Awful Pixel System

Hey, interesting fact:
Games in beta stage generally are open to sugestions from the comunnity!

Last time I checked, asking politely for some game mechanics to change, and maybe suggesting another option worked better than calling something garbage and saying it's getting worse!

Funny huh?

 

Yes. The death penalty gives you a reason to not die. The bank penalty means that to store pixels and be safe from the death penalty you have to pay aka pay now to store up later in the future.

 

I really don't get the point of the Pixel penalty for storing them. Why would I want to guarantee a larger loss of Pixels when I could just do my best to not die and thus not lose as many Pixels?

I'm honestly not seeing any benefit to storing Pixels like this if there's a harsher penalty than dying.

Okay, how about you suggest a better idea, then? You know, since you're implying that we're all idiots who can't come up with anything or we should have all the knowledge of game developers and balancing and whatnot.

 

The point to storing is that overtime you can store a large amount.

Lets put it this way:
You farm up 200,000 pixels and die losing 30% aka 60,000 pixels, you die again losing 42,000.
Your other option is to store 10,000 at a time losing 40% which accounts to you losing 4,000.


Basically you choose between risking large drops suddenly vs losing small chunks to keep them safe.

 

^This

If you die a dozen times you'll lose almost 99% of what you once had. 40% is pretty small in comparison wouldn't you agree?

 

Your ideas however don't add up correctly.

The concept being that so long the death penalty exists players won't want to die and as such will play better, however keeping into account storing pixels act as a safeguard, this most easily makes hoarding to work. The 40% penalty is hardly noticeable when keeping in mind that pixels are easy to horde.

Once again, the problem isn't the penalty the problem is the value of pixels, I see no reason for me to not use this banking system or run in face first dying when I know I can most easily re-obtain my pixels with little to no effort.

 

Wrong. By not dieing you save yourself what is truly valuable. Your time. Do you want to have to waste time to get money everytime you need it?

 

To be fair, that kind of math isn't exactly obvious to the average player.

I don't think you took everything into account there.

Say you have a total of 200,000 Pixels like you said.

Dying with all of them on you at once results in you losing 60,000 Pixels like you said.

However, if you were to store 10,000 Pixels every time you got that many, you lose 4,000 Pixels each time, as you said, but that ends up adding up over time to equal a loss of 80,000 pixels by the time you accumulate a total of 200,000 Pixels, which is more than the penalty of dying once.

It's really difficult to see the benefit when you look at it that way.

 

It's fairly simple: play semi-safe and don't die. I have saved up to about 12k pixels over time, even playing on above-armor planets; pixel "grinding" is not very tedious in any sense of the word. It's all about strategy, being fairly safe, and not Leroy Jenkinsing into every freaking area. If anyone really thinks the pixel system makes the game "hard," I suggest you switch to playing cruise control games.

 

Again, the value of pixels is a matter of the balance of the cost of things you spend them on and the rate at which you get them. It is easy enough to take into account the penalties when setting these prices so that pixels remain valuable while the penalty remains to keep you from suicide rushing any and all situations. The 40% actually helps to ensure a baseline earn rate as even players who are particularly bad are guaranteed to accumulate at least 60% of the max earn rate.

 

I never need pixels though, it's too easy to run past a apex prison and pick up 3k just by walking past it while I'm focused on heading to something else. It's not like the banked pixels will just run away one day so I most def know I can easily horde them up without even trying to grind for it.

 

No I just didn't bother to do that part of the math. I knew it would turn out higher. You lose small chunks to keep them safe. AKA you will lose more overtime to keep them permanently safe.

 

I think 30% and 40% are just too high. A 20% and 30% would be better, or even 25% and 35% is workable. Yes you want to discourage players from dying, but it's just too harsh. It will discourage some people from playing adventurously and they will eventually stop playing...

 

Which is the point of the bank cost. You are paying for the safety of hording them.

 

Probably not very true. I've been following this game since it was announced, and Tiy seems very stubborn about developing the game. His attitude just reeks of "I'm right. You're wrong."

I still love him though.

 

Which is exactly my point. Why store your Pixels and end up losing more of them over time like that when you can just play cautious and not lose as many?

 

From something I said earlier. And? I didn't even notice the 20% and most of the time I just use dash and headbutt enemies. Anything under 30% isn't even noticeable.

 

Chill Billy
First, I want you to point where did I call anyone an idiot
Second, I like the pixel system, why should I suggest a better idea? :whistle:

Pro tip: don't go personal or you'll end getting yourself some reports, warnings, and eventually a ban

 

Its a balance. Let me put it this way. No bank is like walking a high wire with no safety net while using the bank costs you some money by having the safety net but you can do things knowing it is there.

It isn't exactly to get a benefit but instead a trade off.

 

Are pixels really ever an issue once you're actually decently geared up?

Losing a lot of pixels isn't the problem. The problem is that span of time just before you can get decently geared up, where everything is deadly and you're having a hard time surviving.

But they're literally balancing that, that is literally priority numero uno. So we can probably assume it will be harder to die, so why is a higher cost of death bad?