I think you’ve ignored my reply to you particularly.
An improved medical system is definitely survival-centric as far as I know.
Again, to reiterate, the current debate here is on how to incentivize survival gameplay. While the OP was referring to suicides, this became a sub-point that I had to address after Molton brought it up.
If you actually think that’s what @MoltonMontro was talking about, you should have flagged his reply as offtopic, because that would have nothing to do with this thread.
I’m not flagging a fully legitimate counterargument to a relevant post from a staff member as “off topic”. I think you know well how rhetorical that was.
Either way, naturally by making the game more survival-centric, you would solve the problem of people suiciding for the sake of suicide too. This is a two-way problem that needs a two-way solution.
I have already read what Molton wrote I interpreted it to mean that attempting to stay alive should be incentivised. Rereading it has not changed my interpretation at all. Making survival more challenging =/= actually providing a reason to survive, and wouldn’t be relevant to a thread about discouraging people from dying.
What about removing the suicide option?And in case you get stuck in a wall of something you are getting damage?
Pretty sure putting killboxes inside of all the objects and following the contours of the landscape (which theoretically no one should get stuck in anyways) is more difficult to implement than having the player do it manually.
I did not particularly refer to using killboxes because that would be a problem for fps and other stuff. Nelson could use the regular colliders of the player and objects and in case they enter to much one in each other then the player gets damage (for exemple in minecraft if you somehow get stuck in a block you start getting damage) and in case player falls trough the map than he falls into a killbox.
What kind of shitstorm have I started.
Not a shit storm yet, this is some good discussion
/r/mildlyterrifying
shit why’d you stop
More than half a hour and he is still typing ok. now im scared too about what he is going to say.
Going to preface this with:
Imo discussions should be open-ended enough to facilitate these kinds of things anyways, especially something as simple as just looking at an idea in a slightly different light.
RedComm hasn’t had any concerns with the discussion currently going on (as far as I’m aware) so I’m under the assumption that it’s fine until it’s apparent otherwise.
Of course, but giving more reasons for people to do it doesn’t exactly make it any better. Regardless, the bulk of my counter-point was to OP, and began after the horizontal line. The exception being when I was specifically talking about spawn points in the second paragraph, as that was towards your own suggestion for punishing the use of beds (and by extension, bases) in favor of respawning somewhere random.
I don’t see a reason to penalize people for using a bed as a respawn point. At that point, I’d rather go back to discussions about whether or not respawning at beds should even be a game mechanic.
If the point you’re going to make directly above is that people build around spawns to kill fresh-spawns, then I’m unsure what this adds to the discussion besides that player behavior is entirely unpredictable.
I’d say in U3 it isn’t that relevant since people don’t base, and loot/resources is a joke for a lot of players, but under the assumption that’s remedied in U4 then yeah, bases should be built away from spawn points (either near later-game towns or in open wilderness).
However, since things like your particular suggestion impacts optimal base positioning, due to the fact that it would indeed technically be better to not respawn at a bed (especially if the game was more punishing when it came to food/water/calories/etc.), I find it totally fair to say it could potentially encourage players to base near spawn points.
That being said, it’d also really depend on the map layout at that point, since eventually the chance of respawning near your base just wouldn’t be worth it. In fact, Nelson could make it so that respawning away from your bed typically put you as far away as possible. I don’t think people would go through the effort of manipulating a system like that to get good loot runs after dying, but I wouldn’t be able to know nor have any point of reference for that either.
The above paragraph is probably why some community members here tell people that their threads are discussing something too far down the line to be useful/relevant. At some point it’s wholly speculative on how stuff will work, and how players will interact with the game. Now, I don’t think that should stop discussions from happening, but it sure is harder.
I don’t either, and actually haven’t said that. I said that the mindset for this suggestion isn’t optimal.
Instead of thinking up ways to penalize people for dying, I believe that we should be thinking of reasons players would want to stay alive for as long as possible. In case people missed this in my initial reply: I’ve said that it’s fundamentally the same idea as “penalizing death,” just a different mindset.
For example: “Good reasons to stay alive highlight the fact that you probably don’t want to die.”
It’s the same thing, just worded differently. You can associate different things with the two, but you can also take the penalties and tweak them slightly and they’d still fit under that philosophy.
Hopefully that clarifies a bit better, so I can actually talk about something relevant to the suggestion. Obviously this has confused people, so I’ll just avoid specifically bringing it up. I’ll probably just point it out whenever there’s a misunderstanding.
Death is a big part of the game, of course, but I’m going to have to agree with the general idea (doesn’t just apply to death) that the game shouldn’t be punishing to the point of not being fun.
I’m having a hard time understanding the wording of this. I think it’s due to the theoretical dialogue you used.
Are you saying that, due to the decreased food/water people would spawn with because of respawning at a bedroll, they would have needed to have actively gotten food and water before having died?
Are you saying that it makes getting food and water a necessity?
I’m having a hard time understanding what you meant to say, so I won’t respond on this one too much. But, if it’s the latter then I’d definitely want to discuss with the point you’re trying to make. In my opinion, food and water shouldn’t only be desired/relevant/threatening because dying would require you to have it stockpiled.
This is true, but it’s not any more true than the original post’s suggestion was (assuming you’re discussing this with your own suggestion tacked on).
I think players starting immediately below the health regeneration threshold would remedy this too, and equally as much. Alternatively, raiders could just be given enough time to begin raiding before defenders could even respawn and get fully re-geared. That’d make surviving a nice objective.
I don’t have a great point of reference for this when it comes to U3, given how raiding/bases work in that game, but if it’s relevant to the central talking point then I wouldn’t be opposed to someone mentioning a different game’s way of handling this (either as a reply or through the + New Topic button under the share/hyperlink button on comments).
Experience loss is definitely a reason against performing suicide spam in U3. I was under the impression that players didn’t typically suicide spam in U3 due to this, but apparently at least some due (according to NarcolepticHound at least).
Whether or not the majority of players do it? I don’t know. I still assume most players don’t commit suicide to optimize their looting runs and get food/water back (which I believe to be incredibly easy to refill), which would lead me to believe that experience loss is a valid point still.
I wanted to go more in-depth with that idea specifically, but as I mentioned in my original post the discussion threads for things like skills don’t really talk about penalties when it came to death all that much. Skills should, however, be an incentive to live as long as possible. Skill systems exist to reward players for their progression. In a survival game, skills are typically not safe from death (permanent progression), and can be lost (temporary/impermanent progression).
Evidently not.
They shouldn’t be. That’s what progression is for. Progression is what’s between being alive and being rewarded, and progression should be incentivized.
Your post is built on a misunderstanding regarding my own post. However, it proceeds to cover progression to some extent immediately after, and I don’t dispute any of those being progression nor would I say any of those are invalid, because all of those are incentives to stay alive. So, I’m not going to be adding any more to my response here.
As said earlier (in this post), it was actually mostly about just a better mindset when it comes to posts like these, as to facilitate better discussion and allow for more open ideas when it comes to subjects like “how do we affect the way player’s play the game?”
That does play a big part though. The PvP-oriented gameplay of U3 definitely does have an impact here, and so does the idea of U4 being more “hardcore survival”-oriented.
I think this is a valid way to incentivize survival, and it seems that most people who have partaken in this discussion have agreed. The skill system has definitely been the most prominent example, for sure.
Bit weird of an example, possibly resulting from misunderstanding my original post. This would incentivize building a base, but I don’t think it’d encourage “not dying.” Maybe it’d encourage players to live long enough to scrounge up the resources to make a base, but that’s a rather temporary thing. Bases aren’t as temporary, but I’m unsure if this one has much relevancy beyond that point.
I can understand why this would be an incentive. If being healthy is a good thing, then it’s not out of the question to assume that being healthy rewards you. Experience multipliers, better stamina, etc., all things you’d lose if you died.
I can also understand why some people would disagree with this being an incentive, as it’s also just another status bar you have to actively keep full to prevent yourself from dying.
I would have to agree with those saying this isn’t a great example when it comes to my original post. It’s good for explaining how U4 can be more survival-oriented, but it doesn’t incentivize surviving (as in, “not dying”).
Maybe a certain illness is given to those after (re)spawning, but that’s the only way I could see that being relevant to my point. That’d also go contrast a bit with my original talking point, but a temporary illness upon spawning sounds more engaging than slightly lower status bars. Dunno. 
I think this goes back to the skill system?
While this kinda misses the point of my original post, it’s still a decent way to put out there my original talking point. As I said, it’s about a different mindset for these suggestions.
I won’t get into that too much again, but this does a good job imo. Penalties can be reworded, sometimes only needing a bit of minor tweaking, to actually be incentives.
I wouldn’t deem the latter half necessary, but I otherwise agree (with the potential exception being mentioned further up in this reply). Being sick doesn’t really incentivize not committing suicide.
In fact, it’s very similar to running out of food/water and then committing suicide just to replenish them. When the benefits of death outweigh those of life (which, at that point, are quite few since you’re sick and dying, you’re going to accept death and suicide.
I think we’d just remove the suicide button and implement one of the many suicide methods people have suggested. That’s such a crazy punishment. I guess if the skill system allowed for it, you could make it back to normal player movement speed again, but this suggestion is rough.
If respawning/suicide (spawning in general, I guess) was to be punished, I think temporary penalties would be better.
If we wanted to punish suicide specifically, it could spawn a zombie that has to be killed before you can get loot off the corpse (unless you get back to the body fast enough). Then, the respawn time would be longer than the reanimation period.
That’d punish players trying to suicide inside their base. However, I can imagine that there’d be several problems with such a game mechanic, and in a group it wouldn’t be a big obstruction to overcome.
Lowering player movement speed permanently though is rough.
I think this part has been glossed over due to your first suggestion being a bit overwhelming to consider. Are you suggesting that, if a player suicides, all the status bars stay roughly the same?
I don’t dislike the idea, and if I think that’d actually be a fair suggestion to have been made in one of the suicide posts where people were talking about whether or not there should even be a suicide button. If you were to keep your status bars (although probably not illnesses?), then technically… that’d do something!
I was going to say it’d resolve a lot of the concerns people have with the button, but it doesn’t do that on its own. However, I do think it’s a fair suggestion regardless. I’m more willing to accept that being implemented than some of the other things mentioned here, even though your suggestion is specifically regarding suicide. Maybe it’s just that the previous suggestions expand off OP’s idea too much.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been suggested on an actual suicide discussion thread. (At least, I don’t believe it has.)
As said earlier in this reply, I can see the calorie system has incentivizing “not dying.” The other two are a bit iffy though, I’d agree.
I guess the medical system could interact with the calorie system so that being above-averagely healthy in both could be what gives you bonuses like experience multipliers or stamina boosts, but otherwise I don’t know.
Also mentioned earlier in this reply, I’d have to agree that being sick in U4 is probably comparable to being out of food/water in U3, and would result in committing suicide. In fact, people would probably be more inclined to suicide out of an illness than they would food/water.
This hasn’t been mentioned on dedicated suicide threads, but you don’t need the suicide button to get out of “dumb places.” Status bars can hit zero, and then you’d die naturally.
Now, a suicide button works wonders for speeding up that process (although it doesn’t really happen that often). Regardless, I’m still in agreement that the suggestion is incredibly punishing. Maybe @Aj_Gaming was trying to make a point by suggesting that.
I feel like you’re all kinda missing each other’s points in little ways, in addition to my own. Regardless, as stated in my preamble thingy, discussions really do need to be more open when possible and beneficial.
Using this thread as an example specifically, @RedCo’s original post isn’t wrong to have not been more open-ended, it just doesn’t facilitate as much as discussion. Posts are going to get less replies if it’s very simple and close-ended (several of my own posts come to mine, which will get more likes than replies). RedComm still doesn’t seem to have any pressing concerns about this besides that it may look like a “shitstorm” occurred, so I think it’s fine still. Probably/hopefully.
This comes up a lot in the dedicated (or semi-dedicated) suicide threads.
I think reading what people have had to say on those would be good, if you’re trying to see where people stand on that.
Kill-boxes aren’t unrealistic to have implemented, but if you get stuck in something it’s probably something that can just be patched to not get stuck in. I don’t believe many people get stuck in things that can’t just be patched out of the map/game.
For example: a random pothole of doom and despair can just be made to not exist, rather than also become a random pothole of doom, despair, and pure tragedy as your items disintegrate into nothingness upon your sudden and utterly tragic death.
I guess fail-safes are nice, but at that point I’d have to agree with Harvest that it’d be more tedious than it should be.
However, I wouldn’t say it’s too tedious, especially, if the game was designed with such a thing in mind from early-on in development.
This clarification seems incredibly excessive. Simply put: “players suffocate if they’re inside objects.”
I’d assume this is easier in Minecraft due to that being a voxel game, and that the suffocation is integral to physics objects falling on players who can’t just be pushed to a new block instead. But, I still think this would work too, and probably(?) be better in the long-run than killboxes.
Hopefully none, if you’re cool with this. 
This is what I call a damn arguing nuke… Holy f*ck molt, I couldn’t even finish reading the last 2/5 parts of that.
Just saying, I’m ok with anything that makes people stop suiciding each 10 seconds for taking advantages on anything. It’s a problem even as big and sensible as almost everyone KoSing just because.
I understood what you were trying to get at, so I pointed out what needed to be tweaked from what you actually said, because just taking what you said literally I wouldn’t have been able to connect my own suggestions about progression. Basically I tried to do the same thing that you did with the OP.
That makes a lot more sense.
With the various conflicting and varying points of everyone in this discussion, it was a bit hard for me to find a solid unified topic to counterargue.
That’s why, looking back, I put a couple of weird examples in there (cough medical system). My point still stands though, and I’m satisfied that you picked up on it. Discussions like these are 100% necessary.
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
