. Therefore, if I did lose it, it would be a big frustration to me. Yeah, it is possible for me to change my expectations, but it's not easy.
[/edit]
Escape pods & a delay on reviving yourself after dying have been suggested before, and they have the problem of time spent not having fun. If death was a rare thing, it wouldn't be much of a problem, and I would agree with you that it would add more fun to escaping death. But, in VO death is an incredibly common thing, and it would require a massive amount of changes to make death rare, and it would dramatically change the type of game VO is. I'm pretty sure the devs have said that they don't want to make death something that has much of a penalty.
The thing is, VO is actually intended to be a hybrid of the FPS and RPG genres. In most RPGs, death is very rare, and can therefore have a large penalty, so that when players come close to dying, but ultimately escape death, they get a big rush from it. But in FPS games, the fun comes from killing your foes, not escaping death yourself. VO has the twitch based combat of a FPS game, but twitch based combat is most enjoyable when the player doesn't have to be too concerned about dying. If I'm in a fight and I'm down to 5% health, and my enemy is at 20% health, I'm probably going to lose - but I might still be able to pull of a win. Because the game has twitch based combat, I would rather stay & try for the win, hoping I can prove I am skilled enough to pull of the win. But if death has a big penalty, then I would have to run from the fight, which to me means admitting defeat, and is therefore less fun.
So anyway, unless the game was changed dramatically, I would be opposed to making death having much more of a penalty.
[edit]
Re: Phaserlight
> Seriously though, why the strong aversion to an xp penalty? Money takes time to earn, xp
> takes time to earn. How is having an xp penalty any different from the penalty
> incurred by the cost of your ship? Each one takes at least a little time to recoup. This is
> something that can be balanced.
The difference is my expectations. I expect to spend money, which means I'm going to have to earn more money to recoup what I've spent. I do not expect to lose XP. Therefore, if I did lose it, it would be a big frustration to me. Yeah, it is possible for me to change my expectations, but it's not easy.
[/edit]
to answer, the part of why the kill matters, I'll copy something I posted to another forum not so long ago, slightly rewritten:
we had people flying from Jallik to Sedina to get back to the fight to bring their preferd layout back. yeah, they left us outnumbered in the meantime, but so what? noone _wins_ a furball in VO, everyone respawns and comes back anyway. the objective should, in my not-so-humble opinion, be to have a darn good fight. and it's when we're down in red, counting the ammo or counting your enemies ammo, and staring at that armor bar, that's when your ticker really starts to pump.
stick it out, maybe you turn the tables. heck, Duncan had once of those on me the other night. a great comeback aided by a sloppy Alamar and we got the first flarehit of the fight, suddenly the AGT was there and another flareset. I think I was at like 60-70% and Duncan in deep red, didn't matter, he stuck it out and popped me.
these things don't happen when people run. you don't get those gritty close calls where every inch matters. you don't get to pull through the crap.
dying is harmless in VO. it costs nothing. if people want to RP someone who fears something that happens to hundreds of pilots every day, fine, but if you are involved in fighting, you should be perpared to die.
we had people flying from Jallik to Sedina to get back to the fight to bring their preferd layout back. yeah, they left us outnumbered in the meantime, but so what? noone _wins_ a furball in VO, everyone respawns and comes back anyway. the objective should, in my not-so-humble opinion, be to have a darn good fight. and it's when we're down in red, counting the ammo or counting your enemies ammo, and staring at that armor bar, that's when your ticker really starts to pump.
stick it out, maybe you turn the tables. heck, Duncan had once of those on me the other night. a great comeback aided by a sloppy Alamar and we got the first flarehit of the fight, suddenly the AGT was there and another flareset. I think I was at like 60-70% and Duncan in deep red, didn't matter, he stuck it out and popped me.
these things don't happen when people run. you don't get those gritty close calls where every inch matters. you don't get to pull through the crap.
dying is harmless in VO. it costs nothing. if people want to RP someone who fears something that happens to hundreds of pilots every day, fine, but if you are involved in fighting, you should be perpared to die.
in what RPGs is death rare? WoW has a lot of them, and they don't get fewer once you start to do MC runs? a buddy of mine had his guild wipe around 40 times on Onyxia last weekend, over two nights. that's more deaths per night than Alamar usually goes through.
in PVP group battles, people die quite a bit. yeah, people run and heal, but it's not like VO where running away is a press of a button.
in all online games, death happens. if you're going to RP someone who fears death, *why*? dying in the VO universe is less severe than having a haircut in RL.
in PVP group battles, people die quite a bit. yeah, people run and heal, but it's not like VO where running away is a press of a button.
in all online games, death happens. if you're going to RP someone who fears death, *why*? dying in the VO universe is less severe than having a haircut in RL.
I still don't understand why the actual kill matters. If your foe runs, why is that any less a win for you than if they boom?
> these things don't happen when people run.
Correction, these things don't happen when ALL people run. I mean, we already have people who run, and you still had that experience with Duncan. Do you seriously expect it to ever get to the point where EVERYONE runs? I highly doubt it. I don't think Alamar, Shape, tramshed, and dozens of other characters, including Beolach, are the runner type. Whether repairing takes time or not, some players will run, and others will not.
> noone _wins_ a furball
That's actually something I want to see changed. I'd love to see missions that give a purpose, and a clear victory, to furballs. As it is, Beolach rarely gets involved in furballs, because mostly furballs take place in Sedina B-8 and don't have any point, other than just the fight itself, and Beolach doesn't fight for the sake of fighting, nor does he usually go past Odia into the Serco side of grey space. I would love to have a reason to take Beolach into more furballs.
> in what RPGs is death rare? WoW has a lot of them, and they don't get fewer once you
> start to do MC runs? a buddy of mine had his guild wipe around 40 times on Onyxia last
> weekend, over two nights. that's more deaths per night than Alamar usually goes through.
It depends on the player and the game. I myself don't play WoW, but I know people who do. Some of them die a lot, others not very much. I'm guessing your friend plays on a PvP server, right? My friends who play on PvP servers tend to die a lot more than my friends who play on PvE servers. But WoW isn't representative of all RPGs. When I play NWN, Baldurs Gate, Nethack, table-top D&D, and many many other RPGs, I almost never die. And most of the times I die (depending on the game), that character doesn't get revived, I start a new one. Or load a save game ;-)
> these things don't happen when people run.
Correction, these things don't happen when ALL people run. I mean, we already have people who run, and you still had that experience with Duncan. Do you seriously expect it to ever get to the point where EVERYONE runs? I highly doubt it. I don't think Alamar, Shape, tramshed, and dozens of other characters, including Beolach, are the runner type. Whether repairing takes time or not, some players will run, and others will not.
> noone _wins_ a furball
That's actually something I want to see changed. I'd love to see missions that give a purpose, and a clear victory, to furballs. As it is, Beolach rarely gets involved in furballs, because mostly furballs take place in Sedina B-8 and don't have any point, other than just the fight itself, and Beolach doesn't fight for the sake of fighting, nor does he usually go past Odia into the Serco side of grey space. I would love to have a reason to take Beolach into more furballs.
> in what RPGs is death rare? WoW has a lot of them, and they don't get fewer once you
> start to do MC runs? a buddy of mine had his guild wipe around 40 times on Onyxia last
> weekend, over two nights. that's more deaths per night than Alamar usually goes through.
It depends on the player and the game. I myself don't play WoW, but I know people who do. Some of them die a lot, others not very much. I'm guessing your friend plays on a PvP server, right? My friends who play on PvP servers tend to die a lot more than my friends who play on PvE servers. But WoW isn't representative of all RPGs. When I play NWN, Baldurs Gate, Nethack, table-top D&D, and many many other RPGs, I almost never die. And most of the times I die (depending on the game), that character doesn't get revived, I start a new one. Or load a save game ;-)
Heres a thought, if you shoot someone, and leave the sector before they die or leave the sector, you lose the same amount of xp you would for a bounty. That would make it so traders wouldnt have to worry bout running from pesky pirates, and it would very quickly make more sense to stick out a fight and enjoy it than to spam and run. You would need some kind of command for those consentual fights where both people want to fight to say 20% or so to allow them to still do this. You might also want to make it not apply for mines, that way traders can still defend themselves (mines are pretty much defense only) This would condone consentual fighting, make the spam and run deal quickly become costly, and stop a lot of the annoying things that come with those who perpetually run. It would also make people who use purely ammo based setups be anything but spammers, since once they are out of ammo, they either stick it out and die, or run and lose a bit of xp.
save game = respawn so is a ressurect spell/spot.
Besides you have to make a difference with rpgs where a death means a game over or a death means practically nothing. Where it means practically nothing deaths will be more numerous and not feared and in those type of games running is not done much since it makes you loose the game. If you run in baldurs gate from encounters you can't since in most of them you are stuck in a little cage locked up so to say or entangled, sleep or some of those other conditions . Gates shut, so the only option is fighting and prevailing, if you fail... reloadtime. Reload is interpreted in here as a respawn.
---- offtopic (just had fun with it :D) -------------------------
PS: going back on your calculation of fun, sorry didn't see it before and im a sucker for mathematics and equations :D.
a) F1 = F-R (fun lost due to a runner)
b) F2 = F-X (with x being fun subtracted from the runner)
--> F = F2 + X
use b on a --> F1 = F2 + X - R or F1 = F2 - (R - X)
If R - X = 0 then both people will have the same fun. If nobody runs, both people wil have the same fun. If somebody runs then the fun will still be equal due to the subtraction of fun due to running.
Now if we make X = 0 then we are making it so that only the person that runs comes out better. Although someone else can always contestate the previous by stating that having to stick costs them fun while it creates fun for the other person etc... so as a result, forget about equations :D.
Besides you have to make a difference with rpgs where a death means a game over or a death means practically nothing. Where it means practically nothing deaths will be more numerous and not feared and in those type of games running is not done much since it makes you loose the game. If you run in baldurs gate from encounters you can't since in most of them you are stuck in a little cage locked up so to say or entangled, sleep or some of those other conditions . Gates shut, so the only option is fighting and prevailing, if you fail... reloadtime. Reload is interpreted in here as a respawn.
---- offtopic (just had fun with it :D) -------------------------
PS: going back on your calculation of fun, sorry didn't see it before and im a sucker for mathematics and equations :D.
a) F1 = F-R (fun lost due to a runner)
b) F2 = F-X (with x being fun subtracted from the runner)
--> F = F2 + X
use b on a --> F1 = F2 + X - R or F1 = F2 - (R - X)
If R - X = 0 then both people will have the same fun. If nobody runs, both people wil have the same fun. If somebody runs then the fun will still be equal due to the subtraction of fun due to running.
Now if we make X = 0 then we are making it so that only the person that runs comes out better. Although someone else can always contestate the previous by stating that having to stick costs them fun while it creates fun for the other person etc... so as a result, forget about equations :D.