I propose the condition/disease system be used to incentivize players to cure their ailments rather than respawning. Upon spawning in a game, a condition is added to the player that improves their attributes. Stage one provides no benefit. After five minutes, it advances to stage two and provides a slight statistical bonus. The condition advances to stage three after thirty minutes, providing an improved version of this buff. The condition is removed on death, same as negative ones, and starts over at stage one again on respawn. Benefits could include increased stamina regeneration, movement speed, weapon damage (through Player Skills), or any other player statistic than can be altered. We don't even need any new systems to do this. It's just an addition set of conditions that happens to be helping you instead of harming you. It might even be doable in a scenario without much trouble. The paradox of survival games is an old and persistent one. Too often, the best solution to survival challenges is to not survive at all. Instead of a failure state, death is a default method of refilling survival meters and curing diseases. You might drop your loot, but you get to decide where you drop it first (or just stick it in a box at your base). This renders most, if not all, survival systems moot in all but the most hardcore survival modes. It takes a very well-calibrated motivation to correct this perverse incentive. Few games get it exactly right. I've given up on the possibility of a death penalty that puts the sting into dying without just making things worse. I don't think any overlap exists between a penalty that is high enough to make players want to avoid it and one that doesn't severely derail the flow of the game. People already cling to death loops as a penalty, and it still barely affects how they play. In hindsight, the carrot was probably always a better answer than the stick. The choice between the cost of a death penalty and the cost (and paperwork) of curatives was never going to be interesting. Far more compelling is the possibility of your weapons doing ten/twenty percent more damage if you can just keep yourself alive. Keeping medicine handy is well worth it if it helps keep you from losing that nice walking speed buff. If a player does still die and has to respawn, they're no worse off than they would be right now. All they've temporarily lost is a bonus which will return in time with a little care and patience. "Survival" is right there in the game's title at the top of this page, after all.
I agree with the idea that the carrot is preferable to the stick, but this just feels like a veiled stick. What about providing buffs or other benefits for actually removing debuffs? Giving 'Embryonic Alien Cells' for curing a parasite, which can then be used to craft boosts of some kind (not to mention creating a political stir. Maybe 'Embryonic Alien Cells' isn't the best option. But the general principal of materials and/or buffs for curing various ailments stands.
Well, aliens that cause negative conditions already drop parts for medicines that cure it, like the alien (formerly Kriel) humanoids on the jungle starter planet. "Kill mobs -> get loot -> make stuff" is a well-understood concept. Having to get infected to get a parts for a buffing item is probably too complicated for most people to bother with. With the buffing condition idea, all you have to worry about is not dying. The benefits justify the effort and expense.
I do think some more incentives could be put into place to prevent people from using death as just a quick heal, but just not sure I’m on board with this one. Seems to much like a solution searching for a problem. Diseases and affects are unbalanced and silly at times, but in very short order they becomes little more than a nuisance once a decent garden is planted or the first trader is reached. Part of that survival is learning which medicines to stock up on depending on where you are going.
Sure, it's not hard. You can make medicine for every condition just using a garden and some mined materials. Most people still don't bother curing anything worse than a dermal burn or open wound, though. The effort isn't rewarded, so it's not a priority. As a result, all those survival gameplay systems end up ignored by most players. It's far faster and more convenient for them to kill their character and respawn than to go foraging for ingredients or assemble a medicine chest. Survival systems are part of the game. It would be nice if mastering these systems resulted in a better outcome than ignoring them.
Giving players a carrot for doing nothing and no stick will only produce lazier players. They need both carrot and stick. More stick than carrot for dying. Respawning nearby without a tent, clone chamber or med chamber should respawn the player on 10% hp, oxygen and food instead of full. The fact that players can respawn and receive something significantly more than they died with is the key to them exploiting death to refill their bars because they're no longer able to refill their bars by dying. Respawn Nearby: 10% health, 10% food, 10% oxygen. Armor loses 50 durability. Respawn from Tent: 25% health, 20% food, 20% oxygen. Respawn from Clone Chamber: 50% health, 30% food, 20% oxygen. Respawn from Med Chamber: 100% health, 40% food, 20% oxygen. On the opposite end, with the Carrot. Instead of just giving players a time-related buff, it would be better tied to something like the food system. Eating a variety of foods provides long term "Nutrition" buffs, thus encouraging better food use through passive buffs that are lost on death. Several hours of alternating between juices, burgers, ratatouille and say... dino stew would give a nice, stacked buff that would be wasteful to restore after death by stuffing your face beyond capacity.
I think there is some merit to the idea of cloning having some sort of debuff, or removal of Buffs as the OP suggests. I also think Vermillion has a point about the health / stats being too good after respawn - i'm not sure about the stacking food buffs in terms of either this will simply be ignored as too faffy (e.g. probably me!) or the more optimal players will rapidly get to the point where they have fridges stuffed full of the requisite food and gorge themselves as soon as they poof back into existence. I do think that the problem will always be that death ultimately has no consequence that can't rapidly be got around. For many - perhaps most - players that is probably fine, even if it were made more impactful as people are suggesting above. However. I think that there is room for more hardcore modes for those that want it. Obviously, you could have the classic 'one life and you are out' but I think that would only appeal to a few people, especially for a game like Empyrion where you die a lot. I wonder if a system of a limited number of clones would work as a semi-hardcore idea. People could then choose to either have no limit, or set themselves anything from 1 to whatever they wanted. When you are out of clones, the game is over... You could do this system either as a hard number (I have 50 clones!) or one where clones require rare components to make. You would start the game with a certain number, but could increase this by making more 'clone material' as you went through. I think, even if you set the number of clones quite high, it would add a fear of loosing them that would make death feel more meaningful and reduce people just dying to remove conditions. It would be an ever-present threat. It would also make death loops more scary, and force players in that situation to sometimes abandon their back pack rather than burning through 20 clones just to retrieve it. Of course, this would have to be an optional system, because some people would hate it - definitely not for everybody!
In most games I would be all about some form of death penalty as far as EXP loss or something. But EGS still has death loops that can, at times, be unavoidable, or bugs that pop up that cause death. For example...I was recently fighting legacy...had two Infectors and 1 decimator down, one left to go. I got the decimator pinned against an asteroid so it was just a matter of drilling the core and I am off looting to my hearts content. I switch into a turret, fire a few shots, hit F to return to the captains chair...but his it once to many and get out of the chair instead and Poof....I am floating in mid air, my ship flying off into the void by itself. A major game breaking glitch. And before I can even really register what is happening, I realize I was ejected above where my ship was, in wide open space, and the Decimator splats me with a blast from its turrets. So not only am I dead, my ship is flying off. So...why add insult to injury and have a player in this circumstance get a message saying "oops you died, try harder next time, we are deducting a random skill from your list." In most cases there is already a good enough incentive to stay alive. I have never been on the bottom level of the Abandoned Assembly yard or Abandoned Depot, 1 room away from the core and thought "I guess Ill let this dermal parasite just kill me, it will be easier to run all of the way back down here from the surface, try to avoid these horrors, spiders, and critters, and just grab my backpack." At that point there is little advantage to "use death as a cure". And when I am safely back at my ship and die in the hangar because I forgot the right medicine, then there is no practical gain, or anything that would give me an undue advantage over any other player.
The more that I've stopped an thought about it, the more that I'm not certain this is necessary. The medication to cure these issues isn't super-difficult to get a hold of and after my first couple of times running into that various status affects, I did in fact start carrying around medication (at least on my ship if not my person) to cure the ailments. Thus, the game has in fact done it's job of making death a sufficient deterrent IMO to make the medications worth stocking.
I'm not talking about xp, they are introducing skills enhancing some players stats, only damage for the moment, that's what you would lose. Let's say skills increase as long as you live, enhancing things you are doing (killing monsters, mining, trading, etc...), you want to stay alive. You aren't losing levels, tech progress, only stats, you don't have to do some boring task to get those levels back.
I see what you are getting at, and I guess it will depend on what these "skills" are and what their impact is. I would prefer to see them use things like Reforged Eden and such have already done by giving more positive effects we can get. I.e. when full you get a "well fed" status that causes healing and enhanced stamina. I would like to see more meds that improve performance, from something as simple as an injection or food that gives passive healing, enhanced stamina, or increased carrying capacity (strength).
I have seen people take off their helmet in a vacuum rather than waste a decontamination kit. I have seen people live in an unclaimed wreck festooned with portable constructors and oxygen condensers rather than incur base attacks. I have seen other people charge base attack drones with a sniper rifle, running passed their armed SV on the way. I have seen people disable OPVs with their CV warship, and still insist on destroying the core by hand with dozens of demo charges. People react emotionally, not logically. It's a hard fact of our species. At best, people can train their emotions so thinking about a problem feels like the best thing to do. Games do this by offering a carrot. If you can beat that boss, you'll gain loot that makes you more powerful. Do this quest, and that quirky charismatic NPC will like you better. Solve this puzzle, and you'll open up more the map to explore. In good games, the experience becomes an even better carrot than the extrinsic reward. Once we've learned to apply logic though, things get easier, and we need increased stimulation to get that same experience. This is where those increased difficulty options come in. We want harder challenges to apply our minds to so we can get that satisfaction from overcoming them. That's why I think the carrot of this buffing condition is needed over death penalties. It provides that first incentive to get people invested in mastering the survival systems. Because it's dirt simple condition, it can be applied to any difficulty settings without interference. It makes emotional sense that successfully surviving results in good things. It makes logical sense to expend time and effort to maintain a useful condition. If you do fail, all you have to do is survive better next time for the buff to come back. Custom scenarios makers should of course do what like. Perhaps the first stage imposes a cloning sickness in yours. As far as POIs go, consider the choice between backtracking to your ship and respawning to cure an alien parasite. Both take time and result in the same outcome. With this buffing condition in play, players would be rewarded for making that extra effort of returning to their ship and using their medical devices instead of taking the death and walking back. It might even help train players to think their way through POIs instead of just shotgunning and demo charging everything.
I personally do all I can to stay alive. Some dont. It doesnt really impact me the way they play the game. I have never really felt at a disadvantage at any point because someone else decides to just kill themselves rather than working through the problem. I also, again, feel that as long as there is the possibility of unavoidable deaths then losing a buff seems somewhat unfair. And there is never a way to program in a "This was unavoidable" and "This was done on purpose". But, the idea of living in an unclaimed wreck to avoid base attacks is pretty darn smart. Ive also known people to live out of survival HV/SCs as opposed to setting down a base block. I thought it was an ingenious way to solve/avoid a problem. They traded the speed and efficiency of advanced constructors for a safer existence. And all of the other things in your first paragraph just seem like players playing the game the way they want, and has zero impact on my experience one way or the other. I think its cool that things can be so flexible and none of us are shoved into one particular game play mechanic. Heres another example: There are a group of CV builders who are absolutely dedicated to min/maxxing their ships. They care very little about aesthetics, take advantage of the AI by using bait in their builds, and proceed with great success in taking out ships in the game. There is another group of builders who concentrate on balancing efficiency with aesthetics and RP value. Their ships are still highly functional, but not quite as efficient because they do not rely on taking advantage of the AI. Both play styles are absolutely valid, and its up to the player to choose which they prefer. I prefer the less efficient, more "realistic" approach, but I really have no issue with those who dont. I wouldnt want the game changed to disadvantage them just because I >feel< it should be done another way. In short, there is nothing preventing you from playing the game exactly how you wish it to be. Asking for a buff for not dying is fine, but how it would be implemented seems sketchy, as it doesnt solve the problem of those random deaths due to bugs or glitches that plagues the game.
It's that diversity of players I'm trying to wrap this around. Not dying is a pretty universal gameplay aesthetic. It makes sense that it should have an equally universally applicable reward.
Yeah...a reward of not having to travel to pick up your gear, not having to run back through POIs you have already cleared, in space not having the enemy AI chew your ship to pieces while you attempt to scramble back on board after a respawn delay. You armor not being badly damaged and having to be repaird. Not having to re-sort our inventory while hiding from bad guys, on an MP server having a higher K/D ratio to brag about, not having to respawn naked in a dangerous area surrounded by enemy mobs that just killed you because your save point is too far away to make it back in time before your backpack disappears. Brother, there are many reasons not to die. And, for players later in the game when off planet and doing primarily space combat, I havent died to a non-glitch related event in about 3 weeks...so why should I, living safely in orbit surrounded by layers of armor be rewarded for not risking my neck, while those still actively striving to take over POIs are punished for their audacity to explore deeper. Cheese dying is just a thing that will happen. Tossing a small negligible bonus on longevity aint gonna do it. And until the bugs are worked out and players arent being killed by Eleon and not the Zirax, in game death penalties seem oppressive.
Now, that's an interesting idea. I actually would like such a system. It's basically the very classic "limited number of lives but you can acquire more" that's been used since ancient times, but with an Empyrion specific in-game universe explanation and logic. Your suit transmits the memories at the moment of death to the nearest clone chamber and a new clone pops out. Or something like that but the game *mechanic* change would be quite good, I think. Just like you say it would definitely make you think a bit more about risk and death if you had a limited amount of clones left. If you could add to your clone supply from the game universe resources that would add another layer to it and give new incentives to do things. Yes, I'd be up for this. Actually, I'd even get rid of the "spawn nearby" option. It's just giving the player a lazy way out. You haven't *needed* this option since it became possible to spawn from the neutral POIs' medical/clone chambers. You're never out of spawn points even if you forget your tent. You spawn a long distance from where you were? Yes. Perhaps plan a bit better ahead next time? You lost your backpack? That happens. Was there a reason why you took so many of your top-rate equipment with you and put them to risk? If so, then that was indeed then a calculated risk so no reason to complain. If no reason then perhaps leave that stuff at your base next time, eh? I'm all for it. Limited number of clones. Well, fine, fine, if you insist have it as a difficulty option where you can set that number and have one choice be "infinite" if you wish. Wussies.
Not that I'm against this, but there is a problem with that. Most notably you might not have the resources at hand to heal yourself. So trying to get back to your backpack which might very well be in a tight spot becomes that much more difficult to retrieve, quite possibly impossible. Now a case could be made insofar as, well that's the price you pay for dying. Sure, but it also makes a lot of poi's potentially that much more difficult. Especially if you haven't yet gotten a source of healing. If you respawn nearby and you're outside a poi with turrets, or perhaps a couple of npcs walking around with only 10% health the chances are you will be having to respawn again pretty soon after. We've all seen death loops now and again and that's with respawning with 100% health. Do you really want to drop it down to 10%? That's asking for trouble and will most likely antagonise a fair few people. Even if you drop a tent down that's still not a lot of health. There does need to be some kind of debuff of some kind for dying, and your suggestion does make sense....but those values would have to change quite a bit. You'd be much better off in having a debuff put on respawning nearby or from a tent with full health but varying amounts of food/oxygen, whilst respawning at a clone/med chamber would have no debuff with far greater amounts of food/oxygen. The debuff could be some sort of fatigue that lasts X minutes and has the effect of A, B and C. Edit: instead of no debuff for clone/med chamber. Have a different debuff that is not as bad as the one you get if you res from one of those instead of nearby/at a tent.
I would absolutely love it if there was some sort of buff, or at least even the extended "well fed" buff for having a varied diet. While I was never in the military, I can attest that no vet I ever met enjoyed living off of MREs for months at a time. And it seems the most common sought after food in the game is the survival packs. Which is about 95% of what I eat other than randomly chomping down something from a fridge in a ship or POI I am looting. So finding a way to encourage players to actually eat the fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains we are able to produce would be nice and a welcome escape from constantly eating the same thing.
