Medical Room Improvement (Survival): Cost to Respawn

I would really like a small wall panel health administor like in Half Life, would look great on ships and stations

I made a post about adding med kits in SE.

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers/general/topic/craftable-medkits

Although I've never played multiplayer, doesn't the cryo pod provide a save point where you don't loose everything you have in your backpack when you rejoin the game? If not, then I agree the cryo pod is just a redundant component.

Yeah, the cryo saves the items you have on you for when you connect next time. It's just that I always put my items in the cargo, even before I enter the cryo. So, to me, the cryo is very much redundant. It would've served more of a purpose if it meant saving a respawn charge (large power drain).

For you, the cryopod serves not to have screen respaw and faction members do not see your name (dead) in your medbay on their respaw screen.

i you don't want to die in survival, then use space master to godmode.

Are you saying you want there to be a resource for when you die that you need to have? I am confused on this topic.

Or there can be a setting for it, like what they did with oxygen. We don't need to start hating each other over adding something if you can just turn it off when you don't want it.

back to this topic, i have a feeling that the gas limit would almost entirely remove "hydromanning" as it is, because then you have to have an established point of spawning that has all of the supplies, and not just the bare minimum to drop onto the point, and spawn endlessly

if you are on a planet, you dont NEED jetpacks, as they can also be somewhat costly, and if you are in space, you already have the supplies to circumvent these restrictions, unless provided before, that you only have a spawn kit and battery or something similarly restricted

and you could have it so that theres a dynamic or setting for how much it takes each spawn, like making it so that you can only retrieve gasses from it, but not spawn with them, or use a lot of gasses to spawn with (and it could be on an "efficiency" scale like the welder speeds and such) along with the fact that you could have it so that you could disable one gas or the other, or make it so that you dont have to worry about it for planetary but do have to for space

The problem with all these suggestions is that they presuppose an established player. A brand new player would be unable to use the spawn points. Further, by requiring payments in SC, or the consumption of biomass, or the loss of reputation etc, you create a game loop of players "playing in order to be able to play." In other words, players will become focused on the biomass generation and supply in order to ensure they can respawn, which takes away from game time spent playing the actual game. Or it puts new players in a position where, by the time they are able to venture out and visit trading stations, they may have incurred such a penalty to reputation that they may not be able to actually enter the station.

A much simpler solution would be to leverage existing game mechanics and simply say that medical bays incur some slight amount of damage each time they are used. This removes the penalty from being assessed directly against the player, and shifts it to the spawn point provider (who is presumably more established). This is newbie-friendly and in general player-friendly. This also opens engineering challenges such as building self-repairing medical stations with welders. Additionally, as a balancing measure, Survival Kits might be immune from this damage. In this way, starting players don't suffer the penalty, and it gives a benefit to the survival kit, since after players become more resource rich, they generally only build medical stations. This will now provide incentives to build survival kits as well.

In the good old days you need to hunt for green magic mushrooms to get more the 3 lives.

You give new players plenty of biomass in their survival kit to start with so they have time time learn the game. But just like the ice in you starer ship in space you have a limited amount before you run out.

New players always hunt for the the drop-pods for new skins and free components, just add biomass to the loot and I don't think you have any problem for new players.

The idea is to give death more consequences so people don't just respawn over and over when trying to raid someone's base and to give new players a trade commodity that they can trade with the more experienced space fairing warlords. The block for creating biomass on planes should bulky but low tech so new players easily can create biomass. A ship or space version of the block should me more expansive and power hungry.

Teleport by respawn is a bit cheesy. On the other hand, how else can you manage things spread all over the game world? It's a gamism with no great solution.

If you are playing a co-op quasi realistic game, then it's literally no effort to simply declare the scenario rules include "you can't respawn to teleport" or however you want to phrase it. However, for players that are playing a different type of game, where they have ships and bases all over the map, they shouldn't be penalized.

I think all this could be made easy just by parameterising what I described, so the server owner would be able to determine how it all works. You could for example have a base energy cost setting that sets the minimum energy to respawn, and another setting that controls how much the requirement increases by distance. If you were able to set both to zero, you can override this whole mechanic and have the game work as it is now. I agree any such thing should be both optional and customisable.

And honestly, setting rules for your server to say "don't do this" just never works in my experience. A lot of people will choose to cheese when given the opportunity, even if they know they would have more variety in their gameplay if they had chosen not to :)

Also, adding a delay is a terrible idea. The last thing you want to do as a game designer, is to make ways to keep your player from playing the game. So you die and have to respawn across the map. And the game decides you need to wait 5 minutes before spawning. Are you gonna wait? Or will you go do something else? Or maybe you turn on Netflix while you wait. Or play something else. Will you return to the game? Maybe, maybe not. This is a glorified appointment mechanic like farmville and it's truly terrible game design. Stop and ask, what's really happening? Anything useful? A respawn delay literally adds nothing to the game, actually reduces the amount of time you spend playing.

That's why my suggestion includes distance since if you get frequently killed your likely using a close by med bay, in which case there would be no cost, or very very little.

Enforcing the cost only when large distances is involved will target only those that tries to use it for instant teleport.

Maybe it will encourage people to use smallships or remote controlled drones for different purposes more, not just running/flying with jetpack and tools. In real life, human body is fragile, so you can't act like the Iron man without real Iron man suit.

More than likely it'll motivate someone to make a mod that completely negates the penalty (and it'll be up in less than 12 hours after the update that includes this "feature"). Most people will use that instead of changing their playstyle.

The function of respawning to teleport for base management could be added to cryopods.

Climb into a cryopod and have options to either respawn (leaving your current body alive and stored in that cryopod) or transfer your POV into a body stored in another cryopod if the grids the pods are on have a radio connection (again leaving the current body alive and stored in that cryopod).

Each body should have its own inventory, of course, so you can't teleport tools and materials. And transferring consciousness from one body to another should be much cheaper than respawning. Stored bodies should continue to consume oxygen just like a player logged out on a multiplayer server.

Man, I would have so much fun with this.

It would even provide a lore explanation for why you never find anyone on ships. People don't need to travel to places they have a body stored. They can just pay rent for a cryopod on another planet or station. The basic AI is good enough to follow a series of waypoints to haul materials from place to place, only requiring a pilot to shuttle out from/to them on each end like harbor pilots for irl marine ships.

Spawn jumping is necessary to deal with a real problem in the game. When you don't respawn where you should, i.e. the closest respawn point to where you died. Or when the server crashes and rolls back and you end up spawning somewhere far away from your ship or grid you were last at. Fix that first and they we really wont need spawn jumping.

Embarking on a medical room improvement journey is a vital aspect of enhancing survival rates in various settings, whether it be hospitals, clinics, or emergency response units. One crucial factor in this survival equation is understanding the cost to respawn, both in terms of financial investments and the efficiency of medical equipment. Upgrading and optimizing medical facilities require strategic planning to ensure that the right tools are readily available for timely interventions. Collaborating with medical equipment distributors becomes paramount in sourcing state-of-the-art devices that can significantly impact patient outcomes. From advanced monitoring systems to life-saving devices, the seamless integration of cutting-edge technology not only improves the quality of care but also bolsters the overall resilience of medical facilities. In navigating the intricate landscape of medical room improvement, a strategic alliance with reputable medical equipment distributors is key to achieving a cost-effective and life-saving transformation.

That is a terrible idea...

• Because at the start of the game you don't have oxygen farms built.
• Because at the start of the game, when using progression, oxygen farms may not be unlocked.
• Because at the start of the game, you might not be on a planet, in an area with trees.
• Because at the start of the game, you might not be on a planet, in an area with ice.
• Because at the start of the game, novice players tend to die a lot and can quickly exhaust whatever starting quantity of "goo" is provided. (And if you give them so much that they can't run out, then it's not really a "cost.")
• Because it's not intuitive.
• Because there are often times when a death is due to a bug or quirk of the game and not because the player made a mistake or a bad decision (like getting killed by a closing door). That's not a fun player experience to be penalized for something that wasn't your fault.
• Because you ignored the case of what happens when you don't have any goo made? If the answer is anything other than "game over" then why not just use *that* as the cost of respawning?
• Because players that have an established industry can keep a massive supply of "goo" around and will be able to respawn freely anyway, so this is really only a penalty for starting players or players new to a server.
• Because adding an entirely new resource that has an extremely narrow utility within the game is shoddy game design.

I had not realised that I had stepped into such a minefield! It is good to read all the pitfalls that could result from a respawn cost system. There appears to be many an issue around exploits and novice players.

How could you make a respawn cost work?

How can you add another difficultly factor for long term players?

The scenario system requires restrictions to create variations in achievements.

Could a respawn cost be an optional game setting, defaulted to off?

Does survival mode have meaning?

Do you need two survival modes : beginner and advanced?

Carbon as a resource, is it really such a bad idea? (It does not have to come just from trees.)

Limiting 'Goo' :- 'goo' could be difficult to store, maybe a limited supply of a specialist refillable bottle. Possibly a similar container to the oxygen and hydrogen bottles, but much harder to obtain additional bottle.

It is good to know the problems with an idea. The ideas that players come up with are inspired by the game. It is good to preserve game elements that have made the game successful. It is also good to add new elements that open up more gameplay to the player. Currently the limits of survival gameplay have not inspired enough use of the scenario creation system.

I hope that my comments will keep the conversation going. Let us continue to offer ways to make ideas work.

Any experienced game designer can tell you that having a "cost" to respawn in a game like this is a bad mechanic because it is rife with issues, so there's really no way to make it "work."

The problem is this discussion is focusing on a single [bad] solution instead of considering the actual problem that it is supposed to solve. Why do people propose a "respawn cost?" Most answers amount to "because people can just respawn at-will in order to teleport between distant locations as long as there is a spawn point there, and that's bad."

First, is that actually a problem? I can agree that it seems a bit cheesy. I can see how some people might not like that you can do that. However, there is some balance. Using this method of transport, you can't take more than you can carry. So it's not like you can move massive amounts of resources, or vessels like this.

It also doesn't really happen that often, does it? This issue occurs almost entirely in the following conditions: on servers, in large factions, with extensive industry all over the star system. That is actually a tiny fraction of players. So the discussion is about imposing a bad solution on all players to address an aspect of the game that only a very small population of players actually encounter. That's already a few red flags from a game-design perspective.

There is also the issue that it is necessary. You can't have multiple bases across vast distances without the ability to quickly get to and manage each one.

Given these conditions, a solution that penalizes all players because a very tiny population of players doesn't like something, is a really poor choice in game design.

The ideal solution is not to penalize players for using the game systems the way they are designed, but rather to incentivize players to choose not to cheese the mechanics. How can you do that? Give the player a benefit for not respawning, which is lost when the player does respawn. This encourages players to find ways to avoid respawning if they can, but doesn't penalize players for respawning when they need to.

For example, grind and weld speeds might improve over time, as the player stays alive. Respawn and you are reset back to the default values that you start with. Perhaps mining speed increases and is reset if you respawn (not yield, though, that would introduce new problems).

The key is to find something that,

• Can grow over time
• Can be reset to original values after a respawn
• Is clearly beneficial
• Is desirable in early, mid, and late-game
• Is not unbalancing such that late-game players benefit more than early game players.

Instead of having a 'straight' cost, it can be something flexible. Like respawning at a set home point or at a temporary respawning ship is always free, but otherwise takes resources. I Imagine something like this would be invaluable for scenarios.

Howhever in scope of "reward death" discusdion instead of having a respawning cost which quickly becomes redundant it might be better to improve protections. The biggest cheat in my opinion is a medical station+timer combo. The simplest way to adress it might be to make a startup and shutdown delays, like an internal power buffer or some 'connect/disconects mechanics that forced device to stay on longer (about a minutes?) and turn on with a delays.

And if by magic a space engineer appeared.

Gameplay, engineering, single player, multiplayer, exploits, immersion, creative, survival, scenarios, game mechanics, problem solving, tiered challenges, game longevity. Please add to the list.

What is important to me may not be for you.

Having some biological building material to clone an engineer seemed to make sense to me.

How can we all be satisfied? Some desire change or enhancement, some do not.

For many, SE has done a good job of accommodating players needs

The 'advanced world settings' screen options have solved many issues for players.

Could the permanent death option be 'improved' to make different types of respawn gameplay suit the playing styles players want?

I like the idea of a free respawn point if the other resourced respawns fail.

Could you have a faction-less free respawn or a free respawn in an engineers prison or an enemies brig?

Quote: Using this method of transport, you can't take more than you can carry.

Set the amount a character can carry to zero. That would make abusing the system less attractive. Beyond that, harsher disadvantages could go into the advanced options.

Perhaps some of the existing ones could go to keep the menu from getting too cluttered (Supergridding? Unsupported stations?). But that is another discussion.

I was mistaken, using the respawn-teleport method, you can't carry anything with you :D I have no idea what I was thinking of when I said that.

Regardless, the suggestion to set the amount a character can carry to zero fails to address the root cause of the "problem" and also causes issues everywhere else in the game (you can no longer hold tools or weapons, you can no longer hand mine, you cannot build anything because you can't hold components).

Levying "harsher disadvantages" carries all the same problems as the original suggestion to consume some sort of resource in order to respawn. (See my previous comments).

> What is important to me may not be for you.

Yes, but game designers cannot adopt that attitude, as changes made to the game will affect all players. When suggesting changes to how a system works, you have assumed the role of a game designer. So you have to consider how changes affect other people that play the game differently.

> Having some biological building material to clone an engineer seemed to make sense to me.

Of course. It's a very obvious answer to the problem. Many people have suggested similar because without deeper analyses it sounds like a good idea. The problem is that it isn't a good solution because of all the problems it creates, which I described.

> How can we all be satisfied? Some desire change or enhancement, some do not.

You've misunderstood. This discussion isn't about whether to "make a change or not;" the discussion is about what change to make to solve the problem. (And I have raised the question as to what the specific problem is and whether or not it is actually a problem or just an extreme edge-case encountered by a very small number of players.)

> Could the permanent death option be 'improved' to make different types of respawn gameplay suit the playing styles players want?

Sure, there are plenty of changes that could be made. (I'll point out that your mention of perma-death respawning was never mentioned in the original context of the problem and this is the first time you've mentioned it, so you have changed the problem context.)

However, again, the question isn't whether it is possible to make a change. The question is about what change to make and whether the secondary consequences of that change are acceptable.

> I like the idea of a free respawn point if the other resourced respawns fail.

The game already provides this via the respawn screen.

> Could you have a faction-less free respawn or a free respawn in an engineers prison or an enemies brig?

It's software. It can be made to do anything the developers want. The question is what are the implications of making that decision? If a decision is made to create a specific behavior, then you have to examine both what is required for that to work, as well as the implications for both new and established players, e.g., is there always a brig to spawn in, and how do players escape the brig? These questions can be answered, of course. But when your answers lead you down a path of "we can do X, but that creates problem Y, so we'll do Z, but that creates problem P, so we'll do R..." and so on, that's a strong red-flag that the desired behavior is a poor choice.

You seem to be a bit frustrated with my responses. I assure you, I am not "arguing" with you. I am raising valid concerns and issues that must be considered when changing core systems in a game. Game Design is an entire career with a lot of science behind it (behavior economics, systems engineering, etc). Don't be frustrated when an off-the-cuff idea isn't a good solution to a problem that's been around a long time. If it were that easy, it would have been done already.

Long, long ago, there was a game where hearts were all the rage. If you lost all of your hearts you would loose one of your three lives. Only a save point would prevent you from starting from the beginning. Through struggle and achievement you could gain more hearts and greatly resist the perils ahead. If you lost all of your lives, the game was over. That was the way it was, less you had found a fairy and put it in a jar or even two or three fairies in jars. Oh what a silly game taking far too many hours to play.

That was then and this is now, make rules and break them. Make better things and make them fun. Use 'The Goo' or just have space fairies in jars, don't care! at least in both worlds there is a reason for the engineers reappearance. OK, just add some lore about Goo being extracted from universe essence at no cost if you think that there is no other option.

Have you played 'Hardspace Shipbreaker', here is a game with a cost for re-cloning, a simple credit debt, though a comparatively huge debt.

I am not trying to cross game dev lore, but would encourage creativity to overcome a problem.

For myself, the problem is for the game to make sense.

How about incentivizing people not to respawn, i.e., last spawn was 24hrs ago which maxes out trader reputation and entitles you to a discount on your next bulk purchase.

How better to incentivise than to have a cosmetic badge or stripe to reflect different ranks. Have it taken or given at med-bay respawn.

I like the idea of "time to charge" aka "Please wait while we grow your new clone body." so it puts a delay on respawns just like the spawnship timers. It would be based on the same multiplier world setting so the default "1X" would be something like 15 seconds and the timer would change based on your current power supply level (only have 1kw available then you'll have to wait 5 min but if you have 1mw available then instant respawn. This would give both a reward and challenge for everyone.

---

There is no reward in that design, only scaling penalties that diminish as the player becomes more powerful. Worse, there is a positive feedback power loop -- players that have abundant power, such as easy access to uranium, high processing capacity, and plenty of reactors and spare power capacity, can spawn instantly. So basically, players that are at the high end of the player-power spectrum have it easier while players that don't have abundant surplus power will have to suffer through a potentially lengthy wait, just to respawn. So this definitely will penalize new players and beginning players far more severely than established players with plenty of resources.

> There is no reward in that design, only scaling penalties that diminish as the player becomes more powerful.

If taking more time is a penalty, starting only with basic slow tools is also a penalty, as well as starting with less powerful hydrogen generators instead of uranium or only having pistol ammo. In other words whole game is built on penalties.

No, better respawning is a reward, same as everything else you earn.

> So basically, players that are at the high end of the player-power spectrum have it easier

They always do by definition, that's the backbone of player progression. You built yourself a welding or mining or grinding ship? You already have it easier than the player that just started up. You built a reactor? You already have it easier because your ship don't die after 30 minutes.

> I like the idea of "time to charge" aka "Please wait while we grow your new clone body."

Player shouldn't have to wait to respawn if possible, that's boring. You died and you have to wait 5 minutes to get back into the game? 5 minutes of having nothing to do. It might work for servers, but probably shouldn't be there for SP.

When I said 'charge time' I meant the machine itself or switching machines. Example: You power it up, it takes a minute, mark it as a respawn point, it takes a minute more for a 'registration transfer' and the further from the device you are, the longer it takes. After that time passed, machine becomes available for respawning and respawn is instant, may be even has one free respawn if power gets cut. Your selected spawn point got destroyed? Transfer timer can start automatically, linking you to closest point, before you die, so you won't have to wait once you die. The only case when you will have to actually wait would be if you died and the point got destroyed simultaneously.

Purpose: prevent player abuse of timers+respawn for teleportation. Make it seem like there is a cost, device is prepping a clone or something like that...

But there are potential improvements: can pay credits to factions for instant respawn or can insta respawn anywhere that has the materials to insta-print you. Basically paid teleportation, but free and instant basic respawn.

If taking more time is a penalty, starting only with basic slow tools is also a penalty, as well as starting with less powerful hydrogen generators instead of uranium or only having pistol ammo. In other words whole game is built on penalties.

Nope. That is completely untrue. Those examples are not the same thing. Anyway, I shared my perspective as an actual game designer and systems engineer. Players suggestions often sound kool, but always have hidden destabilizing drawbacks. This is one of them.

Every suggestion you provided, down to the last "pay space credits to respawn faster" basically creates a feedback loop where players with an advantage get more of an advantage, and that's poor game design, especially when multiplayer is a consideration.