Exelbirth

Complain about a lack of observable facts on my part, then dismiss it when I provide some, and twist stories for your own benefit. Would you happen to be a republican?

You know, it's not hard to find an example for a mod implementing bad decisions that drive fans away. Better Then Wolves is a prime example. Flowerchild has been working at making his mod as incompatible with any other mods as he can possibly make it, and when he started doing that his mod's community started to dwindle rapidly, as players couldn't play his mod with other mods they enjoyed. As for griefing potential, just look at the history of minecraft itself. Anything that has been added that could be used for griefing purposes has been used as such, and that extends to things mods add. A lockout would be an amazing griefing tool as it completely removes the player, leaving them unable to stop the griefing completely. Both of these are your "observable facts" that support things i've said. I've yet to see any facts that support putting in a lockout function, therefore I can safely assume that it's a bad idea, and supporting a bad idea is always stupid. How can you even argue that supporting a bad idea is smart? Unless you can make a plausible argument that supporting a bad idea is the smart thing to do, then what I've said will remain a fact. I'd also like to point out that never once have I called you stupid, i've only said supporting a bad idea is. I've also never said anyone's opinions are stupid, though you can't argue that there's no such thing as a stupid opinion.

You're the one going off on an argument about opinions. We're talking about a death penalty that won't work. If a well spoken argument is a "rampage," what does that make flipping out, tantruming, and general whining? And no crap my opinion isn't the only one. If it was, you'd have shut up days ago. I also know that this isn't an argument about how the lock-out idea is bad. This is an argument that started based on you delusionally thinking that people supporting the lock-out idea is a perfectly fine opinion and not stupid, which is factually inaccurate as indicated by the examples I have listed. Supporting a bad idea is stupid. I'm curious really, why do you defend people who support a bad idea? You argued people enjoy different things. However, I can't think of a single person that would enjoy playing a game that makes them not play the game. Now, don't say hardcore mode, because that is completely different than not playing the game. Hm... oh wait, I've thought of people who'd be in full support of an arbitrary lock-out mechanic: People who don't play minecraft. They'd love a mechanic that let's them continue not playing a game they don't play in the first place.

I gave plenty, such as: It only really punishes players on servers, where a lock out would prevent them from recollecting their items before they despawned. In single player, nothing in the world would be changing, since the world's not loaded, meaning all you've done is delay what the player was already going to do when they respawned, making a lockout more of an annoyance than a penalty. An inventory wipe would have a more guaranteed effect of what would happen on the server, and also penalize players on single player. Binding a lockout to difficulty defeats the purpose of the penalty. If it were to be implemented and made so the lockout happened only on one or two difficulties, then the other difficulties would have absolutely no penalty, which is what this thread is about in the first place. Most likely, people who play hard would get fed up with not being able to play their game and switch to normal or lower, subverting the death penalty altogether. Fans will probably leave. Any idea that has the potential to drive away fans is in essence a bad one. Sure, you might attract people who seem interested, but they might not stick around at all, and the fans that leave most likely won't return until the lockout penalty is gone. Yes, this is based on speculation a bit, but you have to factor in that more people enjoy playing minecraft because they can create things and thrive. Most of these people don't play hardcore because if they die, everything they've done is gone. The people who do enjoy hardcore though are probably going to keep playing hardcore, because a lockout isn't a challenge, it's an annoyance. These are two facts and one strong possibility that I've listed out in previous posts. If you haven't seen them before, try reading my posts before snapping about things. I also haven't assumed anything of you at all, so I don't know where you got that from.

If making valid points is "being upset over things you make up in your head," then the world is truly lost. If people don't counter stupid ideas with facts, you end up with a cesspool of idiocy, not unlike america's political system this day.

Ok, this is getting old. Do you really think that people who think TFC is too easy and play minecraft on hardcore mode are going to say, "Oh wow, tfc added a death function that doesn't delete your world, but makes it so I can't play for X time! I'm totally intrigued by this new level of difficulty and will get the mod right away!" No. They're not. Why would they settle for playing something less than hardcore when they enjoy hardcore? Even better question: Is it even a death penalty that affects your gameplay? NO! All it would do is lock you out for a bit, then you hop back in and everything's the same as when you died, with the exception of servers, making it a punishment that only works on SMP, which can easily be abused by any griefer with a bit of lava. Single player however, all your stuff will be where you died, and you'll respawn as normal. Wow, what a punishment, the world's the same and I was only inconvenienced. Also, this mod isn't about realism, so just chuck that word in the trash and burn it.

What the two of you don't seem to understand is that I'm not bashing it because I think my point of view on it is superior, nor do I think that it's moronic because I don't like it. I think it's moronic because it supports driving fans away, and that's never ever a good thing. Bioxx gets money for his mod through adfly and donations, right? Therefore, any option that drives fans away is a moronic one as it brings in less revenue. All I've done is state facts as to why a lock-out/semi-hardcore penalty wouldn't work, and since it won't work, it's a bad idea. Supporting a bad idea is moronic, plain and simple.

I have to agree with him. Enforcing a semi-hardcore mode that locks a player out of a world/server is completely stupid, and supporting it is moronic. There's a reason that hardcore mode is a separate game mode entirely, and that's because not everyone enjoys it. There's also no possible way you can enforce a semi-hardcore mode and have it work. If you put it as something that only happens on normal and hard difficulty, you just irritate and drive away people who want a challenge in their game, or others just play on easy and suffer no death penalty from that. Personally, when I play a game and add mods to it, it's so I can play the game. How can I do that if the game prevents me from playing for x amount of time? And that doesn't even cover the issues of multiplayer. What if a griefer traps spawn points so that you're essentially permanently locked out of a server because every time you spawn, you die? The only possible benefit is making it so that the player can't relog for 5 minutes so his items despawn, and that's only a viable punishment if the chunk stays loaded that they died in. Might as well do an inventory wipe at that point. In short, supporting this stupid semi-hardcore thing is the same as supporting a massive de-popularising of the mod. It'll drive away people who actually want to play the game, kill servers, irritate the few that stay, and only the hand full of masochists will enjoy it.

One thing I'm currently irritated about is the mentality people have about "losing the community pick," and how any death penalties should avoid that possibility. I have a question: Why are so many people against a death penalty option that is fair with it's punishment? Let's change the scenario a bit: you die in lava, community pick is lost. Most likely, the community gets mad at you and gives you a lot of flak for it, because you did something stupid. Now, how is this so drastically different than something that'd wipe your inventory? There really isn't any difference. What looted your stuff? Well, since mobs now carry equipment, what's to say they didn't nick your stuff and wander off? I mean, how do the mobs get the equipment in the first place? Back to the community part, of course you should be able to lose the community pick. If you can lose it to stupidity or carelessness anyway, that should apply to any careless or stupid death, not just deaths involving lava and fire. Plus, on top of any other death penalties, you have the community irritated at you for losing a shared item, which you probably deserve. Also, if your community is unable to afford making a new pick, then your community is rather idiotic or horribly misfortunate, since it's always a good idea to have a stockpile of metal to work in case of an emergency, and the only reason you shouldn't have one is either you just started, or you've found very little in the way of metal.

Seems like this thread has gone dead and everyone's got their ideas out there. Hope we see some good death features soon.

Forcing chunks to activate could potentially kill players computers that have less processing power. Wouldn't be a good idea.

Hm... in terms of medicine, would TFC have it's own version of alchemy? I'm talking about things like a mortar and pestle for grinding plants and herbs down, maybe a pot for brewing them in water that would have to be over a fire pit. It'd be a refreshing change of pace from vanilla potion making. I suppose the pot could double for making stew now that I think about it.

I'm waiting for word from him too, I'd love to see what his thoughts on all this are so far

I have an opinion on the teleporting thing. To me, teleporting to home in minecraft signifies you being barely able to drag your wounded starving self home, and the fact that you lost all your stuff is due to your weakened condition. That said, I agree with the whole waking up in the same hunger state, but at half life.

Hm... let's expand our view for a moment. The other things Bioxx said he was focusing on was an expanded health pool, and injuries/ailments. Let's build death on those grounds for a bit, and see what we come up with. One of the first things several people seem to have been jumping to is depleting your health pool. A fair idea, but it would have to go back to normal after some time has passed. If you take injuries/ailments into consideration though, you've got a few more things you can work with. Perhaps after dying, you're more susceptible to these. Not directly a debuff, but can leave you roughed up a bit. You could also stop looking at death as dying, and look at it as being near-fatally injured.