I'd roll 1 captain for this, and I think I might be inclined to RP actually at that point. would make RP'ing that much more interesting if I showed up at the bar on a new character and people my dead captain knew are talking about how he died at the battle of <enter name here>
Guess I have a character that fits this scenario. Rolled one alt as a pacifist that was traumatized by the Borg from the tutorial. She is a coward that warps out at the first sign of a red dot on sensors. How she was promoted to a Vice Admiral is beyond me. First 10 levels involved doing the patrol non-combat missions and non-combat exploration missions. Duty Officer missions really helped or else she would still be stuck at level 10.
They make a new difficulty level, level reality.
When you be destroyed you will loose ship and captain and you would have to start all over again ?
Grinds and all stuff you had will be lost !!!
Would you play at this level ?
EVE Online is like that for both PVE and PVP, other than losing your captain. But you lose your ship and what ever was fitted to it and in the cargo hold. oh and you can get shot at anywhere, no specific zones for PVP.
it has nothing to do with being a clone of EVE, and I would assume(like so many other games) that it would have an optional "check" mark at character creation, therefore noone would be forcing anyone, just allowing those that want to play that option to do so.
In a way, I like the idea only not in the same context. Rather than the entire character you have created and spent time on, I would enjoy something along the lines of a temporary character and/or separate storyline mission where you create a character or copy the one you have and choose a secondary ship that would be your main ship within just the separate storyline. When you "die" you can be resuscitated so many times before finally you actually do die within the mission and have to start over. As for your ship, you would have to make repairs along the way and have some kind of timer in place or way to hit escape pods. If you don't make it, neither does the ship. If you do make it, then the ship can be salvaged after a cooldown time.
No reason that someone couldn't just decide that they were going to make a character and that if they were ever defeated that they would just delete the character and all of their belongings and start over.
It's really a bad idea to use it as a business model, though.
Different games have different penalties for dying, but not one that has been successful has ever made the death penalty a permanent loss of the character and everything associated with it.
No reason that someone couldn't just decide that they were going to make a character and that if they were ever defeated that they would just delete the character and all of their belongings and start over.
It's really a bad idea to use it as a business model, though.
Different games have different penalties for dying, but not one that has been successful has ever made the death penalty a permanent loss of the character and everything associated with it.
There's a reason for that.
It's a bad idea.
nah, Diablo II:LOD wasn't successful, neither was Diablo
This topic has actually led me to ask a question that has haunted me since I first became old enough to realize how Transporter technology actually works.....
In the Star Trek universe where peoples molecules are disassembled, stored in a computer system, then reassembled somewhere else from said stored data, why would anyone actually perma die? Could you not just "load last save" if something unfortunate happened?
I wouldn't get anything account bound for such a toon, which means when I die I'd not lose anything terrible except time...and I'd know about that going in.
Only issue I can see is that, such a difficulty level if applied to a toon that made level 44 and joined an STF, could potentially leave team mates in the lurch due to dying.
However, it could be automatically diabled for team play.
Broadly speaking, I see a lot of potential with changes or rather additions to difficulty levels.
Thats the fun of it you will lose all of it acount bound or not, like real dying you lose all the stuff
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
*snip
That being said, adding more risk (maybe forced to revert down to captain for example) for poor decisions, etc... would be interesting. Losing goods that were earned instead of paid for would also be interesting.
Now this I could get on board with. The more losses, the farther down the ranks you get demoted. Then, in order to get back to where you were, you could be assigned random missions (already in-game missions unless the devs want to take on new ones) from an NPC. That way, your rank is always under review.
Want to constantly AFK in group battles? Fine. Have fun being stuck in a Tier 1 ship. Want to keep your favorite shiny? Stay on your toes.
- excessive grind to get enough gear to ensure survival
- if not forced to do so, one would see a LOT of engineers in tanky ships with tanky builds. Boring!
- would be a lot of people who leave instances, taking the penalty instead of the death.
- leeching and cowardly behaviors would increase
- majority of deaths are from bad teamwork; this is not a solo game like diablo 2 where hardcore actually works.
- too much BBQPWN megacrit mechanics like borg oneshot torps and lance attacks (hive for example)
- if groups were mixed, non hardcore people would not respect your need to survive; some would even try to get you killed. If not mixed, too few players to form groups etc.
Basically, this is about the worst possible game for it due to a combination of mechanics, player base, cost of decent gear, and such factors.
Well, here's my take on the original idea of "reality difficulty".
This is solely for the ship, at this point in time...
Every time your ship is destroyed it suffers a bit of "battle fatigue" simply because the ship has been asked to performance above and beyond it's expected "normal duties". Starships can naturally be repaired, however, over time repairs becomes less and less effective as damaged systems are quickly patched so that the starship can quickly return to active duty.
Battle fatigue builds up over time so it's not like you blow up once and that is the end. Overtime the specs of the starship will slowly decrease. A quickly patched hull is nowhere near a strong as an undamaged hull, so perhaps the hull strength drops from it's max of 40,000 down to 39,975 the 1st time you die. The more times the ship is destroyed the faster the maximum hull strength drops, that's because field repairs / fast patches do not fully restore a ship's hull. Thus, the more patches the lower the overall hull strength. Maybe every time the ship is destroyed the deterioration accelerates by 25 points. For example, if the ship is destroyed a 2nd time, then the max hull strength is reduced to 39,925. Get destroyed a 3rd time and it drops to 39,850, a 4th time and it drops to a max of 39,750... So on and so forth.
There could be an option to overhaul a starship that has significant battle fatigue to restore most of the lost structural integrity, but not fully restored to a brand new ship. Say this option costs 250 ZEN and it will restore the ships hull to 97% of max strength or 38,800 in this case. Again, each additional overhaul does not fully restore the starship's hull so perhaps additional overhauls also become less effective and drops by 2% every time you do an overhaul. Therefore, the 3rd time an overhaul is done, only 95% of the max hull strength is restored, or 38,000. Perhaps limit the number of overhauls that can be done to a ship as well to say 6 times. The 6th and final overhaul up to 87% of the max hull strength will be restored; in this example, it would be 34,800.
Another layer would be time; performing an overhauls takes much longer than a simple patch job. Therefore, when an overhaul is initiate on the ship, that ship is unavailable for a period of 150 hours; 6 days and 6 hours real time. If you want to play STO, then you will have to do it with another ship during the overhaul period.
This is just one simple aspect. Another thing that could be done is permanent damage to equipment. When a ship is destroyed at least one piece of equipment (weapon, engine, deflector, console, etc...) becomes damaged and it's effectiveness is permanently decreases by 1%. There is no way to restore that performance other than a brand new replacement. This can naturally become expensive especially for certain Very Rare equipment which cost millions if not 10's of millions of ECs, or a good deal of dilithium.
It is highly doubtful that Cryptic would implement a system like this since it could be a bit complex since there would be even more things to keep track of.
Comments
why is it everyone wants to make STO a EVE PVP clone?
I don't.
But I'd like to have a difficulty level that let me run through the story missions, with perma death being an actual possibility.
Just on one of my many toons and not all the time.
But it would be a genuine PvE challenge.
I thought WoW's forums had angry elitist snobs, but I never could have imagined the level STO forums has.
EVE Online is like that for both PVE and PVP, other than losing your captain. But you lose your ship and what ever was fitted to it and in the cargo hold. oh and you can get shot at anywhere, no specific zones for PVP.
I thought WoW's forums had angry elitist snobs, but I never could have imagined the level STO forums has.
"There's Admiral Smith, he's been picked up by Starfleet SAR 28 times"
No reason that someone couldn't just decide that they were going to make a character and that if they were ever defeated that they would just delete the character and all of their belongings and start over.
It's really a bad idea to use it as a business model, though.
Different games have different penalties for dying, but not one that has been successful has ever made the death penalty a permanent loss of the character and everything associated with it.
There's a reason for that.
It's a bad idea.
Now, if abandon ship actually allowed you to enter a shuttle craft, or escape pod, it would actually be a useful ability.
I thought WoW's forums had angry elitist snobs, but I never could have imagined the level STO forums has.
nah, Diablo II:LOD wasn't successful, neither was Diablo
I thought WoW's forums had angry elitist snobs, but I never could have imagined the level STO forums has.
In the Star Trek universe where peoples molecules are disassembled, stored in a computer system, then reassembled somewhere else from said stored data, why would anyone actually perma die? Could you not just "load last save" if something unfortunate happened?
I thought WoW's forums had angry elitist snobs, but I never could have imagined the level STO forums has.
Oh, now wouldn't that be cool....
Abandon ship leaving you in your shuttle with an angry Borg tactical cube on your starboard bow.
That would seperate the sheep from the mutton......
Thats the fun of it you will lose all of it acount bound or not, like real dying you lose all the stuff
"Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
Now this I could get on board with. The more losses, the farther down the ranks you get demoted. Then, in order to get back to where you were, you could be assigned random missions (already in-game missions unless the devs want to take on new ones) from an NPC. That way, your rank is always under review.
Want to constantly AFK in group battles? Fine. Have fun being stuck in a Tier 1 ship. Want to keep your favorite shiny? Stay on your toes.
- excessive grind to get enough gear to ensure survival
- if not forced to do so, one would see a LOT of engineers in tanky ships with tanky builds. Boring!
- would be a lot of people who leave instances, taking the penalty instead of the death.
- leeching and cowardly behaviors would increase
- majority of deaths are from bad teamwork; this is not a solo game like diablo 2 where hardcore actually works.
- too much BBQPWN megacrit mechanics like borg oneshot torps and lance attacks (hive for example)
- if groups were mixed, non hardcore people would not respect your need to survive; some would even try to get you killed. If not mixed, too few players to form groups etc.
Basically, this is about the worst possible game for it due to a combination of mechanics, player base, cost of decent gear, and such factors.
This is solely for the ship, at this point in time...
Every time your ship is destroyed it suffers a bit of "battle fatigue" simply because the ship has been asked to performance above and beyond it's expected "normal duties". Starships can naturally be repaired, however, over time repairs becomes less and less effective as damaged systems are quickly patched so that the starship can quickly return to active duty.
Battle fatigue builds up over time so it's not like you blow up once and that is the end. Overtime the specs of the starship will slowly decrease. A quickly patched hull is nowhere near a strong as an undamaged hull, so perhaps the hull strength drops from it's max of 40,000 down to 39,975 the 1st time you die. The more times the ship is destroyed the faster the maximum hull strength drops, that's because field repairs / fast patches do not fully restore a ship's hull. Thus, the more patches the lower the overall hull strength. Maybe every time the ship is destroyed the deterioration accelerates by 25 points. For example, if the ship is destroyed a 2nd time, then the max hull strength is reduced to 39,925. Get destroyed a 3rd time and it drops to 39,850, a 4th time and it drops to a max of 39,750... So on and so forth.
There could be an option to overhaul a starship that has significant battle fatigue to restore most of the lost structural integrity, but not fully restored to a brand new ship. Say this option costs 250 ZEN and it will restore the ships hull to 97% of max strength or 38,800 in this case. Again, each additional overhaul does not fully restore the starship's hull so perhaps additional overhauls also become less effective and drops by 2% every time you do an overhaul. Therefore, the 3rd time an overhaul is done, only 95% of the max hull strength is restored, or 38,000. Perhaps limit the number of overhauls that can be done to a ship as well to say 6 times. The 6th and final overhaul up to 87% of the max hull strength will be restored; in this example, it would be 34,800.
Another layer would be time; performing an overhauls takes much longer than a simple patch job. Therefore, when an overhaul is initiate on the ship, that ship is unavailable for a period of 150 hours; 6 days and 6 hours real time. If you want to play STO, then you will have to do it with another ship during the overhaul period.
This is just one simple aspect. Another thing that could be done is permanent damage to equipment. When a ship is destroyed at least one piece of equipment (weapon, engine, deflector, console, etc...) becomes damaged and it's effectiveness is permanently decreases by 1%. There is no way to restore that performance other than a brand new replacement. This can naturally become expensive especially for certain Very Rare equipment which cost millions if not 10's of millions of ECs, or a good deal of dilithium.
It is highly doubtful that Cryptic would implement a system like this since it could be a bit complex since there would be even more things to keep track of.