Thoughts On Death

  • Yes, I know. Everyone has an opinion about how "death" is handled in this game. Many people seem to think it's sufficiently balanced, and that the last thing we need is another suggestion about how to make death seem more consequential. I respect that, and I generally appreciate the ethos that Rare hews to of adding basic principles to the game and not meddling too much. That said, I've been playing this game for a while now, and there remains some persisting (if not minor) concerns.

    As we all know, death in the Sea of Thieves seems to be a temporarily inconvenient phenomenon. We have doubtless all spent those few dismal seconds on the Ferry of the Damned before bouncing back into the action. Frankly, if this were never changed it's something I'd simply live with and there are far worse methods for arbitrating what essentially boils down to a time-out. But, if death comes for us all in time, an impartial afterlife with a little more oomph might benefit the game and make players more thoughtful about how they choose to interact with each other. As you know by the subject line, I'm talking about permadeath. You might rightly assume that this escalated quickly, and that such a terminal mode of gameplay would make Sea of Thieves too risky for the level of investment a player could conceivably put into it. While I might suggest that might enhance the enjoyment of a player's achievements, I'd also say that it doesn't have to be so severe as that.

    The main reason I suggest this is that, as it stands, there is very little reason for any player to avoid a standard offensive temperament toward other players. Some of you might way "well, it IS a pirate game", but personally I think that ought to entail a little more than simply attacking literally anything you see. Granted, not all players are automatically aggressive, and I have had my fair share of pleasant encounters with people. But then there are the times, and I'm sure we've all had them, where you're chased clear across the map irrespective of whether you have any treasure, simply because someone wants to sink a ship. The reason for this is that there is no real inherent value in staying alive. Anyone who wants to grief the wold map simply has to wait a few moments upon death to roar back to belligerent life.

    Now, I get it. Combat is part of the game. Looting others can be part of the game if a player decides to incorporate it- the Reaper's Bones would have pretty empty coffers otherwise. And I don't want to suggest those elements be removed. It IS a pirate game after all. But, assuming we can't automatically tell whether someone is carrying treasure, adding an extra level of calculation into whether you want to take on that other ship can only help engender a more inclusive protocol to player interactions. It would also potentially make outposts more relevant than simply a cash-in point for booty, and presumably allow some additional interaction between players in a town setting other than potential muggings: If, in a combat-centric game, I knew that losing might kill me dead it would certainly make me think a little harder about whether this time was worth the risk. Moreover, it might even make me more likely to consider partnerships with other players, share resources, or even perhaps kick back and shoot the breeze once in a while.

    Ok, now you're either convinced, intrigued, or reviling the concept, but how would this play out in a fun and organic way? It's like this: Everyone dies at some point. When you do, you find yourself drawn through the mortal veil to... who knows? It's not particularly important where you're going. Maybe it's that giant dabloon heap in the sky, or maybe it's nothing. Either way, you're character's time in the game is over. But it doesn't have to be as final as that, not totally anyway. My suggestion would be that your particular instance of a character dies, but there are a few ways to preserve continuity with your progress. The most extreme method of play would be for that character to vanish, and the player be allowed to pick a new one as if it were a new game. That would certainly be a little hardcore, but it isn't without precedent in other games. However, there are a couple of ways that I think we could make that more enriching.

    The first of these is inheritance. That is, you have the ability to preserve a fraction of your progress (commendations, wealth, etc) periodically which you could then pass on to the character which succeeds you. Perhaps with a "in the event of my death, here is my stuff" letter for continuity and the understanding being that they would need to "live up" to their benefactor's legacy. This would be nice as it would guarantee a specific amount of resources to begin play with and not require a player to start from scratch once more. The inheritance could be scaled, though the same fraction across the board might still be sufficient to provide a reasonable amount of wealth for the level of play.

    An alternative to this would be a treasure hunt. That is, a player decides to stash ALL of their wealth with the understanding that the new character would need to go and find it. Naturally, this too would have an accompanying letter admonishing the player to sail forth to adventure and bounty. This would then guarantee the new character the player's full progress at the cost of a little time and challenge, which to me seems very appropriate to the theme of the game. However, as the player would conceivably know where exactly the had stashed their hoard, you may want to have the actual transfer of wealth arbitrated by an NPC or Faction. This could be similar to the gold hoarders, for instance, or even managed by them. That is, they have the wealth stored but you've got to go find the key which is hidden in a random location, perhaps with extra challenges or not thrown in for good food measure. This service could be offered at the Gold Hoarder tent, or whichever faction or NPC it was decided would offer it.

    But wait! It doesn't end there!

    There may also be ways to forestall death, without the need to rely on inheritance. The main one of these being a bargain with death. It may not literally be death, it could be some middle man character. In this case, upon their demise this character would offer the player the opportunity to delay dying at the cost of some agreed on price- whether that be wealth, agreeing to do a particular quest, or similar. If the player agrees, they now have an obligation to fulfill. In the case of wealth, it might be that they have to share a fraction of their loot up to a specific amount before the bargain is concluded. If it's a quest, they need to fulfill the terms of the task within a particular time frame. In either case, the player would be compelled to clear their ledger before they were free to do completely as they please once more. If the player chose to ignore their debt, they might then find that they have to saddle additional obligations to avoid death a second time. Maybe an increase in the amount of treasure they need to procure for the character, or an additional quest. In this way, players could play with the reality of a permanent death but generally operate in a way closer to the way they do now with the undertstanding that there could be some mild consequences. I think this would act seamlessly in a way that allows the general flow of the game to remain the same while adding a little more deliberation and reduce thoughless combat. It might also be feasible to tie the wealth this middle man garners to influence on the map. Say, for the amount of wealth they gain they have a proportional number of hostile agents in the field (think skeleton ships or similar) that make things that present an extra challenge. Or maybe a certain threshold of wealth would start a world event that would have global consequences in the form of hostiles or other effects.

    Bonus points:

    If none of these things were implemented, there still might be ways for players to gain a temporary edge in a situation which exceeds what may be considered the limits of "good fun". One migth be mercenaries, with a player paying a fee to gain a little extra muscle. This wouldn't even have to be a persistent presence either. You could set up NPCs at outposts or other spots where a player could find them to purchase a flare. The flare could then be fired when needed and the mercenaries would send reinforcements in the form of a ship. Perhaps there would be a price scale, with more expensive flares providing heavier support. This would at least allow a player to try to leave a bad situation without resorting to hopping servers, which I personally think is something anyone shouldn't be expected to do to avoid poor behavior.

  • 42
    Beiträge
    14.7k
    Aufrufe
  • Interesting concept for another pirate themed game... but impractical for this one without redesign from the ground up.

    #1 issue is there are 1 and 2 shot kill weapons in this game. Permadeath with that level of damage as standard for PVP would kill the games playerbase. There are already players that, through their skill, can single handedly wipe out a whole ship full of players multiple times.

  • @eratikstorm While I don't think that you'd need an entire rebuild of the game mechanics, that is a good point.

    In the scenario I'm suggesting I suppose you'd have to take that as risk in the game or consider additional changes to some systems to compensate. It would, of course, affect those same crack shots but you're right that it is a concern.

    One simple approach would be to weigh the penalty against the level of player, with a "more important" (established) soul requiring a larger sum to avoid death in the case of the intermediary concept.

    Players could get around that by becoming good shots at the cost of never becoming more established, though I suspect that would be very unlikely to occur.

  • Good luck with a bug you can only "fix" by death.

  • @uzugijin I don't have the perspective of the developers, but this strikes me as something that could be resolved via access to logs and a petition to technical support as in other games.

  • Be honest. What's your exact problem with the current death handling? Because many of these suggestions are wearing the - "it would be cool and beneficial for the game and (like they asked anybody) a lot of people would love it that way" - disguise, while the truth is often like "I personally don't like it, change it for me" scenario.

    Just asking to be clear that you are not one of those...

  • @uzugijin

    As I said, if it never gets changed I'll live with it. But as it currently stands it doesn't serve any real purpose. Either as a deterrent or an incentive. It just is.

    People say that the length you stay on the Ferry is sufficient as it is enough time for your ship to get looted and/or sunk and that should be enough. But the times I've had people just camp out on my ship just so they can wait for me or a crew to respawn to be killed again is a bit ridiculous. I get it, it's a combat oriented game, but it happens irrespective of whether the ship has any treasure aboard. The same goes for people chasing you clear across the map for basically nothing.

    So, fine. If that's how it goes I'm not going to quit the game or anything, but as it currently stands, the way the game currently handles death doesn't provide much value in my opinion. It simply is, irrespective of what's going on, which seems like a lost opportunity to me.

  • @mavnderlvst

    Here is one, mostly randomly sourced, of many examples of people debating this issue that you'll find in the forum.

    https://www.seaofthieves.com/forum/topic/74534/what-is-the-point-of-the-game-if-there-is-no-death-penalty/4

  • @mavnderlvst

    That sounds like it would interfere with my hobby of finding elaborate and/or amusing ways of killing myself.

    Not a fan. :(

  • @mavnderlvst
    if it were a combat oriented game then Arena would be the main focus and hit-reg issues wouldn't exist.

    Permadeath would just create more technical issues (you're basically kicked from the server upon death to start anew, possibly triggering server merge more often, risking server stability etc) and it would mean a quick end to Sea of Thieves, as there is a reason why permadeath is offered as an alternative game mode in any games that has them: You have to keep your playerbase alive. What triple A game has permadeath as its only system, anyway? As far as I know, death always has been only a temporary inconvenience in every known game.

    Why did you bother writing all this when your request is simply about kicking players from sessions when they die, so they won't come back and have a second chance?

  • @mavnderlvst

    So it sounds like you are suggesting Gold = HP, and if you lose all your gold your character is permadead. That does not sound at all like an enjoyable game, and I assure you, if there was such a system in place, the griefers would have a field day.

  • @uzugijin I'm prepared to assume neither of are sophisticated enough know whether it would kick a player from the session automatically. I'm also pretty sure there would be a technical way to respawn a new character without too much downtime. That's for Rare to say in any case.

    And why did I write it? Why did you read it? If you're strongly opposed to the notion I'm not going to be the one to convince you. Nor are you obligated to give it any more though. I just think that death as it currently stands is mostly a nuisance that doesn't contribute as meaningfully as it could. But the decent thing to do was to offer an alternative if I was going to say so.

  • @eratikstorm
    I'd say HP equals HP. The skill of the player would still remain significant, and whatever gold the person paid could be weighted in a way that it didn't break the player. Gold isn't particularly hard to come by in this game so it doesn't strike me as particularly burdensome. The bottom line is that nothing will stop griefers, but having nothing at all also doesn't seem to me to be an effective approach either.

  • @v*ca-hombre

    I actually thought you were joking until I saw you mention the same in a previous post on the same topic (actually, that one I posted a few exchanges back). Kudos for having the most unpredictable argument against this sort of thing. You changed my paradigm about what someone might choose to do in this game.

  • @mavnderlvst

    alt text

  • @v*ca-hombre

    This zig tips its hat.

  • Why would you want permadeath in this game??? There wouldn't be positives to this idea, only negatives. One of the best things about sea of thieves, is there arent any long term consequences. It's a family friendly pirate adventure game, this would change the gamebadly.
    This is because: it would make people really sweaty in PvP fights, because of you died you would lose loads of progress.
    There are weapons that one shot and 2 shot, imagine if you were max rep in everything but then someone one blundered you from behind and you lost all your rep.
    MLG double gunners could join a server, ram onto the first ship they see, and then kill the players on board(making them lose their progress) leave the server, join a new server and rinse and repeat to troll people.

  • The 2% tax for the ferryman was not that bad.

  • @stundorn While I personally wouldn't mind something a little more substantial I could live with that. It sort of boggles my mind why people are so resistant to it, as that really is a pittance.

  • @soyabean566 The philosophy around this topic seems to be broken into two camps, one for a consequential death and one for the current standard. I get what you're saying, and something like this would probably require some changes to the game mechanics. Personally, I'd be fine with that but I get that some people just prefer that there aren't any long term consequences. I think that adding something to make death something to be more mindful of would prompt more enriching interactions between players but it isn't a game ruiner if it never changes.

  • @mavnderlvst said in Thoughts On Death:

    Yes, I know. Everyone has an opinion about how "death" is handled in this game. Many people seem to think it's sufficiently balanced, and that the last thing we need is another suggestion about how to make death seem more consequential. I respect that, and I generally appreciate the ethos that Rare hews to of adding basic principles to the game and not meddling too much. That said, I've been playing this game for a while now, and there remains some persisting (if not minor) concerns.

    As we all know, death in the Sea of Thieves seems to be a temporarily inconvenient phenomenon. We have doubtless all spent those few dismal seconds on the Ferry of the Damned before bouncing back into the action. Frankly, if this were never changed it's something I'd simply live with and there are far worse methods for arbitrating what essentially boils down to a time-out. But, if death comes for us all in time, an impartial afterlife with a little more oomph might benefit the game and make players more thoughtful about how they choose to interact with each other. As you know by the subject line, I'm talking about permadeath. You might rightly assume that this escalated quickly, and that such a terminal mode of gameplay would make Sea of Thieves too risky for the level of investment a player could conceivably put into it. While I might suggest that might enhance the enjoyment of a player's achievements, I'd also say that it doesn't have to be so severe as that.

    The main reason I suggest this is that, as it stands, there is very little reason for any player to avoid a standard offensive temperament toward other players. Some of you might way "well, it IS a pirate game", but personally I think that ought to entail a little more than simply attacking literally anything you see. Granted, not all players are automatically aggressive, and I have had my fair share of pleasant encounters with people. But then there are the times, and I'm sure we've all had them, where you're chased clear across the map irrespective of whether you have any treasure, simply because someone wants to sink a ship. The reason for this is that there is no real inherent value in staying alive. Anyone who wants to grief the wold map simply has to wait a few moments upon death to roar back to belligerent life.
    Now, I get it. Combat is part of the game. Looting others can be part of the game if a player decides to incprporate it- the Reaper's Bones would have pretty empty coffers otherwise. And I don't want to suggest those elements be removed. It IS a pirate game after all. But, assuming we can't automatically tell whether someone is carrying treasure, adding an extra level of calculation into whether you want to take on that other ship can only help engender a more inclusive protocol to player interactions. It would also potentially make outposts more relevant than simply a cash-in point for booty, and presumably allow some additional interaction between players in a town setting other than potential muggings: If, in a combat-centric game, I knew that losing might kill me dead it would certainly make me think a little harder about whether this time was worth the risk. Moreover, it might even make me more likely to consider partnerships with other players, share resources, or even perhaps kick back and shoot the breeze once in a while.

    Ok, now you're either convinced, intrigued, or reviling the concept, but how would this play out in a fun and organic way? It's like this: Everyone dies at some point. When you do, you find yourself drawn through the mortal veil to... who knows? It's not particularly important where you're going. Maybe it's that giant dabloon heap in the sky, or maybe it's nothing. Either way, you're character's time in the game is over. But it doesn't have to be as final as that, not totally anyway. My suggestion would be that your particular instance of a character dies, but there are a few ways to preserve continuity with your progress. The most extreme method of play would be for that character to vanish, and the player be allowed to pick a new one as if it were a new game. That would certainly be a little hardcore, but it isn't without precedent in other games. However, there are a couple of ways that I think we could make that more enriching.

    The first of these is inheritance. That is, you have the ability to preserve a fraction of your progress (commendations, wealth, etc) periodically which you could then pass on to the character which succeeds you. Perhaps with a "in the event of my death, here is my stuff" letter for continuity and the understanding being that they would need to "live up" to their benefactor's legacy. This would be nice as it would guarantee a specific amount of resources to begin play with and not require a player to start from scratch once more. The inheritance could be scaled, though the same fraction across the board might still be sufficient to provide a reasonable amount of wealth for the level of play.

    An alternative to this would be a treasure hunt. That is, a player decides to stash ALL of their wealth with the understanding that the new character would need to go and find it. Naturally, this too would have an accompanying letter admonishing the player to sail forth to adventure and bounty. This would then guarantee the new character the player's full progress at the cost of a little time and challenge, which to me seems very appropriate to the theme of the game. However, as the player would conceivably know where exactly the had stashed their hoard, you may want to have the actual transfer of wealth arbitrated by an NPC or Faction. This could be similar to the gold hoarders, for instance, or even managed by them. That is, they have the wealth stored but you've got to go find the key which is hidden in a random location, perhaps with extra challenges or not thrown in for good food measure. This service could be offered at the Gold Hoarder tent, or whichever faction or NPC it was decided would offer it.

    But wait! It doesn't end there!

    There may also be ways to forestall death, without the need to rely on inheritance. The main one of these being a bargain with death. It may not literally be death, it could be some middle man character. In this case, upon their demise this character would offer the player the opportunity to delay dying at the cost of some agreed on price- whether that be wealth, agreeing to do a particular quest, or similar. If the player agrees, they now have an obligation to fulfill. In the case of wealth, it might be that they have to share a fraction of their loot up to a specific amount before the bargain is concluded. If it's a quest, they need to fulfill the terms of the task within a particular time frame. In either case, the player would be compelled to clear their ledger before they were free to do completely as they please once more. If the player chose to ignore their debt, they might then find that they have to saddle additional obligations to avoid death a second time. Maybe an increase in the amount of treasure they need to procure for the character, or an additional quest. In this way, players could play with the reality of a permanent death but generally operate in a way closer to the way they do now with the undertstanding that there could be some mild consequences. I think this would act seamlessly in a way that allows the general flow of the game to remain the same while adding a little more deliberation and reduce thoughless combat. It might also be feasible to tie the wealth this middle man garners to influence on the map. Say, for the amount of wealth they gain they have a proportional number of hostile agents in the field (think skeleton ships or similar) that make things that present an extra challenge. Or maybe a certain threshold of wealth would start a world event that would have global consequences in the form of hostiles or other effects.

    Bonus points:

    If none of these things were implemented, there still might be ways for players to gain a temporary edge in a situation which exceeds what may be considered the limits of "good fun". One migth be mercenaries, with a player paying a fee to gain a little extra muscle. This wouldn't even have to be a persistent presence either. You could set up NPCs at outposts or other spots where a player could find them to purchase a flare. The flare could then be fired when needed and the mercenaries would send reinforcements in the form of a ship. Perhaps there would be a price scale, with more expensive flares providing heavier support. This would at least allow a player to try to leave a bad situation without resorting to hopping servers, which I personally think is something anyone should be expected to do to avoid poor behavior.

    i think a permadeath should be the fabled sea of the dammed and you have an option to go to the ferry or the sea of the dammed and one could become a ghost on your ship only apear if they need you (your crew) and or one could be a crew member on the ferry if this were to be added

  • @mavnderlvst This post is waaaaaay too long and complicated for my small pirate brain to conceptualize... .-.

  • @closinghare208

    Just so I understand correctly, would you be playing separately from other players (in the Sea of the Damed) and switch over if called on or would you be waiting on the same ship? I’d be sort of concerned about player downtime but maybe I’m missing something.

    Just coming back as a different class of player is kind of a cool idea. Like, coming back as either a ghost or skeleton with particular strengths and weaknesses to both. With maybe a special quest you could do to return to normal.

  • @klutchxking518

    Touche. Short version, death is permanent but you can pass on your progress to a new player and/or make a sort of bargain with some intermediary to avoid dying by completing a special task or devoting a fraction of future wealth, which may or may not have a global effect. The point would be to make death more consequential, ideally resulting in better behavior and more substantial accomplishments.

  • @mavnderlvst said in Thoughts On Death:

    @closinghare208

    Just so I understand correctly, would you be playing separately from other players (in the Sea of the Damed) and switch over if called on or would you be waiting on the same ship? I’d be sort of concerned about player downtime but maybe I’m missing something.

    Just coming back as a different class of player is kind of a cool idea. Like, coming back as either a ghost or skeleton with particular strengths and weaknesses to both. With maybe a special quest you could do to return to normal.

    nope you would be on your ship but a sea of the dammed version

  • @closinghare208

    Interesting. I’d be curious to see how that would play out in-game, how the experience was for both types of player.

  • @mavnderlvst said in Thoughts On Death:

    @closinghare208

    Interesting. I’d be curious to see how that would play out in-game, how the experience was for both types of player.

    me too

  • I just ended play this evening with a perfect example of why I think death ought to be more consequential:

    I had spent a good deal of time completing a quest and returning a skull bounty when I was ambushed by two ships about midway to an outpost. They were able to outmaneuver me and eventually boarded my ship. I was killed, came back, was killed again, and came back. Immediately after coming back the second time I jumped off of my ship, swam to one of the other ships and started throwing fire bombs at it. Eventually I was killed again, and that was more or less all she wrote as my ship sunk.

    So, what was the problem? Was it that I was attacked and had my stuff stolen? No, not really. I was annoyed that two clearly more powerful (brigantines vs. my sloop), fully crewed ships felt like it was worth their while to chase down little old me. But, fine. It isn't a unique occurrence, and though I might object on the grounds of "better things to do", I do get that it wasn't entirely out of spirit for the game.

    What was a problem, and far more outrageous, was that these players objected to a) my fighting back and b) boarding another ship. They specifically told me that I was overreacting, that I should just let them take my loot, and that I should leave their ship alone since "it's a pirate game". And this is just one example, yesterday a similar thing happened when another player attempted to board my ship. I fought back, killed them, and they went off the rails about how they were just playing around.

    Others will have varying opinions, I'm sure. But, to me, this sense of entitlement is preposterous. I strongly submit that if those players knew that they were risking anything at all by attacking my ship they would probably act in a way that was more considerate for all of us, even if they still decided to attack. When I say considerate, I mean "interesting and fun". Also, I understand that this game emphasizes team play but, from a solo player standpoint, having the knowledge that managing to take down one or two of those crews would have some lasting effect might make it more engaging in a situation like that.

    Anyway, that's my experience and my view. Perhaps I'm not the right sort of player for this game but I strongly argue that if players had anything other than a cosmetic investment it would improve behavior, make achievements more meaningful, and emphasize something closer to the thematic elements of the game.

  • I think lore-wise the current situation makes sense. The boundary between life and death is clearly flexible on the Sea of Thieves, hence the undead infestation. The Pirate Lord seems pretty clear that he founded the Sea as a place of glorious adventure that can and frequently does involve fights between players, rather than the Hunger Games-esque death-match that Flameheart seems to envisage and that would be the result of adding perma-death. I don't think we know what motivates the Ferryman to allow player pirates quickly back to the world of the living in lore terms, but he is established as having that power and we can assume he has his reasons.

    And in game design terms, it seems to me that Rare want a low-stakes, slightly cartoon-y bit of fun, rather than a super-sweaty hardcore game. The idea of losing commendation and reputation progress for a single mishandling of a gunpowder barrel, for instance, seems to introduce a level of frustration that is just not in keeping with that. It suddenly make the game very serious when the point is that you can kinda mess around with friends or fandoms. Not to mention the possibilities opened up to trolls armed with open crew and a goodly supply of throwables.

    I'd be relaxed about death costing a small amount of gold in terms of the mechanics, but I also don't see that there's a particular need to change the current system. And in lore terms, what is the Ferryman going to do with piles of gold?

  • @mavnderlvst said in Thoughts On Death:

    I just ended play this evening with a perfect example of why I think death ought to be more consequential:

    I had spent a good deal of time completing a quest and returning a skull bounty when I was ambushed by two ships about midway to an outpost. They were able to outmaneuver me and eventually boarded my ship. I was killed, came back, was killed again, and came back. Immediately after coming back the second time I jumped off of my ship, swam to one of the other ships and started throwing fire bombs at it. Eventually I was killed again, and that was more or less all she wrote as my ship sunk.

    So, what was the problem? Was it that I was attacked and had my stuff stolen? No, not really. I was annoyed that two clearly more powerful (brigantines vs. my sloop), fully crewed ships felt like it was worth their while to chase down little old me. But, fine. It isn't a unique occurrence, and though I might object on the grounds of "better things to do", I do get that it wasn't entirely out of spirit for the game.

    What was a problem, and far more outrageous, was that these players objected to a) my fighting back and b) boarding another ship. They specifically told me that I was overreacting, that I should just let them take my loot, and that I should leave their ship alone since "it's a pirate game". And this is just one example, yesterday a similar thing happened when another player attempted to board my ship. I fought back, killed them, and they went off the rails about how they were just playing around.

    Others will have varying opinions, I'm sure. But, to me, this sense of entitlement is preposterous. I strongly submit that if those players knew that they were risking anything at all by attacking my ship they would probably act in a way that was more considerate for all of us, even if they still decided to attack. When I say considerate, I mean "interesting and fun". Also, I understand that this game emphasizes team play but, from a solo player standpoint, having the knowledge that managing to take down one or two of those crews would have some lasting effect might make it more engaging in a situation like that.

    Anyway, that's my experience and my view. Perhaps I'm not the right sort of player for this game but I strongly argue that if players had anything other than a cosmetic investment it would improve behavior, make achievements more meaningful, and emphasize something closer to the thematic elements of the game.

    But if death was consequential, wouldn't that have just made the situation worse for you? You were seriously outnumbered and outgunned, and went down first, so you wouldn't even have been able to get the satisfaction of firebombing them and getting a kill or two. Instead of losing loot you'd have lost a bunch of commendation/reputation progress too. As the players on the other ships, I'd have taken those odds even with consequential death.

    Players boarding ships and then having a problem about getting attacked obviously need to get a bit of a grip, but I'm not convinced this is the way to make them do so – they'd probably just flip out even more...

  • @mavnderlvst a dit dans Thoughts On Death :

    What was a problem, and far more outrageous, was that these players objected to a) my fighting back and b) boarding another ship. They specifically told me that I was overreacting, that I should just let them take my loot, and that I should leave their ship alone since "it's a pirate game". And this is just one example, yesterday a similar thing happened when another player attempted to board my ship. I fought back, killed them, and they went off the rails about how they were just playing around.

    That's just silly talk on their part. I never met someone like it but sure would appreciate the irony. xD

  • I definitely see what you mean but, personally, it doesn't bother me that I'd have to deal with the same consequences for dying if I were on the losing end. Especially if methods for maintaining progress like the few I suggested mitigated a total loss. To me, it would mean that taking that risk might make any victories I did wrack up just a little more meaningful for it. Of course, as I have said, the current paradigm isn't going to keep me from playing. It's just a different approach. In my mind it's sort of the difference between tag and poker. Neither is necessarily better because they're entirely different games but both have their own gravity.

  • @john-arkham

    It's pretty ridiculous, yeah. And I know that you can't assume that everyone has this attitude. I've met a few really great crews that were interested in something more than combat in the time I've been playing, though I would have to admit they are in the minority so far.

  • They've already canned a planned 'death tax' system that was far less complicated and more lenient than this, and have actively pursued additions to minimize loss to players (ie. the new Season renown).

    I don't see why they would consider a permadeath system in a game that is meant to be light and fun.

  • @d3adst1ck said in Thoughts On Death:

    I don't see why they would consider a permadeath system in a game that is meant to be light and fun.

    Bingo. You have to simply accept that the game isn't intended to have permanent consequences, which may be a real paradigm shift for certain types of players new to the game. I'd include myself in that cohort as well. Every time I tell someone to take the long view and understand that resources are essentially infinite I'm essentially reminding myself.

    The only consideration for me is time, and the quality of any given session. It seems like a giant waste of time when ships which clearly outclass their targets chase them clear across the map irrespective of whether they have treasure. There are probably other, more meaningful challenges for those crews to undertake, but I suppose that there's no accounting for taste. And, you shouldn't have to, but someone could always start a new game if it was really that onerous. At some point though, you really have to just commit to enjoying ship to ship combat. Even if someone isn't into attacking other ships, there is really no way they're going to be able to fully enjoy the game unless they take the time to improve their ability to defend themselves.

    I do think a system like this would work to make people more mindful of their interactions, and maybe more likely to interact with each other in non-combative ways but that might also be an argument for playing with an open crew.

42
Beiträge
14.7k
Aufrufe
14 von 42