Is it not sillier to expect that everyone shares your view, and wants what you do? You appear passionate about the subject, and you have the power to inflict as severe of a DP on yourself as you wish, but for some reason you choose not to. I think that says a lot.
Well, honestly i dont go for the "what people want is what they should get" philosophy otherwise we'd just get free rare items, no?
And I'm really not that passionate about the subject itself. I can live with no death penalty (ahaha) i'm passionate about debate, and when people post ridiculous things like "just delete your account then" that annoys me. A dp you impose on yourself has no worth in the game.
Sure it may add to your own sense of satisfaction, but not have any affect on the community, the interactions, longevity, or realism in the game. I think the in game world needs to be more real and star-trek like in general.
It makes NO sense for your ship to be able to die time and time again without penalty. I cite the TNG episode "Cause and Effect", they died over and over and kept coming back, but lost 2 weeks of their lives in doing so. (With a much more severe penalty for Kelsey Grammer lol).
Being able to die 5 times before having to return to starbase makes SLIGHTLY more sense, IMO.
I really wish we could debate this without childish attacks.
First, let me thank you for the rational response!!!
Again, i'm talking a pretty slight reduction to crew and hull. This really only reduces your effectiveness if you're shields are going way down. If thats the case repeatedly, you're probably doing something above your level and it makes sense for it to be very much a pain to accomplish.
I would argue that most deaths are mistakes, in my experience anyway, like straying too close to a group of mobs, or not working together with your teammates.
Edit: On another point, I really think there should be more starbases, like 1 per sector. That would make the pain in the butt not so much a pain either and also make it more star-trek like.
I see your point, particularly with more starbases and outposts (they should reduce the size of solar systems models in sector and add in more locations per sector, since right now, space feels small and empty).
And I know that all of the deaths I've suffered so far are lag related rather than getting in over my head (since I applied all I learned in beta to understand and surviving the game... play science and for god's sake get tractor replusor to avoid exploding ships and jam sensors to create a window in which to repair you ship).
I'm not against a death penalty, but I think for Cryptic to add one that is logical and doesn't annoy a large part of the playerbase would require them to take a huge part of the game back to the drawing board.
Respawning in the same map on the same mission with the enemies you've already killed still dead, is never going to be easily explained or logical (which is what a death penilty is mostly for). I find EVE's clones and WoW's ghosts/spirits to be lazy and stupid examples of explaining a respawn system.
Personally I thing that Cryptic should say that new Federation ships use a mixture of advanced Holo technology (reverse engineered from the Doctor's mobile emitter) and the technology seen in the 'Inferface' episode to man ships remotely. But even that has dozens of issues and problems.
Comments
Well, honestly i dont go for the "what people want is what they should get" philosophy otherwise we'd just get free rare items, no?
And I'm really not that passionate about the subject itself. I can live with no death penalty (ahaha) i'm passionate about debate, and when people post ridiculous things like "just delete your account then" that annoys me. A dp you impose on yourself has no worth in the game.
Sure it may add to your own sense of satisfaction, but not have any affect on the community, the interactions, longevity, or realism in the game. I think the in game world needs to be more real and star-trek like in general.
It makes NO sense for your ship to be able to die time and time again without penalty. I cite the TNG episode "Cause and Effect", they died over and over and kept coming back, but lost 2 weeks of their lives in doing so. (With a much more severe penalty for Kelsey Grammer lol).
Being able to die 5 times before having to return to starbase makes SLIGHTLY more sense, IMO.
I really wish we could debate this without childish attacks.
I see your point, particularly with more starbases and outposts (they should reduce the size of solar systems models in sector and add in more locations per sector, since right now, space feels small and empty).
And I know that all of the deaths I've suffered so far are lag related rather than getting in over my head (since I applied all I learned in beta to understand and surviving the game... play science and for god's sake get tractor replusor to avoid exploding ships and jam sensors to create a window in which to repair you ship).
I'm not against a death penalty, but I think for Cryptic to add one that is logical and doesn't annoy a large part of the playerbase would require them to take a huge part of the game back to the drawing board.
Respawning in the same map on the same mission with the enemies you've already killed still dead, is never going to be easily explained or logical (which is what a death penilty is mostly for). I find EVE's clones and WoW's ghosts/spirits to be lazy and stupid examples of explaining a respawn system.
Personally I thing that Cryptic should say that new Federation ships use a mixture of advanced Holo technology (reverse engineered from the Doctor's mobile emitter) and the technology seen in the 'Inferface' episode to man ships remotely. But even that has dozens of issues and problems.