More gentle resurrection costs
Mon, 10/25/2010 - 18:42
Summary: replace the current exponential rise in resurrection costs with a sigmoidal gompertz function type response.
This beta has a lot of new features that I like, including the option to help revive fallen allies if you truly want to continue with the group of friends you've assembled.
However, the rate at which revival energy cost rises is pretty high- 2^n energy adds up fast, especially against enemies that can cream you with a single blow. This creates a game design quandary: it's good to keep the cost of healing high (so as to encourage skill and planning when going for lower levels), but if the cost becomes sky-high too fast, people will quit the level altogether instead of paying. That makes it unattractive to players, and in return, keeps OOO from getting the maximum benefit out of this feature.
Instead, might I suggest increasing the cost of revivals according to a more gentle function? I would propose a sigmoidal response, such as the gompertz function ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_curve ), which has the following desirable characteristics:
1. A player with few health bars starting out gets a "grace period" of a couple of cheap revivals (price rises very slowly)
2. After heavy revival use, the cost jumps more dramatically, to ensure that repeated revivals are priced outside the reach of all but the most crazily determined players
3. Once some threshold is reached, the revival costs again level out- hence, the most determined players can afford to keep reviving for a long time, which in turn keeps them shelling out long after the current pricing system would drive them away
Tue, 10/26/2010 - 09:00
#2
The intention behind the
The intention behind the exponential cost rise was that players would eventually choose their own price that they would not exceed, and thus everybody would develop their own soft price cap.
There are obviously some question marks about that hypothesis. However, if we did implement a hard cap, be it a sigmoidal gompertz function or just exponential with an arbitrary hard cap, we'd most certainly also be adding a hard cap to number of resurrections in a given dungeon run. The intention behind the system was to soften failure, rather than allow any player with enough money to buy their way through any dungeon.
Tue, 10/26/2010 - 09:31
#3
I think there should be an
I think there should be an energy-resurrection cap.
I think there should, in general, be more rewards for making it through a dungeon without dying.
Tue, 10/26/2010 - 10:00
#4
I do agree with the concern
I do agree with the concern about buying one's way through a dungeon, and the very fact that OOO *doesn't* want to enable this behavior (despite the insane profit potential) is one thing I've always liked about them.
The idea behind suggesting a sigmoidal response (rather than a hard cost cap) was that the price would still continue to rise with every resurrection, but without reaching quite so crazy a level. (5,000 energy for a party resurrection = ~ $15 = yikes!! And since the total cost asymptotically approaches 2x the cost of the nth revival, the actual cost of that single adventure is closer to 10,000 energy, or $30 total. Zoiks!)
So given that some people have shown a shockingly high cost threshold already, a more gentle rise in costs would help to keep them engaged in the game, without the eventual burnout that would come from endless "insert even more coins to continue" messages. A softer hike + cap on the number of resurrections sounds like a good system, and again, I greatly admire any company that can go out and suggest this as an *alternative* to short-term lucrative behavior. Knowing that you care about your customers is one thing that keeps us all coming back. :)
Tue, 10/26/2010 - 12:33
#5
When I start dying and costs
When I start dying and costs climb, I get a feeling that I imagine is similar to what gamblers feel when they start losing hard. "I've put in too much money to quit now. I've got to buy back in to justify it." And when you're finally tapped out, you feel mad at yourself.
One idea I had is letting players buy extra lives in the lobby instead of buying them on the fly.
Tue, 10/26/2010 - 20:56
#6
Yeah, I'm with Machallboyd
Yeah, I'm with Machallboyd here. I've toned it down because in my head this is beta and I need time to try multiple things out. But when this thing is live? I will be diving as deep and as fast as possible regardless of cost.
Tue, 10/26/2010 - 22:55
#7
Uh
I think the idea of resurrection for energy, is that it's a feature to save you once or twice if things get complicated, but not allow you to have 10 extra lives.
I think the game was originally conceived to have someone else revive you or not die at all, since the feature just got recently implemented. More like in a roguelike.
If you're dying a lot maybe you should come back to the gate when you have better equipment or a better party.
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 12:13
#8
my wife an I often comment as
my wife an I often comment as we explore about the steep climb of resurrection costs. I guess, I kinda look at it like an arcade game. 25 cents 1p 25 cents to continue. As 100 energy is ~ 25 cents, when they start getting over that, it makes me feel ugh. At the same time I very much get the feel that boyd brought up... "I've invested sooo much into this floor, i dont want to lose it" That combined with the fact that its usually just one small sticking point that causes the issues. For example a particularly nasty gremiln battle (that happened last night) or a dense gun puppy trap which also happened last night, on the same level.
So going back to the core idea, I really really agree with the idea of a cap, I would put it at somewhere between 100 and 200 energy. If I am in a tough spot right now, I am getting less and less likely of hitting that revive button because it is constantly increasing, so even if my current is 80, if I expect to have to hit it again, ill know itll double. On the other hand, if I know it has a cap, I might be more willing to hit that cap, because I know, that it isnt going up again.
Oh and I have to respectfully disagree with the comparison of SK to rougelike games. Personally it feels like a cross between modern ARPGs and classic Gauntlet. Hence my earlier comparison.
Enough blathering for me.
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 12:43
#9
I think there are two
I think there are two problems:
1) I'm much less motivated to give half of my health to revive someone now - especially if I don't know them.
2) The cost gets too high.
Solutions:
1) No clue. Maybe this is okay?
2) A cap on the cost seems the most simple and effective. Do we really care if people keep playing until they win? I'd vote to make the price point low -- no more than 50 energy (the equivalent of 5 floors or about $0.15 per revive)
As someone who has spent 5k on a full party rez I support the notion of a hard cap on rezzes.
That said don't make it too low. Maybe cap out at 500 per person?
All I know is. that's where most of my money has gone since being implemented. haha.