But the issue is how that works mechanically. This is a computer game so there has to be a relatively simple means of determining when to set permafrost on (from what it looks like you're saying) This is a persistent world, not instances so it'd be pretty difficult for player intent to modulate the game rules. As it stands the rules are simple and consistent: Deep sea travel is extremely perilous. And the reasons that permadeath occurs is consistent with the current rules. What you are arguing for is an exception and a partial one at that, which is a bit extreme before we get any indication of how that plays out in game.

Voicing your concerns is important though, so this thread definitely serves a purpose, but I have to disagree with the statement that the current proposed system is unfair or problematic

Posted By Drunva at 3:06 PM - Fri May 24 2019

But the issue is how that works mechanically. This is a computer game so there has to be a relatively simple means of determining when to set permafrost on (from what it looks like you're saying).

There is supposed to be a group or party system. Perma-killing those in your party would be a fairly accurate measure of betrayal. Either way, like I said 2 years ago that I someone got wrapped back into in 2019, would much rather establish-able trade route mechanics over any of that betrayal stuff.

What you are arguing for is an exception.

The ocean altering how permadeath calculations works is an exception in itself. If before ocean travel there were no ways to permadie from a single incident regardless of fame and now there is, that is an exception. Like I said though, Idc about permadeath for initial exploration where potential returns are much higher than later on. I just don't really see why one is called exception and the other isn't when they both are.

Permadeath happens because there's no way to recover your body. As stated before if you fall into a volcano the same would occur. So what you are asking is for them to circumvent the unrecoverable body aspect.

Also my initial statement was referring to the game inherently understanding whether you were exploring or not, rather than simply detecting where you die. Making the penalty change depending on whether you're engaging in map charting or making a delivery is tricky since you could do both or just say you're doing one (say by taking a contract to deliver X) and just do the other. Plus that degree of risk would likely make intercontinental trade extremely lucrative, so I don't necessarily agree that the returns would go down over much. And like many have already stated, you should probably vet the folks you're going on such a dangerous journey with, Basically deal with professionals with good reputations or folks you've worked with for a long time and the risk drops a lot. Honestly, I'm pretty sure piracy or maybe weather patterns would be a more of a concern.

@ Takeda_Shinukage

Never said it would be bannable... just pointing out that not everyone plays with pure intentions... so long as their "trolling" doesn't break the rules and//or game, I believe it's just something you need to learn to handle with the many tactics provided.

Actually my "don't fix unless it's broken" argument is quite valid, as I specifically made sure to state:

because we are arguing mostly over speculation, so as much as I strongly believe in my stance, I know I may be wrong, and if such were to occur,

Unless such becomes the case though, it just seems like your trying to fix something that isn't broken,

I acknowledged that this is all speculation due to the fact that the game isn't available to the public, then proceeded to agree that if I''m wrong, trade routes are a plausible change, BUT I still highly doubt that the deep sea perm death mechanic is going to be a bad thing overall. As such, from my view, it is not a broken mechanic, as the fear it's meant to instill has indeed proven that it already does, to some degree, work. (And it makes the world more consistent than it would be if some immersion breaking exceptions, such as your suggestions... were implemented.)

Apparently, and your generalization arguments fail to persuade me otherwise as well... considering the amount of situational detail it negates in the process. If it isn't worth the risk, then don't accept the quest. Well, let's agree to disagree. It was an interesting conversation though!

Ocean faring is going to be a mechanics for old characters and criminals with this penalty. Why risk a young spark when you can risk dying one for same reward.

It could turn into funny cultural thing though. The old people of the village are put out on the ships with the criminal outcasts to go die on the seas.

Posted By inFin at 11:11 AM - Thu Jun 06 2019

Ocean faring is going to be a mechanics for old characters and criminals with this penalty. Why risk a young spark when you can risk dying one for same reward.

It could turn into funny cultural thing though. The old people of the village are put out on the ships with the criminal outcasts to go die on the seas.

Ocean farming? The technology for that won't be developed until the technology for traveling and surviving on the ocean is well-established. Near-shore sea farming will not risk permadeath at launch, because death in coastal regions does not risk permadeath. What we don't know yet is how close to land the near-shore or coastal boundary will be.

Faring = travelling

Sorry, I misread "faring" for "farming".