If I has my way we would only have small block vs large block and leave players to figure out what works and what doesn't or is impractical for good reasons without us being slammed with silly limits and the CPU nerf bat. But I guess that is part of how PvP tweaking tends to pollute all other modes of play.
Exactly my line of thought... and more power to those who want to PvP and all, but they're 20% of the player base. The rest of us shouldn't be limited in step CPU doesn't have to be a negative, it could be a useful tool for creative solutions while preserving hardware resources. It just isn't
A large part of my thinking for these ideas is that you want to give players the impression that raiding POIs and other dangerous activities are something they should still be doing despite the risk. A death and its sting needs to be presented as the consequences of doing something in an unworkable way, not because it was something they shouldn't have been doing at all. After respawning, a player should immediately be thinking how to try differently next time. This is why I'm not a fan of harsh penalties for simply dying. The loss of important equipment or even a ship should be reserved for the most boneheaded choices, like taking an underpowered vessel to a high gravity lava world or flying to space without any oxygen. Such a loss doesn't even feel like a penalty. It feels like a natural result of carrying out a really bad idea. And you do need these options. A group of mutually-defensive POIs wrecking your unshielded SV sucks, but attacking it was a predictable risk, and next time you'll know to bring a better ship or look for a more isolated target. Having the obviously great dangers makes the lesser ones more appealing to a player who is looking for greater challenge, but isn't entirely sure of their capabilities. So if you do really want to have a cost-per-respawn, you gotta make it harmonize with the gameplay loop. I still suggest a credit cost due to its scalability as you get richer and inability to ruin a player completely. I also remind you that this game has a durability system. Equipment damage from death is old hat as subtle a way of discouraging death. Plus, even if all of a player's gear was completely wrecked, they could still respawn at their CV/HV/tent beachhead with the still-working survival suit they need to escape to their base or a friendly POI to repair and regroup. In such a situation, a respawn timesink is less of a penalty and more of a mandatory break.
I'm not 100% sure if you were replying to me, but I'll chime in. I basically agree with all the general principles you're getting at. You appear to be saying that penalties should be proportional, and this is a very reasonable point to make. I want to make it clear I'm just disagreeing on what is a suitable and proportional penalty. I don't think anything that greatly increases your chance of losing a ship has been suggested - my suggestion is simply to move a lot of the "nearby" spawns to an actual nearby ship or tent, which is more likely to be safe (and therefore less death-loopy), in part by making that method of respawn more accessible by adding the tent option and making SV clone chambers a thing. I think equipment loss, on the other hand, is fairly proportional, especially if there is some chance to recover some of the previous equipment. A new shotgun, a little ammo, and some light armour is an affordable cost in very early game (especially if this change also had some tweaks to those costs). Later, when you're raiding harder POIs, you'll need better equipment in a respawn, and therefore the cost will scale roughly with the difficulty of the POI. Currently, the material cost of raiding non-turret POIs is practically zero, even though they contain loads of great loot. Yes there is some difficult to replace equipment, like epic weapons. On the Official multiplayer server, a competent player can usually afford to buy multiple ones of these once they progress far enough to reach a the trade stations. And before that, I think it's ok for there to be a possibility of losing them given that going back to T2 or even T1 is not a catastrophic loss. It seems to be a proportional risk of raiding of POI where there might be lots of great weapons and resources. You're suggesting this is more scalable and less annoying than the current punishment for a POI raid death, which is basically the "annoying the player" penalty we both agree is bad. But I don't feel the credit option is very immersive, because it's not clear how someone is paying for something at the moment of death, who they are paying, and how that is able to instantly relocate them, especially when they are on a remote planet. And I think there's some exploitation/balance issues as well. Imagine two late-game players raid a POI, one who has spent all 10m of their credits recently on Autominers or some other fancy stuff, the other who is holding the 10m credits to buy the same immediately after the raid. The penalty for one is million(s) and the other near zero. This also means a player can stash or spend their cash somewhere temporarily before a POI raid to basically eliminate the cost of dying. In my mind, materials are actually the more reliable currency of the game and make a better cost penalty. For this reason I favour making the cost of death the equipment you're carrying - it's the most immersive option, it's proportionate to the activity you're engaged in, scenarios can adjust the penalty through equipment costs in the config, and there's no real way to get around it with an exploit. It can be achieve easily by moving respawns to a nearby tent or clone chamber, and allowing the tent or clone chamber to construct new equipment. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but it seems like the logical extension of the points you raise (which I agree with!). This is a good point and I agree this is a great way to create a proportional penalty. The equipment you drop on death might be randomly kept, lost or heavily degraded.
I think the issue here is all in the old realism vs gameplay debate. Let's face it, attacking even the smallest and least defended POI is downright suicidal, you are expecting to take a heavily fortified bunker, with automated turrets everywhere, and dozens, if not hundreds of guards, across most likely open terrain, and once you get inside you are expected to take on up to 7 or 8 guards with little to no cover, suicide. I am no expert but i doubt any military in the world would send a single man into such a situation and expect him to make it past the entrance. Games tend to be skewed towards the player, sure they are, but only on individual level, it's customary to throw wave after wave of enemy at the player. In Empyrion it means you die, repeatedly. In fact i would say that the way i take POIs resembles the way real Military takes objectives, but i send my soldiers in one at a time to die needlessly instead of sending them all together, i am not sure but i think the AI may actually have me beat on the strict K/D ratio.
Which POI is this? I am not familiar with any where the only access to a lower level is by falling through a trap door - however I will say there are many that do have trap doors that will drop you into some very unfortunate messes - which is by design. I have seen quite a few POI's where access to one area or another is either very cleverly hidden, disguised, or requires accessing from some very off-the-beaten-path methods, as well as quite a few where accessing an area via an air duct or side passage makes the area incredibly easy.
Oh yay, storytime... so here I was, back in A11.whatever, minding my own business, skimming over mountain tops in a very capable HV, scouting near the edge of Zirax territory, being sure to keep an eye out for - boom! What was that? Boom! Crud, I died. Something hit me but good, so, respawn and... Here I am, under some building somewhere? What? My backpack is only some 300 away, so I start walking, feeling both a little bit safe since I'm under a building, as well a growing sense of near-panic, as I realize my backpack is above me, and there are no holes to get out of here. Uh oh... Make a free Survival Tool, and burn a little hole in the ground, then loose my drone, finish drilling up and snag my backpack. Unfortunately I'm not really packing much, and certainly nothing suitable for sieging a Missile Base from below. So.. where's my base? Oh, over that way. I start walking, and as I'm walking, I happen to notice the Missile Base Core. Hmm... I pop a couple round, but the Missile Base is shielded. I know I don't have enough ammo to crack that shield, so... I resume walking, until I reach solid dirt again, then start tunneling with my Survival Tool. A solid mile later, I emerge from the base of a mountain, my base another half mile away. I head for my base, swap out my gear for some explosive charges and siege equipment, and head back. The mile long tunnel gave me free access to the bottom of the Missile Base, and explosives made for quick and easy work taking out the core. That Missile Base built me a CV, another base, and provided a long supply of materials for quite some time - and provided me enough to recover and repair my HV it shot down, once I found what was left of it. The Point: Adversity breeds Opportunity, if you let it.
It is Abandoned factory iirc, and i am sure there was no other way down, because i examined it closely after i destroyed the core looking for any remaining enemies and loot, there is a small area that looks like it may provide alternate access but it is completely separated from the main structure, and i examined it thoroughly. I also remember taking a similar structure apart in the past and that one also had only one way in, via a trapped block. And even if it's by design may i just mention that putting a trapped block in the same room with a laser canon is a major d**k move, if you will excuse my language, who has time to pull out their multitool and examine every single block when a giant eff off canon is blasting you apart?
Remember that scene, from like, just about every movie ever, where the hero is captured by the villain, who then takes so long to explain their great master-plan, that the hero is able to secure his escape and now knows exactly how to thwart the villain's schemes? This is the exact opposite of that. I'll have to take a look at the Abandoned Factory POI, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, then there is an alternate route into the lower levels that does not include sharks with lasers on their foreheads - but I think it actually requires going up to a higher level to go down to the lower levels first.
I have to add that individual experiences may vary wildly, i never noticed this before but i recently watched some of Spanj's videos and immedietely noticed how much faster everything goes for him, for example it takes full 9 and a half seconds for me to reload my shotgun, instead of 5 that it should be taking, long after the animation plays out the gun is still registered as reloading. This is just one example i clearly noticed, there may be other, more subtle lag, that indirectly makes the game much harder for some players while others with better systems can't understand what the problem is, since for them it's all too easy.
The death loop; Never heard of this until Spanj mentioned it on his Project Eden. I don't believe that this is an EGS exclusive problem! However, if I was to attempt to fix this in EGS; - the first thing that I would do would be to remove the dropped item disappearing timer or extend it to the end of that player's game session. as this would remove the "rushed" efforts needed to recover your gear. Personally I always bring a couple of spare sniper rifles, shotguns and ammo, be amazed at how quickly some preparation reduces the death loop. - Second, remove the option to spawn nearby and replace it with the last cockpit you were in. - Third, add incentives to respawning in a cloning chamber ie half heath if not. - Lastly, Carry buffs through respawn events.
What happens to backpacks in multiplayer when a player gets killed ? Can it be picked up by players from other factions ?
There is in fact a series of cleverly hidden paths joining each and every area. There is a shortcut to the lower loot areas and the lower areas are purposefully difficult puzzles. I won't say more but it really is well crafted.
More generally, the purpose of death as a game mechanic is to impart a sense of risk. How much risk/punishment for dying is the question. And the answer is not the same for everybody. There is no one choice the game developers can implement that will make everyone happy. This is a survival game. You can tell by the types of stats and statuses. Death is meant to be a punishment. There are really only three levels of punishment that the game presents. All of them relate to losing your resources. One is dropping your contents. Two is destruction of your vessels/bases. The third is a total wipe requiring a restart from an escape pod. (There is a fourth punishment in status effects but the game does not currently incentivize staying alive so this one doesn't really count.) At this point of development, it is my opinion that the "respawn nearby" option needs to be in the game. I believe this because the difficulty ramp of PVE content is not well controlled. This makes it impossible for new players and even semi-experienced players to assess risk. We have a lot of great player-made content that has been officially accepted into the game. But the difficulty not curated. There are going to be situations where a less-hardcore player comes up against a more-hardcore design and is going to become fed up and just want it to be over. This is unavoidable. And the "respawn nearby" option makes this more tolerable for more people. In my opinion, the timer on a dropped backpack is too harsh. And the "respawn nearby" is not harsh enough. I would also like to see staying alive (and dealing with status effects) incentivized somehow. What I would like to see is: A server setting for how long the backpack will stick around. Also whether or not the timer starts immediately or once a player "touches it." A playfield setting to enable/disable "respawn nearby" (possibly called RequireCloneChamber=true). PVP playfields would default to "respawn nearby" disabled. Top-tier resource playfields would default to "respawn nearby" disabled. At least one easy starter planet defaults to allowing "respawn nearby." Oh, and the playfield would indicate if it allows "respawning nearby."
I recall early when I played, I was careful to listen for hostiles and look for turrets, same as any other FPS. I soon learned to instead peak around corners with my drone and scan surfaces with my multitool. I stopped using epic weapons or carrying anything of value with me, preferring instead to use meds and supplies over a logistics connection. I only wore armor I could easily replace filled with armor boosts. I assumed every loot container and switch was a trap. I pretty quickly learned which POIs were worth infiltrating and which I was off destroying from the outside. Eventually, I stopped doing most POIs entirely for being too much work for not enough gain (or fun). I'd wipe out the occasional drone base to stop their attacks, but that's about it. I question the need to punish people for dying at all when it already carries inherent penalties. Players already don't want to die because it interrupts their plan of action and takes up time. Dropping items on death makes this interruption to gameplay take even longer, as there is no clever, interesting, or engaging way to retrieve a corpse box. If you simply lost equipment on death, it would make every hostile POI a tedious slog to explore efficiently. Say we changed it so you simply lose all gear on death. Let's presume a thoughtful player has setup a respawn camp before entering a dangerous area, maybe even just a tent in a hole in the ground. If you take away all their equipment on death, the effect is still the same as a death loop. The only difference is instead of the frustration of not quite being able to reach their nearby gear, they get the frustration of having to spend resources replacing it (assuming they don't have to run home first to do so). Mind you, even with more severe death penalties, the encounter itself has not changed. It doesn't require anything more from a player to defeat. The POI difficulty remains the same, as does the rewards for defeating it. Both experiences leave the player angry and probably forgetful of whatever knowledge they might have gained about the encounter that killed them in the first place. Punishment is not difficulty. Punishment tells players not to do something. Difficulty tells players to do something better. On death, players should immediately be thinking about a better solution to whatever problem is happening. When you take away their agency by removing their gear, they first have to solve a new separate arbitrary problem before they can get back to the one that killed them, hopefully before it destroys their base and the days of progress it represents. When death is punishing, most players avoid it at all costs, including all exploration. When death is a slap on the wrist, most players want to dive back in and try harder next time. This is why I want toolbar items and conditions to persist through death. You died, and the problem is still happening. Get back in there and try solving it again, but better this time! If you want something to be an actual challenge, you need to ask more of the player right from the beginning. Make them comprehend the enormity of what they're up against at the outset rather than tacking onto a setback. I have two suggestions off the top of my head. First, enemy spawners require more randomization. Only a portion of an overall increased number of spawners should produce loot and enemies. The idea is that even experienced players can't know exactly what's coming or where to find it. Second, planetary POIs should be calling for backup. Allied drone waves should approach the POI under fire at set intervals to assist by attacking players and their vessels (and serve as supplemental defenses when respawning players try to reenter). When the POI core is destroyed, a sizeable base attack should immediately be triggered to attempt to retake the POI. The threat this backup provides will become more meaningful as block-based NPC ships come online. More generally, instead of picking on players in their weakness, I suggest increasing the threat their ships. Ships are FAR more powerful than players, so commiserate risks associated with operating them are far more reasonable. To various degrees, ships also represent assets that are simultaneously more valuable and more expendable. Basically nothing in this game can threaten a well-made CV, and that's a big problem. I tell you from personal experience; no POI I've come across has matched the thrill of mining on some random drone-covered planet with nothing more than a drill and a sniper rifle from inside an unarmed SV made of plastic and hubris.
I am not sure CVs are that powerful, maybe i just don't think big enough. I was tackling a space POI with my CV, it had something like 20 laser and plasma canons, before i managed to destroy even a quarter of them my shields were stripped right off and the turrets were doing a number on my exposed systems(namely the shield generator). I fled, but those turrets kept shooting at me long after my own weapons were out of range, i lost my shield generator in the process. So i decided to sneak in "on foot", for some reason the base was powered down while i approached, and i encountered minimal resistance until i found the core and destroyed it. CV would probably work ok on some ground bases but it does seem like recently there was some serious escalation in the numbers of guns POIs have, so i often find it easier to just get around them. I took out a drone base on the moon by landing in a nearby crater, digging a tunnel large enough to fit my SV, and blasting trough the wall on one of the bottom levels, thereby bypassing most of the defenses. I tried getting trough the main gate but the sheer firepower of that POI made that nothing short of suicidal.
