[dailatron]

Originally Posted by Lordopic

This is the one i need clearing up.

Im assuming it means your character doesnt die (level/XP loss) rather than you dont die for that instance.

I think a lot of the problems with what ND are saying is that they assume we know what they mean without realizing we dont, and will jump to the wrong conclusion.

Like when they say safe zones, some think they mean invulnerable when they might actually mean AI security.

I think we just need to show a little more faith in ND and just pray to god they know what they are doing.

[project3wc]

theyll eventually give us more details on these "safe zones" and "characters don't die" statements theyve made.

[Liet]

I think failure in general is enough of punishment for people. If there's a fight and you lose, the act of losing and the time it takes to go back to that fight is enough of a punishment. You really don't want to kick somebody's stomach after falling to the ground by taking away their stuff or by docking them XP or anything like that.

Actually, yeah, you do. There's no point to wars if no one can ever win, so you're left with what you have now - silly daily raids to Quant or Sol space because that's what you've done every night for the past two years. The game was better when people actually won wars, and insurance ratings mattered.

Kind of the World of Warcraft approach-- click, kill, collect, click, kill, collect, and then later on, you learn, "oh wow there's talents and there's raids," and that kind of stuff.

This quote would have ****ing terrified me a few months ago, but now I just don't care anymore. After seeing the course Jumpgate Evolution has been taking, I'm apathetic. Netdevil's seems to be trying to do too much with it, and I think they're going to fall short.

Maybe it was just that interview...

[dailatron]

Originally Posted by Liet

Actually, yeah, you do. There's no point to wars if no one can ever win, so you're left with what you have now - silly daily raids to Quant or Sol space because that's what you've done every night for the past two years. The game was better when people actually won wars, and insurance ratings mattered.

Are you advocating perma death or XP loss ?.

[Liet]

I'm advocating a use for an insurance rating. A long time ago, players used to have to stop fighting a war because they went bankrupt from constantly dying. They lost their war, and had to run missions to bring their IR back up. It was a nice balance, especially when you throw in the possibility of your squad's equipment tow being downed.

Edit: When death is meaningless, you don't give a damn whether you die or not. If you've got a reason to stay alive, your game becomes more interesting. I can get the first option in Team Fortress 2, I don't want it in my persistent space MMOG. This is one of the reasons I enjoyed having my 4m bounty and still flying and fighting in a nix.

[SingleShot]

I don't really remember people winning and losing wars for financial reasons.

[Chemdog]

Originally Posted by dailatron

I think we just need to show a little more faith in ND and just pray to god they know what they are doing.

ND blew that one long ago.

[Liet]

SS, It was WAY in early release, but it was kinda cool that OEC or the Sols would have to stop fighting because they couldn't afford it. Later, individual pilots would occasionally ask for loans because their low IRs equated to 2 or 3m per death, but by then everyone was rich so it didn't matter.

Anyway, my point was that there should be a downside to dying beyond a 3-minute flight back to the fight.

[netburnr]

Originally Posted by SingleShot

I don't really remember people winning and losing wars for financial reasons.

Some people did, not everyone had Matter Farm money. I know money was the reason -=Gotcha=- stopped being a hardcore pirate and reset to quant to join EoR. I simply didn't have enough money to continue as a bountied pilot loosing tons of money every death, it had killed my reserve.

Another example was when I noticed an OSP squad member talking about coming back with Instigators, so I roided up and waited, after I downed him, he quit playing the game completely because I had lost almost every credit he had because equipment was not insured, so I was able to make a huge dent on OSP's credit pile, enough so that a person quit the game.

Originally Posted by Liet

SS, It was WAY in early release, but it was kinda cool that OEC or the Sols would have to stop fighting because they couldn't afford it. Later, individual pilots would occasionally ask for loans because their low IRs equated to 2 or 3m per death, but by then everyone was rich so it didn't matter.

Anyway, my point was that there should be a downside to dying beyond a 3-minute flight back to the fight.

There are downsides. Some people have money problems. Depending on the faction, some people had problems with getting new equipment. Depending on where the fight is, the fight can take up to 20 minutes to fly back to, the only way you can get back in after 3 minutes is if it was a station sector fight (which are nerfed now because enemies can't dock and refresh)

You know I respect your opinion Liet, and I do agree there needs to be a "penalty" to death, but in all reality there are already some downsides to dieing....lets not make it too much

[Liet]

Net, both your examples are extreme examples the average combat pilot wouldn't face. I'm talking IR loss from normal HG fighting, not bankruptcy through equipment hauling or a bounty. Your second part makes sense, but you have to admit that there's no way for you to win a war against a squad with money who wants to keep fighting, even if you do beat them in every single space battle. I'm probably just nitpicking.

I just really don't like the answers given in that interview (though the interview itself was great).

[SingleShot]

@ net: What Liet said.

And the OSP guy could of kept playing, I imagine. He probably quit for non-economic reasons. I remember feeling similarly when I lost my first arti phoon. Losing the next one went over a lot better actually


From my time playing on EU with the relatively high costs of death imposed by the CP economy, I can say I didn't like it at all.

[netburnr]

Sure they are extreme examples, its just the extremes we have to be carefull of.

I know when I started as an oct factionalist, every night there were crap tons of sols knocking at OP's door. I had a limited amount of money, had just got the nix, and I died a lot. My insurance rating went down like a lead balloon, and as a HG factionalist I was blowing through millions a night....

So even in the norm, it can still get expensive if you a) suck b) are outnumbed c) don't have a lot of successful landings just because ~10% of the nix is over a million credits each death. When it takes almost an hour to haul some crap for 1-2m credits, that starts to make PvP suck because you are spending twice (or more) as much time hauling as you are "having fun"

Originally Posted by SingleShot

And the OSP guy could of kept playing, I imagine. He probably quit for non-economic reasons.

Sure he could have. But I had made my dent. I had been making smaller dents for months before that by attacking every OSP member no matter what ship, or tag they flew. I had been costing them millions of credits each day, and when I took over 300 million from that one kill he had enough, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. He was also peeved at ND's lack of support and updates, as well as the dwindling numbers, but overall, it was the extreme monetary loss that made him leave.