Premise:
When there's nothing/little at stake in a game, a player is more eager to try new things and he is more prone to risky behaviour. When there's a lot at stake, a player sticks to the things he knows and can, because he cannot risk failing by trying something unknown.

The behaviour of a player can therefore be guided (in a limited way) by controlling how much there is at stake for him in a given situation.



Suggestion:
Make respawns cost in-game money.


Implementation:
* There would be spawn-points where your character can respawn for free. This is near training-areas, near farming-areas where you can go kill wild Tyranids...

* In all other regions, a respawn costs in-game money.

* The cost of respawn can be adjusted to situations, for example whether a region is embattled.
** The bigger the advantage of your faction, the bigger your numbers, the higher the cost of respawn. -> The players of the winning side are forced into a less aggressive behaviour. -> The losing side can still take on them, because they still have leeway for risky maneuvers.

* The costs of respawn can be adjusted by location: For example, there could be regions where players are supposed to held out, but not too much. They are allowed to have a quick look but they are not allowed to spend there too much time. Such spawn-points could be given a high respawn-cost. Later, when the storytellers think, the time is ripe, the respawn-costs get lowered and the players can move around more freely. -> Grand events can be introduced with a "soft opening".
"Hey guys. This new area? I think I saw metal-skeleton there, but I couldn't get really close. I couldn't afford to die there."

* For example: A Tyranid-invasion drives a faction out of a region. The respawn-costs get set to high. A massive army has to be assembled to drive them out, but this needs time and the respawn-costs are too high for an all-out attack. The High-Command could give out scouting-missions: Reach that location, but don't get into large fights. With each successful scouting-mission, the respawn-costs get lowered and it gets easier and easier to engage the Tyranids in fights.

* For example: A fortress is under attack. If the attackers are allowed to respawn in unlimited numbers, they will always eventually overwhelm the defenders because the fortress deteriorates during the siege. But if the respawn has a price, the attackers have to attack fast, hard and with a good plan. And if they fail, they have to retreat because continuing to fight would be too costly.

* For example: Faction A has always deemed continent X relatively safe. They have low respawn-costs, the enemies have high respawn-costs. A few skirmishes from time to time, but nothing the patrols can't handle. The troops are free to engage in a large-scale offensive somewhere else. Suddenly background-story happens! The enemy's respawn-costs get lowered! An enemy invasion is imminent but everyone is busy in this other nice war!

* For example: Faction B has serious problems. They are losing this war and their chances get slimer with every day. How long until their last fortress gets conquered? For now, the high respawn-costs keep the enemy at bay...


SUMMARY:

I think, giving respawns an adjustable cost would provide the storytellers with:
- a dramaturgic tool to force players into a certain behaviour, but in a nice, indirect way that gives them the illusion of free will (Bwhahahaha!)
- a strategic tool to readjust the equilibrium when warfare gets too one-sided, symbolizing the shifting tides of war

Maybe not RTP, but requisition? RTP can be bought for money, which would make this idea P2W.

Oops, I didn't know which currencies we will use.

there are 4 currencies so far.
RTP which is money based used to look cool
Requisition which is generated over time per player and is used to generate heavy load outs, vehicles, characters etc.
Supply which is map generate and is used for ammo, repairs and the like (team based)
and experience which is used for your progression.

It's not a bad idea to inject some genuine cost into death/respawn, for the individual or the continental strategic game. There is a thread in the Founder's Forum* I wish I could link. It looks at a similar idea to your's but with a more narrow focus: They've raised things like a faction-wide cap on certain high-value spawn points, such as a teleportation room in a Fortress, where you need to maintain the supply line assets or your force gradually loses the ability to summon reinforcements or respawn in an optimum strategic position. You're talking about exclusion from the combat zones altogether, reverting people to the safe-zone or other low value areas. It shares the same goal but your idea has much greater implications

Mostly I agree with the reasoning between both ideas but I break in favor of the faction respawn "caps" on specific respawn points for 2 reasons:

1. EC has a strong team-based tactical core. You succeed together, you die together, you respawn together . It's no good if a squad of CSMs loses their 'medic'-geared Aspiring Sorcerer back to the Faction's safe zone, and that would inevitably occur because Support class abilities will ensure they are extremely high value targets. Once they're gone the squad has lost a lot of it's strength having been denied a significant force multiplier.
2. It's much more focused. Having all the respawn points on a continent closed off is a bit too powerful. If you (or your Squad/S-F) lost the ability to reinforce a Depot/Fortress from within it's walls that's a pretty steep punishment, and realistically interesting and fair. Likewise if you were on the assault and lost the functionality of the Damocles Rhino your Squad just payed a lot of RP for because you chewed through it's finite respawn charges (not confirmed, just saying) that would be equally craptactular. In a good way.

* I really wish people would stop putting clearly General topics in the Founders-only thread. It's truly pointless to make that sort of discussion content exclusive

Just for clarity NPC enemies in the open world is not confirmed atm.

Interesting, but new players would be hosed unless they did not have a cost (no stored up funds of whatever kind) unless there was a faction pool. And if new players were exempt, Orks would have a distinct advantage with the FtP. I am not opposed in general, but I think the implementation would end up being over complex and take too much of the team's resources.

RTP is real money, RP is personal resource points. I think it was a horrible idea to go with such similar names, but I suppose that's how it is for now.

I still advocate renaming RTP to Thrones, because Rogue Traders work for the Imperium anyway so it makes sense they would accept Imperial currency.

Other than that:

It could be handy if there was a robust logistics system that allowed commanders to shuffle resources around the map as needed, and that allowed players to push supplies to the front when the allocated resources prove insufficient.

Otherwise, if all it does is deplete a personal resource that replenishes over time at a fixed rate then basically you're just playing on a cooldown timer. Which could be various degrees of pointless or obnoxious depending on what the replenishment rate is.

And if it's obnoxious, any paid boost that increases the resource gain rate could easily cross over into P2W.

The way I think I would handle it, is I would essentially tie everything in to ammo/supply, which is held and generated by bases, not players.

Classes and items in a loadout would have a base cost, and then every bullet in the loadout would cost supply on spawn just as if you had resupplied after shooting it. Essentially, we would be measuring the price of everything in bullets. When a base is depleted, it can't give you any bullets until it is replenished. The War Council's primary job would be to ensure bullets end up where they are most needed. Because let's face it, if all they're allowed to do is yell at people then nobody will listen to them (or at least not enough people to make their job feel worthwhile).

This has a nice side effect that both infantry and vehicle loadouts will naturally scale their cost. It gives the player a choice between taking less gear to get cheaper respawns/vehicle pulls, or paying more to gear up.

Some points that would probably help this work:

1: Uncappable bases (here defined as a permanent base that can never be capped via normal gameplay) are an infinite fountain of resources. No matter how depleted your faction is, you should always be able to organize a push from here. This is either your home continent stronghold (if that is the only permanently uncappable base), or your stronghold on each continent (if they work like PS2 warpgates).

2: Any normal base with supply line connections passively regenerate resources. Larger bases regenerate faster, bases with more friendly connections regenerate faster (so bases securely in friendly territory regenerate faster than contested bases). This ensures that no matter how incompetent your WC is, the game should at least be playable most of the time.

3: Each WC leader should be authorized their own pool of strategic resources that they can allocate to replenish bases. This ensures that one leader's decision does not cripple another by depleting his resources. Since the WC is a fixed size and the same on all factions, all factions have identical WC income (unless modified by faction traits). The only difference is how competently that income is allocated. The allocation process takes time depending on the distance of the base from the stronghold, but should generally be faster than driving a supply vehicle (plus the timer runs on its own once started, so the WC can multitask).

4: Players should have access to a supply vehicle (perhaps a variant of their APC with the passenger seats removed) that allows them to pull resources from one base, and drop them off at another base OR in the field. This would allow smart, organized players to allocate resources without relying on a WC that may be absent or incompetent, pulling resources from secure bases in the back and moving them to the front where they're needed. It also allows ammo to be delivered directly to the field, so people don't have to drive/walk all the way back to the nearest base to get ammo.

3&4 both work together to make each others' job easier. Players in 4 don't have to do as much work if the WC allocates resources smartly in the first place. The WC in 3 doesn't have quite so much resting on their shoulders if they know that players can grab supplies on their own to pick up the slack.

Solution:
* Each spawn-point gets defined respawn-costs for each faction. -> The devs can precisely steer how useful a particular spawn-point is to a particular faction.
* Each character gets a respawn-cost-multiplier: First it's zero, then it increases, then it levels. -> It doesn't matter, if you are a beginner that dies often. But once you have reached a certain level, dying becomes a hassle.

Whoa! Careful! If you make logistics too realistic, this will get out of hand quickly.

In this area, you can afford to die no more often than every 5 minutes. In this area it's every 1 minute, in this area it's every 10 minutes... I don't see the problem.

But, if you take cheap gear, you will die more often... But on the other hand, this would naturally keep respawn-costs down for inexperienced players.




I initially disliked your idea with the supply-vehicles, but it could be combined with my idea: Supply-lines only make sense in a game if they can be disrupted.
For example:
A troop has to escort a supply-vehicle through a region. There are several spawn-points with low respawn-costs for the faction and high respawn-costs for the enemy. The enemy quick-travels there, at some cost. They ambush the convoy in a short fight, because the high respawn-cost means that they cannot fight for long. They blunder the supply-vehicle and disappear again. Quick in, quick out, and everything in this ambush has to work according to plan. The enemy cannot afford prolonged fights or large-scale battles. All the enemy can stage in this region are lightning-fast raids.

Sure, but the devs will have to make sure the cost to respawn isn't too high.

If the cost is too high, you can be sure nobody's going to PTFO, and everyone's going to play selfishly.

A variable cost to respawn I'm okay with, with variations between say +/- 30%

being locked out of the game for any period of time longer then traditional spawn counter would be a big turn off