Forums » Suggestions
For the record, I did mean exactly what Dr. Lecter assumed I meant. I apologize for not making it so undeniably clear as to be proof against the diversionary tactics of flitty little twits.
"Your proposed gameplay addition would disincentivize Trident use."
Not really. On the one hand, the time cost of repairing one would be more than the 500k of insurance, but on the other hand, it includes no rate limiting. If you've stocked up on spare parts, you could potentially wreck and repair your Trident multiple times in the same day. Even if you haven't stockpiled parts, you could still repair it from scratch multiple times a week.
This would be worse for some people (the sort who prefer to not play the game much), but better for everybody else.
"Your proposed gameplay addition would disincentivize Trident use."
Not really. On the one hand, the time cost of repairing one would be more than the 500k of insurance, but on the other hand, it includes no rate limiting. If you've stocked up on spare parts, you could potentially wreck and repair your Trident multiple times in the same day. Even if you haven't stockpiled parts, you could still repair it from scratch multiple times a week.
This would be worse for some people (the sort who prefer to not play the game much), but better for everybody else.
-1 Until the trident is better able to defend itself i.e. better turret fire options & placement, better shields, better sensors.
Well you know my arguments are effective when Rin defaults to his "diversionary" insults. Kinda like how Lecter falls to ad hominem insults when he has nothing left in his arsenal. News flash Rin: as someone who has invested themself and regularly uses a Trident (unlike YOU and unlike Lecter), it is only reasonable that I would defend my (and many others) gameplay against birdbrained ideas such as this one. Trying to paint my opposition as "diversionary" is the coward's way out of a debate. Disagreement is not diversion.
Frankly, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you should build and use a trident before you start expounding on what you think would be good change to befit them. Instead of having the interest of the game as a whole at heart, this suggestion really just reeks of the disgruntled envy of someone who is unwilling to grind out a Trident (i.e. laziness). But I digress, getting to specifics:
People don't bring tridents to bear often enough already, and when they do many of them run as soon as their shields are dropped. Why is this? It's because it's a pain in the fucking ass to replace them (a point I've explained fully and is in direct contrast to your reasoning for the OP). This proposal not only makes it MORE of a pain in the ass to replace it (let alone repair it with your ridiculous idea of hauling capship parts to it which nobody will ever do), but also would require players take a collegiate-level course to understand what the fuck to do if someone shoots their trident down to your magically indestructible "NPC state".
If you are going to make a Trident death a 12-hour long event you will effectively kill any incentive to bring a Trident to any combat situation.
On the one hand, the time cost of repairing one would be more than the 500k of insurance, but on the other hand, it includes no rate limiting.
That doesn't make any sense. There is no established metric for a game time to credits conversion. Unless you mean it would take more time to repair it under your proposal than it would to go replace it under the current system, which of course is accurate (and supports my position, not yours). And [repair/replace] rate limits are a moot point as well, since currently we don't have any effective limit (I believe it's one trident every 7 minutes or so, IIRC), nor should we for that matter.
This would be worse for some people (the sort who prefer to not play the game much), but better for everybody else.
Feel free to back up that very generalized statement with some examples, otherwise I call BS.
Nothing you have said supports your denial that Trident use would be disincentivized. Try again.
Frankly, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you should build and use a trident before you start expounding on what you think would be good change to befit them. Instead of having the interest of the game as a whole at heart, this suggestion really just reeks of the disgruntled envy of someone who is unwilling to grind out a Trident (i.e. laziness). But I digress, getting to specifics:
People don't bring tridents to bear often enough already, and when they do many of them run as soon as their shields are dropped. Why is this? It's because it's a pain in the fucking ass to replace them (a point I've explained fully and is in direct contrast to your reasoning for the OP). This proposal not only makes it MORE of a pain in the ass to replace it (let alone repair it with your ridiculous idea of hauling capship parts to it which nobody will ever do), but also would require players take a collegiate-level course to understand what the fuck to do if someone shoots their trident down to your magically indestructible "NPC state".
If you are going to make a Trident death a 12-hour long event you will effectively kill any incentive to bring a Trident to any combat situation.
On the one hand, the time cost of repairing one would be more than the 500k of insurance, but on the other hand, it includes no rate limiting.
That doesn't make any sense. There is no established metric for a game time to credits conversion. Unless you mean it would take more time to repair it under your proposal than it would to go replace it under the current system, which of course is accurate (and supports my position, not yours). And [repair/replace] rate limits are a moot point as well, since currently we don't have any effective limit (I believe it's one trident every 7 minutes or so, IIRC), nor should we for that matter.
This would be worse for some people (the sort who prefer to not play the game much), but better for everybody else.
Feel free to back up that very generalized statement with some examples, otherwise I call BS.
Nothing you have said supports your denial that Trident use would be disincentivized. Try again.
Greenwall: the Donald J. Drumpf of VO. Regardless of the facts, simply repeat the same debunked argument over and over, hoping you can finally declare victory when the rest of the thread ignores you and moves on.
Example Z-9, below.
Example Z-9, below.
While it must apparently work for you with some success in other areas of your life, I regret to inform you that calling someone stupid doesn't actually debunk an argument. You might as well just write "I'm a dick who has nothing valuable to add." on a piece of paper and tape it to your shirt.
What a shining, perfect example of respecting Inc's "be nice" rules!
A few certain people's feelings are probably wreckages by now. I wonder if they are repairable?
A few certain people's feelings are probably wreckages by now. I wonder if they are repairable?
"Trying to paint my opposition as "diversionary" is the coward's way out of a debate. Disagreement is not diversion."
The thing is, the point you were choosing to attack has nothing to do with the actual debate. The only reason I brought up the bit about Tridents being one of the only major beneficial accomplishments was to explain to KB why Tridents shouldn't be made trivial to manufacture and destroy (at least not at this time). Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that I meant gameplay benefits, not just emotional benefits. Pointing out that there are plenty of useless feel-good accomplishments does not offer any support toward your stance of not altering Trident destruction/repair. And you're smart enough to understand that. Therefor you were either rabidly attacking any angle you could get a grip on, or you were intentionally trying to distract from the actual discussion. And then you called me the coward. Heh.
"this suggestion really just reeks of the disgruntled envy of someone who is unwilling to grind out a Trident (i.e. laziness)."
Incorrect; I am only mildly envious and not disgruntled at all. Regardless, my emotional state has no bearing on whether or not the suggestion has merit. You've asked in the past for examples of your dishonest tendencies; now you have two examples to examine. You're welcome.
Next I will explain what I meant by "On the one hand, the time cost of repairing one would be more than the 500k of insurance, but on the other hand, it includes no rate limiting."
Regarding the time cost part, my proposal was for the amount of hauling needed (minus any station-conquest) to require about four hours if you started from scratch and only used moths. You are correct that there is no standard time-credits conversion rate, but I think we can all agree that four hours of labor is worth more than 500k credits.
As for the rate-limiting, I was under the impression that you could still only replace your Trident once a week. If that has changed, then this suggestion would indeed slow things down rather than speeding things up. But compared to what I believed to be the once per week limit, this suggestion would let you be much more cavalier with your Trident if you have time in the week to repair it (time which is significantly lessened by preparing ahead of time while you still have access to the Trident).
If you are right about the cooldown only being seven minutes instead of seven days, then your complaints about this making things worse make more sense. However, though I think a seven day cooldown is overly harsh, I think a seven minute cooldown is overly weak.
"but also would require players take a collegiate-level course to understand what the fuck to do if someone shoots their trident down to your magically indestructible "NPC state"."
That's very hyperbolic, though I understand why you might be confused. The OP was unnecessarily complex, but what I'm asking for now is not very complex at all. I know that reading and understanding the OP and then reading and understanding the amendments I proposed later is a lot of work, so I'll just re-explain what I'm actually asking for at this point to make things simpler for you. (I'm splitting that into its own post so I can edit a link directly to it into the OP.)
The thing is, the point you were choosing to attack has nothing to do with the actual debate. The only reason I brought up the bit about Tridents being one of the only major beneficial accomplishments was to explain to KB why Tridents shouldn't be made trivial to manufacture and destroy (at least not at this time). Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that I meant gameplay benefits, not just emotional benefits. Pointing out that there are plenty of useless feel-good accomplishments does not offer any support toward your stance of not altering Trident destruction/repair. And you're smart enough to understand that. Therefor you were either rabidly attacking any angle you could get a grip on, or you were intentionally trying to distract from the actual discussion. And then you called me the coward. Heh.
"this suggestion really just reeks of the disgruntled envy of someone who is unwilling to grind out a Trident (i.e. laziness)."
Incorrect; I am only mildly envious and not disgruntled at all. Regardless, my emotional state has no bearing on whether or not the suggestion has merit. You've asked in the past for examples of your dishonest tendencies; now you have two examples to examine. You're welcome.
Next I will explain what I meant by "On the one hand, the time cost of repairing one would be more than the 500k of insurance, but on the other hand, it includes no rate limiting."
Regarding the time cost part, my proposal was for the amount of hauling needed (minus any station-conquest) to require about four hours if you started from scratch and only used moths. You are correct that there is no standard time-credits conversion rate, but I think we can all agree that four hours of labor is worth more than 500k credits.
As for the rate-limiting, I was under the impression that you could still only replace your Trident once a week. If that has changed, then this suggestion would indeed slow things down rather than speeding things up. But compared to what I believed to be the once per week limit, this suggestion would let you be much more cavalier with your Trident if you have time in the week to repair it (time which is significantly lessened by preparing ahead of time while you still have access to the Trident).
If you are right about the cooldown only being seven minutes instead of seven days, then your complaints about this making things worse make more sense. However, though I think a seven day cooldown is overly harsh, I think a seven minute cooldown is overly weak.
"but also would require players take a collegiate-level course to understand what the fuck to do if someone shoots their trident down to your magically indestructible "NPC state"."
That's very hyperbolic, though I understand why you might be confused. The OP was unnecessarily complex, but what I'm asking for now is not very complex at all. I know that reading and understanding the OP and then reading and understanding the amendments I proposed later is a lot of work, so I'll just re-explain what I'm actually asking for at this point to make things simpler for you. (I'm splitting that into its own post so I can edit a link directly to it into the OP.)
1) When your Trident reaches 0%, everybody inside of it dies, and any cargo is jettisoned (undroppable cargo being destroyed). As for equipment, at minimum the powercell should not be affected. Turrets and weapons could optionally be destroyed and have random chances of dropping, but I'm fine with leaving them be -- not having to replace them may help offset the hassle of repairing the Trident.
2) Instead of exploding, the Trident switches to NPC-mode the same as it does when you undock. It stays at 0% (so that it smokes), applies brakes, and just sits there unreactive. The shield should not return, and weapons and repair guns should be ignored. Perhaps its name could change to indicate that it is a wreckage. (A visibly damaged model would be nice someday in the distant future; maybe a heavily scorched texture in the not quite as distant future.)
3) The Trident would still respect its keychain for the purposes of docking, but turrets should be unusable. (Otherwise it would be an invulnerable turret platform.)
4) Upon docking, the player would be presented with a list of parts the Trident needs, randomly selected from a subset of the ingredients Tridents are made out of. The number of parts should be "reasonable"; what is reasonable is up for debate. I propose resources that would take about four hours to acquire starting from scratch on your own with nothing bigger than a Behemoth or XC to haul them, with the total volume to be delivered in the range of 1000cu+ (so that it takes multiple trips to the Trident wreckage). These should be able to be delivered by anybody who can dock (so your friends can help).
5) After delivering the parts, the Trident is restored to 100% health and normality, preferably with the shield down at first (i.e., treat it as though the shield just got dropped). But the shield being down is mostly an immersion thing; if that part is too onerous, it could be ignored.
6) As an alternative to repairing the Trident, the user should have the option of taking a "Roidside Assistance" mission from any capship-station for a 500k fee or so. This mission would remove the Trident wreckage from space. Seven days later, the player will see a "Retrieve My Trident" mission that would restore the Trident to their station inventory, minus any gear. (Bonus points if this can be automated without needing to manually take the second mission.) The purpose of this set of missions is to recover Tridents that are lost under circumstances that make it impossible or impractical to repair them, as well as to offer an alternative to people who just really don't want to haul any more things ever again.
7) To avoid littering the game with abandoned Trident wreckages, after two weeks of not being repaired, a Trident wreckage should be de-spawned, forcing the user to use the "Roidside Assistance" method of recovering their Trident (though the delay could be skipped at that point).
2) Instead of exploding, the Trident switches to NPC-mode the same as it does when you undock. It stays at 0% (so that it smokes), applies brakes, and just sits there unreactive. The shield should not return, and weapons and repair guns should be ignored. Perhaps its name could change to indicate that it is a wreckage. (A visibly damaged model would be nice someday in the distant future; maybe a heavily scorched texture in the not quite as distant future.)
3) The Trident would still respect its keychain for the purposes of docking, but turrets should be unusable. (Otherwise it would be an invulnerable turret platform.)
4) Upon docking, the player would be presented with a list of parts the Trident needs, randomly selected from a subset of the ingredients Tridents are made out of. The number of parts should be "reasonable"; what is reasonable is up for debate. I propose resources that would take about four hours to acquire starting from scratch on your own with nothing bigger than a Behemoth or XC to haul them, with the total volume to be delivered in the range of 1000cu+ (so that it takes multiple trips to the Trident wreckage). These should be able to be delivered by anybody who can dock (so your friends can help).
5) After delivering the parts, the Trident is restored to 100% health and normality, preferably with the shield down at first (i.e., treat it as though the shield just got dropped). But the shield being down is mostly an immersion thing; if that part is too onerous, it could be ignored.
6) As an alternative to repairing the Trident, the user should have the option of taking a "Roidside Assistance" mission from any capship-station for a 500k fee or so. This mission would remove the Trident wreckage from space. Seven days later, the player will see a "Retrieve My Trident" mission that would restore the Trident to their station inventory, minus any gear. (Bonus points if this can be automated without needing to manually take the second mission.) The purpose of this set of missions is to recover Tridents that are lost under circumstances that make it impossible or impractical to repair them, as well as to offer an alternative to people who just really don't want to haul any more things ever again.
7) To avoid littering the game with abandoned Trident wreckages, after two weeks of not being repaired, a Trident wreckage should be de-spawned, forcing the user to use the "Roidside Assistance" method of recovering their Trident (though the delay could be skipped at that point).
So, far from needing a "collegiate-level course" to understand what to do, all somebody who loses their Trident needs to do is fly to their Trident, dock, read the list of parts it wants, then haul in the parts (while evading any enemies who might try to stop them, as usual). Simple.
I don't have a 'dent, but this sounds like an (a) reasonable idea that will (b) improve immersion, (c) make 'dent death a little bit more painful but not too much so, and (d) create interesting gameplay.
+1
+1
How about before you +1 this post you a) Go build a trident b)park it somewhere and let it be destroyed c) Go recover it d) Then come tell us what a good idea this is
I have a trident and died in it number of times. I certainly approve of this idea. I would appreciate some extra gameplay actually arising from dying. It's like a mini-game. I don't get why you would reject pizza's ideas, unless you just don't want to play VO? In which case you should probably simply log off and take a lengthy break from it.
unless you just don't want to play VO?
lol....
lol....
My objection is that hauling parts is not remotely entertaining or fun. I sucked it up, did the grind and got a trident. Now you would like require even more hauling after trident destruction. That to me and I'm guessing a few others would pretty much just make the game suck donkey balls.
How about let's add the variants and the nerfs and the stations and the economy and all the other stuff that has been told would happen over the last few years instead of trying to make the one task that after months of work should be easy more difficult.
If you are that bored that having to rebuild your trident sounds fun maybe you should take a break.
How about let's add the variants and the nerfs and the stations and the economy and all the other stuff that has been told would happen over the last few years instead of trying to make the one task that after months of work should be easy more difficult.
If you are that bored that having to rebuild your trident sounds fun maybe you should take a break.
I'll comment on the suggestion as evolved, I suppose.
1) My main point earlier was that while trident ownership was one of only two objectively useful accomplishments (the other being finely honed PvP skills), it's worth protecting the benefits of trident ownership simply because it's the only thing VO has that really offers a traditional 'grind until you're uber by virtue of gear the game gives you, not your own skills' model. As much fun as twitch PvP is, a lot of RPG players want to become a force to be reckoned with simply because they played really hard - even if, like a lot of trident owners, PvP is never going to be their strength. Regardless of your feelings about the merits of that style of play relative to twitch ability, the importance of catering to those players (both in terms of money and in-game activity) cannot be ignored.
2) So, it was troubling that the initial suggestion made it awfully easy to permanently lose the trident, either due to successful theft or a failure to repair. These are players who will never "win" at the VO game of spacequake, and giving them some OP gear to fly around in and haul stuff invulnerably in makes them feel good and helps keep them as paying players.
3) Now it seems like the suggestion is less about making trident owners risk actually losing a trident and more about how painful the destruction of one will be in terms of time and credits. The current tiny delay and unchanging, paltry credits fee for replacing a trident is obviously flawed and needs fixing. But I'm not sure a mini-game that involves trying to fly XCs of parts into a wreck is either necessary or desirable. I'd rather see the current insurance mission tweaked to have sliding penalties in both time and credits.
4) Stealing tridents is desirable, but I think it'd have to be hard to do AND not deprive the original owner of their ability to gain a new one through insurance. Maybe it'd cost more money/time for them, but never that they'd have to completely make a new trident over again. As for the thief, the stolen trident would not have any insurance attached to it - it'd be yours only so long as you kept that particular hull alive.
1) My main point earlier was that while trident ownership was one of only two objectively useful accomplishments (the other being finely honed PvP skills), it's worth protecting the benefits of trident ownership simply because it's the only thing VO has that really offers a traditional 'grind until you're uber by virtue of gear the game gives you, not your own skills' model. As much fun as twitch PvP is, a lot of RPG players want to become a force to be reckoned with simply because they played really hard - even if, like a lot of trident owners, PvP is never going to be their strength. Regardless of your feelings about the merits of that style of play relative to twitch ability, the importance of catering to those players (both in terms of money and in-game activity) cannot be ignored.
2) So, it was troubling that the initial suggestion made it awfully easy to permanently lose the trident, either due to successful theft or a failure to repair. These are players who will never "win" at the VO game of spacequake, and giving them some OP gear to fly around in and haul stuff invulnerably in makes them feel good and helps keep them as paying players.
3) Now it seems like the suggestion is less about making trident owners risk actually losing a trident and more about how painful the destruction of one will be in terms of time and credits. The current tiny delay and unchanging, paltry credits fee for replacing a trident is obviously flawed and needs fixing. But I'm not sure a mini-game that involves trying to fly XCs of parts into a wreck is either necessary or desirable. I'd rather see the current insurance mission tweaked to have sliding penalties in both time and credits.
4) Stealing tridents is desirable, but I think it'd have to be hard to do AND not deprive the original owner of their ability to gain a new one through insurance. Maybe it'd cost more money/time for them, but never that they'd have to completely make a new trident over again. As for the thief, the stolen trident would not have any insurance attached to it - it'd be yours only so long as you kept that particular hull alive.
1) My main point earlier was that while trident ownership was one of only two objectively useful accomplishments (the other being finely honed PvP skills), it's worth protecting the benefits of trident ownership simply because it's the only thing VO has that really offers a traditional 'grind until you're uber by virtue of gear the game gives you, not your own skills' model. As much fun as twitch PvP is, a lot of RPG players want to become a force to be reckoned with simply because they played really hard - even if, like a lot of trident owners, PvP is never going to be their strength. Regardless of your feelings about the merits of that style of play relative to twitch ability, the importance of catering to those players (both in terms of money and in-game activity) cannot be ignored.
Can you possibly be any more of a condescending prick?
Can you possibly be any more of a condescending prick?
@rin
The thing is, the point you were choosing to attack has nothing to do with the actual debate. The only reason I brought up the bit about Tridents being one of the only major beneficial accomplishments was to explain to KB why Tridents shouldn't be made trivial to manufacture and destroy (at least not at this time).
Comments about other peoples comments happen. It wasn't meant to be anything more than it was. The only reason it was discussed any further was because Lecter felt the need to continue the discussion by commenting on MY comment -- yet you somehow exempt him from being "intentionally distracting", presumably because he agreed with you (/you with him). So you can kindly fuck off on that point.
Incorrect; I am only mildly envious and not disgruntled at all. Regardless, my emotional state has no bearing on whether or not the suggestion has merit.
I wasn't commenting on your emotional state as much as I was speculating on your motivations for formulating the suggestion in the first place, and pointing that it is worth considering that they come from a place that lacks experience building and using a Trident. It was more of an aside really, which is why I said "I digress.". I'd say that was pretty honest of me. Kindly fuck off again.
Your inability to suspend the presumption that "I'm always trying to dishonestly sabatoge arguments of yours with which I disagree" is something you really should try to overcome, because it is not helping anything.
If you are right about the cooldown only being seven minutes instead of seven days, then your complaints about this making things worse make more sense. However, though I think a seven day cooldown is overly harsh, I think a seven minute cooldown is overly weak.
"If" I am right? lol. Now who's being dishonest? The honest thing would be to admit that you don't have any experience building / using the Trident so this suggestion should be take with a grain of salt. Or, at the very least, be more open to criticism from those who do have (and continue to have) those experiences.
"but also would require players take a collegiate-level course to understand what the fuck to do if someone shoots their trident down to your magically indestructible "NPC state"."
That's very hyperbolic,
Of course it's hyperbolic. It wouldn't LITERALLY require a collegiate-level course. What you are asking for is still complex compared to the current state of things: Trident re-acquisition requiring either: hauling various, expensive cargo OR taking a mission and THEN waiting seven days. I'm not saying I can't understand it, I'm saying it's much more complex (both as gameplay and also from a development standpoint) than the current iteration.
Lecter's point #3 above (6:08PM comment) speaks to this point.
@lecter
The current tiny delay and unchanging, paltry credits fee for replacing a trident is obviously flawed and needs fixing.
While this might make sense from a place of realism (and despite Incarnate stating the replacement cost was set artifically low), you cannot ignore the cost to gameplay that increased fees and delays will result in.
Is it really a problem that people can retrieve their trident from the grave within about 10 minutes or so? Are people actually suffering from this, or is it really just "a matter of principle"?
Fact: Multiplayer gameplay is enhanced by Trident use more often than not. You hurt Trident use, you hurt the game.
_______
Now, Rin's desire to make a Trident death more of an event than a boring "fly-to-m7-and-pay-500k" is a worthy attempt to enhance the game. More gameplay is good. This is just not the right way to do it.
Here's how I would be on board with the OP: If this manner of revival was the result of a decision the Trident captain made that, if he succeeded, would bring him greater gains. In other words, you gotta offer Trident captains something to motivate them to taking the increased risk on, otherwise it's just flatout increasing the pain of Trident loss --> and they will keep their Tridents idle.
The thing is, the point you were choosing to attack has nothing to do with the actual debate. The only reason I brought up the bit about Tridents being one of the only major beneficial accomplishments was to explain to KB why Tridents shouldn't be made trivial to manufacture and destroy (at least not at this time).
Comments about other peoples comments happen. It wasn't meant to be anything more than it was. The only reason it was discussed any further was because Lecter felt the need to continue the discussion by commenting on MY comment -- yet you somehow exempt him from being "intentionally distracting", presumably because he agreed with you (/you with him). So you can kindly fuck off on that point.
Incorrect; I am only mildly envious and not disgruntled at all. Regardless, my emotional state has no bearing on whether or not the suggestion has merit.
I wasn't commenting on your emotional state as much as I was speculating on your motivations for formulating the suggestion in the first place, and pointing that it is worth considering that they come from a place that lacks experience building and using a Trident. It was more of an aside really, which is why I said "I digress.". I'd say that was pretty honest of me. Kindly fuck off again.
Your inability to suspend the presumption that "I'm always trying to dishonestly sabatoge arguments of yours with which I disagree" is something you really should try to overcome, because it is not helping anything.
If you are right about the cooldown only being seven minutes instead of seven days, then your complaints about this making things worse make more sense. However, though I think a seven day cooldown is overly harsh, I think a seven minute cooldown is overly weak.
"If" I am right? lol. Now who's being dishonest? The honest thing would be to admit that you don't have any experience building / using the Trident so this suggestion should be take with a grain of salt. Or, at the very least, be more open to criticism from those who do have (and continue to have) those experiences.
"but also would require players take a collegiate-level course to understand what the fuck to do if someone shoots their trident down to your magically indestructible "NPC state"."
That's very hyperbolic,
Of course it's hyperbolic. It wouldn't LITERALLY require a collegiate-level course. What you are asking for is still complex compared to the current state of things: Trident re-acquisition requiring either: hauling various, expensive cargo OR taking a mission and THEN waiting seven days. I'm not saying I can't understand it, I'm saying it's much more complex (both as gameplay and also from a development standpoint) than the current iteration.
Lecter's point #3 above (6:08PM comment) speaks to this point.
@lecter
The current tiny delay and unchanging, paltry credits fee for replacing a trident is obviously flawed and needs fixing.
While this might make sense from a place of realism (and despite Incarnate stating the replacement cost was set artifically low), you cannot ignore the cost to gameplay that increased fees and delays will result in.
Is it really a problem that people can retrieve their trident from the grave within about 10 minutes or so? Are people actually suffering from this, or is it really just "a matter of principle"?
Fact: Multiplayer gameplay is enhanced by Trident use more often than not. You hurt Trident use, you hurt the game.
_______
Now, Rin's desire to make a Trident death more of an event than a boring "fly-to-m7-and-pay-500k" is a worthy attempt to enhance the game. More gameplay is good. This is just not the right way to do it.
Here's how I would be on board with the OP: If this manner of revival was the result of a decision the Trident captain made that, if he succeeded, would bring him greater gains. In other words, you gotta offer Trident captains something to motivate them to taking the increased risk on, otherwise it's just flatout increasing the pain of Trident loss --> and they will keep their Tridents idle.
Can you possibly be any more of a condescending prick?
I'll do my very best.
you cannot ignore the cost to gameplay that increased fees and delays will result in
The question is really whether the benefits/risks ratio would be skewed too much, not a binary choice between principle and enhanced multiplayer action.
VO has always had a death penalty consisting of: go home, drop any cargo you had, maybe drop equipped items, and lose anything that didn't drop (i.e., ship, weapons, other items). Generally speaking, that was seen as a very minor thing: you could always buy new stuff, and it was only with the introduction of hive drops and manufacturable items that "loss of stuff" came to mean "loss of something you can't just buy at a station." But it has NEVER been viewed as a balance problem that players lose what they bring to a fight--nobody said 'we have to be careful about how hard we make it to get Hive Gats...otherwise nobody will use them!'
At the moment, I think the stronger argument is that there are a far more benefits to bringing a trident out for combat than there are risks to losing one. The former being that unlimited number of friendly forces can instantly repair and reload for free without the need to go to a station plus the trident's shields and TU mine capabilities (not perfect defenses, but substantial as compared to any other individual ship in VO)...and the latter only being the standard 'gee, you have to go to whatever station sells it and buy a new one.'
Now, maybe that's enough. That's always been the VO death penalty, so why change it? If anything's off, it's the credit fee for the new ship; just tweak and go. Have people who want the benefit of trident support buy in with the owner to defray the costs, perhaps, in the event of loss.
But there's never been a ship like the trident before: it's basically a lightly-defended station that gives free reps/reloads right next to an ongoing battle. That's a very valuable thing to have, and might be balanced by more than 7 minutes of downtime. People will still decide the benefits outweigh the risks at 7min+Xmin for quite a number of X values...they just might fight a bit more defensively re: their floating station. Conversely, those who destroy the other side's trident gain something more than 'ok, that's 7 minutes of down-time while their owner goes and gets a new one'.
I think adding 250,000 credits to the insurance mission per use, up to some reasonable cap like 2M, plus a sliding scale of time as well (say 3 more min each time up to 21 minutes), will slightly buff the trident death penalty while still retaining their use in/creation of multiplayer interactions. Maybe add a meta-timer to those sliding costs, too, such that every month or whatever you reset to the base 500k+7minutes values.
I'll do my very best.
you cannot ignore the cost to gameplay that increased fees and delays will result in
The question is really whether the benefits/risks ratio would be skewed too much, not a binary choice between principle and enhanced multiplayer action.
VO has always had a death penalty consisting of: go home, drop any cargo you had, maybe drop equipped items, and lose anything that didn't drop (i.e., ship, weapons, other items). Generally speaking, that was seen as a very minor thing: you could always buy new stuff, and it was only with the introduction of hive drops and manufacturable items that "loss of stuff" came to mean "loss of something you can't just buy at a station." But it has NEVER been viewed as a balance problem that players lose what they bring to a fight--nobody said 'we have to be careful about how hard we make it to get Hive Gats...otherwise nobody will use them!'
At the moment, I think the stronger argument is that there are a far more benefits to bringing a trident out for combat than there are risks to losing one. The former being that unlimited number of friendly forces can instantly repair and reload for free without the need to go to a station plus the trident's shields and TU mine capabilities (not perfect defenses, but substantial as compared to any other individual ship in VO)...and the latter only being the standard 'gee, you have to go to whatever station sells it and buy a new one.'
Now, maybe that's enough. That's always been the VO death penalty, so why change it? If anything's off, it's the credit fee for the new ship; just tweak and go. Have people who want the benefit of trident support buy in with the owner to defray the costs, perhaps, in the event of loss.
But there's never been a ship like the trident before: it's basically a lightly-defended station that gives free reps/reloads right next to an ongoing battle. That's a very valuable thing to have, and might be balanced by more than 7 minutes of downtime. People will still decide the benefits outweigh the risks at 7min+Xmin for quite a number of X values...they just might fight a bit more defensively re: their floating station. Conversely, those who destroy the other side's trident gain something more than 'ok, that's 7 minutes of down-time while their owner goes and gets a new one'.
I think adding 250,000 credits to the insurance mission per use, up to some reasonable cap like 2M, plus a sliding scale of time as well (say 3 more min each time up to 21 minutes), will slightly buff the trident death penalty while still retaining their use in/creation of multiplayer interactions. Maybe add a meta-timer to those sliding costs, too, such that every month or whatever you reset to the base 500k+7minutes values.
So long as the rebuild / repair requirements remain fairly benign, +1 to the OP as something that adds a bit of content to the game. Though from what I get of the suggestion, it seems a bit overly complex.
-1 to any complete destruction of the trident as in must rebuild from scratch.
That said, I would like to see this in tandem with a progressively increasing replacement cost and possibly a rebuy with cash option to accommodate differing play preferences. I would start by adding a zero to the rebuy cost and go from there.
-1 to any complete destruction of the trident as in must rebuild from scratch.
That said, I would like to see this in tandem with a progressively increasing replacement cost and possibly a rebuy with cash option to accommodate differing play preferences. I would start by adding a zero to the rebuy cost and go from there.
@lecter
The question is really whether the benefits/risks ratio would be skewed too much, not a binary choice between principle and enhanced multiplayer action.
Nope, that is not the question. This is the question that you conveniently avoided answering:
Is it really a problem that people can retrieve their trident from the grave within about 10 minutes or so (*under the quickest of circumstances)? Are people actually suffering from this, or is it really just "a matter of principle"?
Your ideas of sliding scales of this and that thing, arriving at an eventual, but still affordable maximum, are pointless and achieve nothing for gameplay, especially because you don't offer a reset. If there is incentive to avoiding having your Trident die, people will take you up on it.
Rin's suggestion was at least based on something tangible: things are boring, lets make things more interesting. Penalizing Trident owners because of "they have it too unspecifically good right now" is just downright foolish.
At the moment, I think the stronger argument is that there are a far more benefits to bringing a trident out for combat than there are risks to losing one.
You only feel that way because you haven't used one or built one. See above descriptions of why rebuildling a trident is a pain in the ass.
The question is really whether the benefits/risks ratio would be skewed too much, not a binary choice between principle and enhanced multiplayer action.
Nope, that is not the question. This is the question that you conveniently avoided answering:
Is it really a problem that people can retrieve their trident from the grave within about 10 minutes or so (*under the quickest of circumstances)? Are people actually suffering from this, or is it really just "a matter of principle"?
Your ideas of sliding scales of this and that thing, arriving at an eventual, but still affordable maximum, are pointless and achieve nothing for gameplay, especially because you don't offer a reset. If there is incentive to avoiding having your Trident die, people will take you up on it.
Rin's suggestion was at least based on something tangible: things are boring, lets make things more interesting. Penalizing Trident owners because of "they have it too unspecifically good right now" is just downright foolish.
At the moment, I think the stronger argument is that there are a far more benefits to bringing a trident out for combat than there are risks to losing one.
You only feel that way because you haven't used one or built one. See above descriptions of why rebuildling a trident is a pain in the ass.