Forums » General
Also, over the last year there have been a lot of graphical updates.
> I think you read that wrong, D. He's saying gameplay is more important than art assets for the time being.
I understood that point, but ...I'm playing this game since...2 years? I don't know, not very long and not comparable to your experience ;). However, there are maybe 20 ships and most of them are just variants from eachother. A little more diversity wouldn't be bad. Same goes for the weapons.
Then again, if one could change the stats of a ship that he/she has purchased (less armor, more speed in a margin of something like 10%) that'd be as nice as having more ships IMO.
I understood that point, but ...I'm playing this game since...2 years? I don't know, not very long and not comparable to your experience ;). However, there are maybe 20 ships and most of them are just variants from eachother. A little more diversity wouldn't be bad. Same goes for the weapons.
Then again, if one could change the stats of a ship that he/she has purchased (less armor, more speed in a margin of something like 10%) that'd be as nice as having more ships IMO.
The devs can only do so much at a time. Tridents, android, bugfixes, deneb improvements, avalons, the TU tweak, longer loot timeouts, these are all things that have happened in the last year. The year prior to that, if I remember right, included conquerable stations as well as more of the trident work and manufacturing missions, more deneb changes, more android work, and other stuff I forget. Now they're doing the faction change.
Sure, they could have done more ships rather than the trident, but then people would whine that there aren't capships. They could have done ships rather than conq stations, but then people would whine that there aren't conqerable stations. Etc.
They can't do everything all at once. There are only three devs. They have to prioritize. We might not have a lot of ships, but we have enough ships. There are 15 unique ship models that we can buy, not counting the Trident, and not counting variants. All of them have a purpose. What's more annoying than having not enough ships is having tons of ships that don't really serve a purpose.
As it is now, all ships get used. Every person doesn't necessarily use every ship, but every ship is used by somebody. This is good enough for now. There are bigger fish to fry. I'd rather see the ability to sell ships to eachother. Or the ability to install shields in a capship. The ability to build the other capships. The ability to steal capships and maybe even normal ships. NPC pirates. NPC mercs. A more capable mission editor allowing for more involved missions. Etc.
Sure, they could have done more ships rather than the trident, but then people would whine that there aren't capships. They could have done ships rather than conq stations, but then people would whine that there aren't conqerable stations. Etc.
They can't do everything all at once. There are only three devs. They have to prioritize. We might not have a lot of ships, but we have enough ships. There are 15 unique ship models that we can buy, not counting the Trident, and not counting variants. All of them have a purpose. What's more annoying than having not enough ships is having tons of ships that don't really serve a purpose.
As it is now, all ships get used. Every person doesn't necessarily use every ship, but every ship is used by somebody. This is good enough for now. There are bigger fish to fry. I'd rather see the ability to sell ships to eachother. Or the ability to install shields in a capship. The ability to build the other capships. The ability to steal capships and maybe even normal ships. NPC pirates. NPC mercs. A more capable mission editor allowing for more involved missions. Etc.
and on the one hand you talk about how easy it is to add new content and yet, we've only a small asset of ships and weapons.
It is easy to add new art content. Once we have new art content. Which we don't have, nor do I have time to work on it right now. I was commenting on the ease with which we can replace and update art assets once we have more assets in development.
This is in comparison to gameplay, which is not at all easy to add. It's very complicated and time consuming and involves tons of testing and bugfixing and corner-cases. It is fairly "serial", in that the process can't really be scaled out to larger teams of people.
Art, by comparison, is a totally parallel process. Someone else can make something almost autonomously, and then it can be dropped in. Or 20 someones can be hired to each make one thing, and create 20 new things in the same amount of time. This is part of why we've been saving up money. (Not that we're going to bring on 20 new artists, but there are outsourcing options and other things).
The other aspect of my comment was just that our engine has the capability of "making" most of the screenshots that were posted for comparison, with updated assets. That means it "just" requires new assets and not a lot of development work by comparison.
Simple version:
Art == A problem you can solve by throwing money.
Gameplay == Not solvable by throwing money, or hiring an infinite number of coders. Still scales, but to a much more limited extent. And the training requirements for new people are.. insane.
It is easy to add new art content. Once we have new art content. Which we don't have, nor do I have time to work on it right now. I was commenting on the ease with which we can replace and update art assets once we have more assets in development.
This is in comparison to gameplay, which is not at all easy to add. It's very complicated and time consuming and involves tons of testing and bugfixing and corner-cases. It is fairly "serial", in that the process can't really be scaled out to larger teams of people.
Art, by comparison, is a totally parallel process. Someone else can make something almost autonomously, and then it can be dropped in. Or 20 someones can be hired to each make one thing, and create 20 new things in the same amount of time. This is part of why we've been saving up money. (Not that we're going to bring on 20 new artists, but there are outsourcing options and other things).
The other aspect of my comment was just that our engine has the capability of "making" most of the screenshots that were posted for comparison, with updated assets. That means it "just" requires new assets and not a lot of development work by comparison.
Simple version:
Art == A problem you can solve by throwing money.
Gameplay == Not solvable by throwing money, or hiring an infinite number of coders. Still scales, but to a much more limited extent. And the training requirements for new people are.. insane.
> The devs can only do so much at a time.
yes, I'm myself a software developer. but something just doesn't add up here. Maybe it's just because I don't care about Tridents/hidden stations. I want massive fights Battlestar Galactica style and for that this game needs more players and the easiest way to get more players are good graphics and a high amount of 'individualising' content.
@incarnate oh, you meant the distribution of content. Already started to wonder since I once read that the design process of a new ship is fairly complicated.
yes, I'm myself a software developer. but something just doesn't add up here. Maybe it's just because I don't care about Tridents/hidden stations. I want massive fights Battlestar Galactica style and for that this game needs more players and the easiest way to get more players are good graphics and a high amount of 'individualising' content.
@incarnate oh, you meant the distribution of content. Already started to wonder since I once read that the design process of a new ship is fairly complicated.
easiest way to get more players are good graphics and a high amount of 'individualising' content.
We've empirically disproven that a number of times, such as when our (current) graphics were pretty state-of-the-art.
The easiest way to get more players is to market a product.
Plus, most people who give our game negative reviews don't complain about the individualizing of ships, but rather the holes in the early game (lack of concrete linearity to guide them) or the holes in the middle/endgame. Lack of mechanics to bring them together with other players, etc. This is a bigger focus for me than pure graphics or individualization.
We've empirically disproven that a number of times, such as when our (current) graphics were pretty state-of-the-art.
The easiest way to get more players is to market a product.
Plus, most people who give our game negative reviews don't complain about the individualizing of ships, but rather the holes in the early game (lack of concrete linearity to guide them) or the holes in the middle/endgame. Lack of mechanics to bring them together with other players, etc. This is a bigger focus for me than pure graphics or individualization.
Just a quick note about art assets. Have you considered using your playerbase to develop art assets? You already have a mechanism in place for this with the PCC. I think you would have many players who are also artists glad to help. As long as consistent style and technical guides are in place using players to develop art should be practical.
There's a thread for that. :)
Detructor I've probably been in about 50 major player involved skirmishes in the last year, if you somehow missed all those then you're playing wrong and I'm not counting Nation wars.
The most recent for example was an Itan fighter squadron vs FAMY that blew up into an Itan + TGFT Combat squadron vs a FAMY/BLF/random other bad guys Combat Squadron BOTH sides sporting trident carrier support.
And to be completely honest I suspect that is only the beginning of the usefulness of these tridents in combat roles, once enough Non chickens get their hands on them.
I could care less if the atlas looks like crap where I do care if:
-I can delete station keys easily
-Useful support turret weapons
-See my stats on the deneb page and tell serco they suck in comparison
-Share radar with my group and trident in a storm sector to achieve total dominance in a storm station attack/defence
And a bunch of other neat gameplay stuff that sneaks its way in over time.
The most recent for example was an Itan fighter squadron vs FAMY that blew up into an Itan + TGFT Combat squadron vs a FAMY/BLF/random other bad guys Combat Squadron BOTH sides sporting trident carrier support.
And to be completely honest I suspect that is only the beginning of the usefulness of these tridents in combat roles, once enough Non chickens get their hands on them.
I could care less if the atlas looks like crap where I do care if:
-I can delete station keys easily
-Useful support turret weapons
-See my stats on the deneb page and tell serco they suck in comparison
-Share radar with my group and trident in a storm sector to achieve total dominance in a storm station attack/defence
And a bunch of other neat gameplay stuff that sneaks its way in over time.
Lack of mechanics to bring them together with other players
This is the big one IMHO. Good to hear it's on the radar. Fix that one and I think you'll see this game bloom.
This is the big one IMHO. Good to hear it's on the radar. Fix that one and I think you'll see this game bloom.
A more capable mission editor allowing for more involved missions.
There is nothing wrong with the mission editor. It allows you to make really involved missions, that's not a problem. It's making really involved missions that are interesting and fun that becomes a challenge.
The mission editor can do a lot of things, and there are certain things the mission editor can't do. There are things it can do now that it couldn't do two years ago, four years ago, etc. Dealing with the "can't do" part of it is what took me the longest to grasp. I remember walking along the beach, planning a mission arc in my head, running into the same problem over and over.
The trick is to think divergently, like a fractal. A more concrete example might be a game of chess. On a chessboard, there is one possible state at the beginning of the game. After the first move, there are 20 possibilities. After the second move, there are 400. After the third move, there are over 5,000. That's a chessboard. Here, we are dealing with intricate mechanisms like language, the backstory, and motivation. There must be so many possible "ways" to do something, that the likelihood of not seeing a solution greatly outweighs the likelihood of a solution not existing.
It's kind of like trying to find your way out of a strange room in the dark. You flail around a bit until you run into a wall. At first, there seems no way around it. Then, you trail your hand along the wall and start walking. After 15 steps, you come to a corner. The room is larger than you thought. Or maybe it's not a corner, maybe it's a staircase, maybe it's a dead-end, maybe it's a trapdoor. The thing is, you never would have known if you had stopped at the wall, and had not taken those 15 steps.
It wasn't until a couple years after that day at the beach that I was finally able to realize my mission design plan. The mission editor had changed, but the funny thing is, the mechanism that allowed my plan to work had been there all along, I just hadn't seen it. Sometimes having time away from a problem allows one to come back to it in a new way, and find the solution. Other times, working really hard until one gets it becomes the answer.
In any case, I think there is a lot remaining to be discovered with the mission editor.
There is nothing wrong with the mission editor. It allows you to make really involved missions, that's not a problem. It's making really involved missions that are interesting and fun that becomes a challenge.
The mission editor can do a lot of things, and there are certain things the mission editor can't do. There are things it can do now that it couldn't do two years ago, four years ago, etc. Dealing with the "can't do" part of it is what took me the longest to grasp. I remember walking along the beach, planning a mission arc in my head, running into the same problem over and over.
The trick is to think divergently, like a fractal. A more concrete example might be a game of chess. On a chessboard, there is one possible state at the beginning of the game. After the first move, there are 20 possibilities. After the second move, there are 400. After the third move, there are over 5,000. That's a chessboard. Here, we are dealing with intricate mechanisms like language, the backstory, and motivation. There must be so many possible "ways" to do something, that the likelihood of not seeing a solution greatly outweighs the likelihood of a solution not existing.
It's kind of like trying to find your way out of a strange room in the dark. You flail around a bit until you run into a wall. At first, there seems no way around it. Then, you trail your hand along the wall and start walking. After 15 steps, you come to a corner. The room is larger than you thought. Or maybe it's not a corner, maybe it's a staircase, maybe it's a dead-end, maybe it's a trapdoor. The thing is, you never would have known if you had stopped at the wall, and had not taken those 15 steps.
It wasn't until a couple years after that day at the beach that I was finally able to realize my mission design plan. The mission editor had changed, but the funny thing is, the mechanism that allowed my plan to work had been there all along, I just hadn't seen it. Sometimes having time away from a problem allows one to come back to it in a new way, and find the solution. Other times, working really hard until one gets it becomes the answer.
In any case, I think there is a lot remaining to be discovered with the mission editor.
"There is nothing wrong with the mission editor."
I am not some dumb city boy who cannot recognize the end product of the bovine digestive system. I grew up on a farm. I've piled up thousands of pounds of the stuff, and enjoyed it (everything's fun with heavy machinery!). So don't think I won't call you out on a statement like that.
Let's see.... Cannot spawn valks, nor many common pieces of equipment (gauss, rails, swarms, etc.). Cannot command a friendly capship to attack another friendly ship with its turrets (only the main guns), nor command a hostile capship to stop attacking with its turrets. Cannot branch in-mission based on player standing, faction, accomplishments, etc. For that matter, pretty much the only way you can branch is based on events happening in real time. Cannot know when an NPC has arrived at its destination. The list goes on, but I have made my point.
I'm not meaning to complain and demand the devs make improvements or anything - if I were that sort of person I'd be busy spamming the PCC forum. It is their project and they will work on what they want when they want (and I'd rather see this much vaunted faction change anyway, as well as completed shielded sellable and stealable tridents). I just couldn't let a post like that stand uncontested. The mission editor is useful and can produce interesting and complex missions, but it does have significant limitations and problems, which do sometimes result in making some things much more difficult than they need to be, if not impractical or downright impossible. Pretending otherwise does not change reality, no matter how many fancy words you use.
I am not some dumb city boy who cannot recognize the end product of the bovine digestive system. I grew up on a farm. I've piled up thousands of pounds of the stuff, and enjoyed it (everything's fun with heavy machinery!). So don't think I won't call you out on a statement like that.
Let's see.... Cannot spawn valks, nor many common pieces of equipment (gauss, rails, swarms, etc.). Cannot command a friendly capship to attack another friendly ship with its turrets (only the main guns), nor command a hostile capship to stop attacking with its turrets. Cannot branch in-mission based on player standing, faction, accomplishments, etc. For that matter, pretty much the only way you can branch is based on events happening in real time. Cannot know when an NPC has arrived at its destination. The list goes on, but I have made my point.
I'm not meaning to complain and demand the devs make improvements or anything - if I were that sort of person I'd be busy spamming the PCC forum. It is their project and they will work on what they want when they want (and I'd rather see this much vaunted faction change anyway, as well as completed shielded sellable and stealable tridents). I just couldn't let a post like that stand uncontested. The mission editor is useful and can produce interesting and complex missions, but it does have significant limitations and problems, which do sometimes result in making some things much more difficult than they need to be, if not impractical or downright impossible. Pretending otherwise does not change reality, no matter how many fancy words you use.
The mission editor is useful and can produce interesting and complex missions, but it does have significant limitations and problems, which do sometimes result in making some things much more difficult than they need to be, if not impractical or downright impossible.
To that I'd say, just as in real life, the ability to work within limited conditions is what separates a true creation from a failed one. I've done both.
You are correct in pointing out that the current editor has many limitations, however I believe that learning to work with those limitations is the biggest step in starting to turn out useful missions. I'm not a computer programmer, but my parents did enroll me in some college classes in Fortran 77 and Turbo Pascal, at age 13. I was able to turn out a football simulator in Fortran with a group of 4. It didn't have all the features I wanted it to have (certain teams were going to have certain strengths and weaknesses, etc.), and it was text-based, however, it was a football simulator.
I'm not recommending anyone suffer through that, but I think coding in text-based languages like Fortran is probably a little like shoveling cow manure. That's why I'm not a programmer (or "coder" as they are sometimes called).
What I'm getting at is that those old languages had lots of limitations also, and yet people would program supercomputers with them. The mission editor is a walk in the park by comparison. I spent a long time wishing I could do certain things with it that I couldn't, some that I still can't, so I can definitely empathize with that. I've also failed with the editor, a lot. I want to dispel the impression that I'm looking down on anyone that chooses not to create with it. When I say there's nothing wrong with it, I mean it's capable of turning out playable missions. It's one heck of a hobby. Some people enjoy kite-surfing.
edit: I just realized I sounded like an arrogant jerk, and wanted to apologize
To that I'd say, just as in real life, the ability to work within limited conditions is what separates a true creation from a failed one. I've done both.
You are correct in pointing out that the current editor has many limitations, however I believe that learning to work with those limitations is the biggest step in starting to turn out useful missions. I'm not a computer programmer, but my parents did enroll me in some college classes in Fortran 77 and Turbo Pascal, at age 13. I was able to turn out a football simulator in Fortran with a group of 4. It didn't have all the features I wanted it to have (certain teams were going to have certain strengths and weaknesses, etc.), and it was text-based, however, it was a football simulator.
I'm not recommending anyone suffer through that, but I think coding in text-based languages like Fortran is probably a little like shoveling cow manure. That's why I'm not a programmer (or "coder" as they are sometimes called).
What I'm getting at is that those old languages had lots of limitations also, and yet people would program supercomputers with them. The mission editor is a walk in the park by comparison. I spent a long time wishing I could do certain things with it that I couldn't, some that I still can't, so I can definitely empathize with that. I've also failed with the editor, a lot. I want to dispel the impression that I'm looking down on anyone that chooses not to create with it. When I say there's nothing wrong with it, I mean it's capable of turning out playable missions. It's one heck of a hobby. Some people enjoy kite-surfing.
edit: I just realized I sounded like an arrogant jerk, and wanted to apologize
RE: CrazySpence
> if you somehow missed all those then you're playing wrong and I'm not counting Nation wars.
it seems that everytime I'm online the fun either just happened or will happen when I've to be offline again, but I don't want to 'whine' about that.
I don't know, maybe you are all right and all the things I mention don't really count that much or don't count at all. But...something is missing from this game, it doesn't 'catch' me. There are games like Counter Strike, which still make fun even after playing it for 6 hours. And then there is something like VO...something that sounds awesome (space MMO...real 3D flight model and so on)...but can't even bind my attention for more than an hour in a row.
And yes, it can't be about the content nor the graphics ...but something isn't right. Or at least doesn't feel right.
> if you somehow missed all those then you're playing wrong and I'm not counting Nation wars.
it seems that everytime I'm online the fun either just happened or will happen when I've to be offline again, but I don't want to 'whine' about that.
I don't know, maybe you are all right and all the things I mention don't really count that much or don't count at all. But...something is missing from this game, it doesn't 'catch' me. There are games like Counter Strike, which still make fun even after playing it for 6 hours. And then there is something like VO...something that sounds awesome (space MMO...real 3D flight model and so on)...but can't even bind my attention for more than an hour in a row.
And yes, it can't be about the content nor the graphics ...but something isn't right. Or at least doesn't feel right.
Adopt long-term goals. Work on them when things seem quiet, and keep an eye out for opportunities for violence. For example, you could assemble weapon and ship caches at stations that have poor choosings. You could collect hive loot to sell to others, or equip, or use in manufacturing. You can manufacture stuff to use or sell. Or just do escorts and make money. Long furballs can get expensive, if you're not the sort of idiot who runs way for repairs any time he gets dented.
Keep an eye on chat. If the same people keep saying 'gf', odds are there is action somewhere. Ask where and join 'em. If you'd rather not ask, try Sedina B-8, Latos H-2, and the Edras wormholes. Also the conquerable stations.
Another option is to instigate your own furball. Camp a wormhole and kill anybody who comes through. Boast about owning it. Or you could attack a conquerable station to try to draw people over.
Or you could create your own little event. Stage a small tournament or something. Challenge people to combat races down in the tubes. Sponsor a massive convoy through greyspace.
If you're more social than I am, you could join a popular guild and see what other people are up to. Some guilds do group mining in hostile territory, conquer stations, initiate their own blockades, build tridents, attack levis or connies, etc. Oh, and Deneb.
Or heck, just ask on 100 if anybody wants you to help them with anything. You could ask for reasonable compensation, or just do it for free and fun. Maybe some trader wants an escort, or some PVP dude wants somebody to procure and haul stuff for him. Or maybe some newbies want help with missions or fighting queens.
Remember, you are probably not the only person looking for fun. Sometimes it just needs somebody to step up and fire the first shot.
Keep an eye on chat. If the same people keep saying 'gf', odds are there is action somewhere. Ask where and join 'em. If you'd rather not ask, try Sedina B-8, Latos H-2, and the Edras wormholes. Also the conquerable stations.
Another option is to instigate your own furball. Camp a wormhole and kill anybody who comes through. Boast about owning it. Or you could attack a conquerable station to try to draw people over.
Or you could create your own little event. Stage a small tournament or something. Challenge people to combat races down in the tubes. Sponsor a massive convoy through greyspace.
If you're more social than I am, you could join a popular guild and see what other people are up to. Some guilds do group mining in hostile territory, conquer stations, initiate their own blockades, build tridents, attack levis or connies, etc. Oh, and Deneb.
Or heck, just ask on 100 if anybody wants you to help them with anything. You could ask for reasonable compensation, or just do it for free and fun. Maybe some trader wants an escort, or some PVP dude wants somebody to procure and haul stuff for him. Or maybe some newbies want help with missions or fighting queens.
Remember, you are probably not the only person looking for fun. Sometimes it just needs somebody to step up and fire the first shot.
well, as I said that 'action' problem is there for me, but it's not "the" problem I've with this game.
Well, TGFT works hard ingame, but we see a problem with players vanishing in that crucial 3-6 month period.
So, what makes the difference ? Why do some players continue with vo for years while others get to 10 ish across the board and vanish ? What actually makes players pay up long term ?
It can't be art assets. seen one snazzy screenshot, seen the lot. PVP ? ok nothing matches vo , but a lot of long term players don't pvp. Mining ? Trade ? Seriously , thats something vets do while the washing machine runs .
So, what keeps a core of players ingame for a long time ?
I suspect I am going to get flamed ..... again .
Community. People. Friends.
I am going out on a limb here, but I suspect the long term payers of VO value the sense of community very highly. These are my friends , my guild , my respected enemies.
So, in game terms how do you relate that to subs in bank ? Make the guild and group activities in game paramount. Gear the game so that being part of that guild / group / nation actually matters. I appreciate that is not simple, but I think it really does matter.
So, more things that need groups or guilds to do . VO is still largely a first person sandbox, it needs to be a multiplayer sandbox to keep those long term bums on seats ...
So, what makes the difference ? Why do some players continue with vo for years while others get to 10 ish across the board and vanish ? What actually makes players pay up long term ?
It can't be art assets. seen one snazzy screenshot, seen the lot. PVP ? ok nothing matches vo , but a lot of long term players don't pvp. Mining ? Trade ? Seriously , thats something vets do while the washing machine runs .
So, what keeps a core of players ingame for a long time ?
I suspect I am going to get flamed ..... again .
Community. People. Friends.
I am going out on a limb here, but I suspect the long term payers of VO value the sense of community very highly. These are my friends , my guild , my respected enemies.
So, in game terms how do you relate that to subs in bank ? Make the guild and group activities in game paramount. Gear the game so that being part of that guild / group / nation actually matters. I appreciate that is not simple, but I think it really does matter.
So, more things that need groups or guilds to do . VO is still largely a first person sandbox, it needs to be a multiplayer sandbox to keep those long term bums on seats ...
I'm not going to flame you, you're flaming enough on your own. I am going to tell you you're wrong. Community has absolutely nothing to do with player retention. People stay in MMO's because they want to accomplish. They don't want a set end game, they want continuing journeys, long term challenges and increasingly rare rewards. In short, they don't want to reach the stopping point. If they actually ever do, they want to know that they can start all over again, knowing that the stopping point will be even further out next time due to continued content development.
Unfortunately, VO is a very shallow game that appeals to two niche personas: The space PvPer (very small), and; The Lorder, i.e. guys like you who like reaching some version of skill-less supremacy and enjoy holding it over "lesser" players.
VO will never become a game for any more than niche players, because the developers lack creativity, focus, and resources, and always will.
Unfortunately, VO is a very shallow game that appeals to two niche personas: The space PvPer (very small), and; The Lorder, i.e. guys like you who like reaching some version of skill-less supremacy and enjoy holding it over "lesser" players.
VO will never become a game for any more than niche players, because the developers lack creativity, focus, and resources, and always will.
more things that need groups or guilds to do
Terrible idea, given how many of us long term players are soloists. VO needs more to do, that's worth doing -- be it as a solo pilot, part of an informal group, or in a guild.
Terrible idea, given how many of us long term players are soloists. VO needs more to do, that's worth doing -- be it as a solo pilot, part of an informal group, or in a guild.
Players generally break down into a number of different archetypes, as noted by Bartle, et al, and there's rarely one specific gameplay advancement that can be made to appeal to all. Some players are more cooperatively social, some more lone, some more combative, some more into crafting or whatever. Clearly, there are entire MMOs dedicated to nothing but crafting, that have been running as long as we have.
VO needs a lot of things, but they can be broken down largely into three groups:
#1, More advanced gameplay (midgame/endgame). This is really broad, but in the most simplistic terms could be called "the stronger you are in the game, the more influence and impact you can have over areas of the universe". This being conquerable and own-able territory, large-scale ships and fleets, scaling trade from one person to high-level management of a dozen captains, major and minor conflicts that can drive fame and notoriety in the galaxy, etc. This is all individually-possible stuff, some of which will benefit from guild organization and some won't.
#2, Existing gameplay drawn together more meaningfully, so the game isn't so much of a scavenger hunt, and so gameplay flows more organically. A classic example is our missions. PCC people create wonderful and creative missions that non-vets are barely aware exist, because mission discovery is so terrible. VO is brutal about making people find everything, and that needs to be improved. I would also tack gameplay-fixes and things onto the end of this one (faction system, whatever).
#3, Improvements to the early-game. Making the game more accessible to new players. This is probably the one area that really touches on all player archetypes. Getting more early PvE that groups people together and gets them involved in multiplayer content. Having our best foot forward in the first few hours of the game. Ideally the first 15 minutes.
Now, guilds and multiplayer organizations can be impacted by all of these in different ways. And I'm all for enabling improvements to guilds and the like. However, there are still a few core design goals that I try to maintain: No Safe Place, No Guild-Exclusive Content, All Twitch Combat, PVP Is Possible Everywhere. (No, training sectors don't count). So, I'm interested to expand and improve on guilds and areas of their participation and activity and the like, as long as those areas aren't wholly exclusive to guilds. I don't think that'll be too big of a problem. When we rolled out capship crafting, I expected the organized guilds would achieve it first, and they did. Guild-ownership of capships hasn't been added yet, but that'll come. There's a big enough inherent advantage in the organization of large numbers of people, without making content entirely exclusive. And making the guilds better able to organize and do things shouldn't really impact solo players in any substantially negative way. Some things (capship creation) will scale better with larger numbers of people, and organization. Other things won't. That's ok.
Anyway, for those keeping score, my primary focus is currently on #2 (fixing things, making existing game mechanics more polished), with some forays into #1 and #3 when possible. The second area is what will add the most meaningful improvement to the game in the shortest amount of development time. That's the greater goal for this year, second only to "Making Money To Expand The Business".
And, on that note, I'm going to go ahead and lock this before it becomes too much of a snarky-comment and our-stuff-vs-their-stuff argument.
VO needs a lot of things, but they can be broken down largely into three groups:
#1, More advanced gameplay (midgame/endgame). This is really broad, but in the most simplistic terms could be called "the stronger you are in the game, the more influence and impact you can have over areas of the universe". This being conquerable and own-able territory, large-scale ships and fleets, scaling trade from one person to high-level management of a dozen captains, major and minor conflicts that can drive fame and notoriety in the galaxy, etc. This is all individually-possible stuff, some of which will benefit from guild organization and some won't.
#2, Existing gameplay drawn together more meaningfully, so the game isn't so much of a scavenger hunt, and so gameplay flows more organically. A classic example is our missions. PCC people create wonderful and creative missions that non-vets are barely aware exist, because mission discovery is so terrible. VO is brutal about making people find everything, and that needs to be improved. I would also tack gameplay-fixes and things onto the end of this one (faction system, whatever).
#3, Improvements to the early-game. Making the game more accessible to new players. This is probably the one area that really touches on all player archetypes. Getting more early PvE that groups people together and gets them involved in multiplayer content. Having our best foot forward in the first few hours of the game. Ideally the first 15 minutes.
Now, guilds and multiplayer organizations can be impacted by all of these in different ways. And I'm all for enabling improvements to guilds and the like. However, there are still a few core design goals that I try to maintain: No Safe Place, No Guild-Exclusive Content, All Twitch Combat, PVP Is Possible Everywhere. (No, training sectors don't count). So, I'm interested to expand and improve on guilds and areas of their participation and activity and the like, as long as those areas aren't wholly exclusive to guilds. I don't think that'll be too big of a problem. When we rolled out capship crafting, I expected the organized guilds would achieve it first, and they did. Guild-ownership of capships hasn't been added yet, but that'll come. There's a big enough inherent advantage in the organization of large numbers of people, without making content entirely exclusive. And making the guilds better able to organize and do things shouldn't really impact solo players in any substantially negative way. Some things (capship creation) will scale better with larger numbers of people, and organization. Other things won't. That's ok.
Anyway, for those keeping score, my primary focus is currently on #2 (fixing things, making existing game mechanics more polished), with some forays into #1 and #3 when possible. The second area is what will add the most meaningful improvement to the game in the shortest amount of development time. That's the greater goal for this year, second only to "Making Money To Expand The Business".
And, on that note, I'm going to go ahead and lock this before it becomes too much of a snarky-comment and our-stuff-vs-their-stuff argument.