Forums » General
These are the top ten of things I really dislike about Vendetta (no particular order):
1. Wingbug. This has been with us for as long as I am here (which is a long time). The devs simply refuse to fix it, even though it makes vults pretty much useless near roids or stations. I never much understood why its so difficult to fix in the first place.
2. Faction system. Don't get me started. Utterly broken to the point of ridicule. The worst Serco griefers fly IDF valks to pop transports in Itani space. FUBAR.
3. Features vs Bugfixes. Yes, Vendetta still needs a lot of work and adding new features is great, but as paying users I think we can expect serious bugs/exploits to be fixed within hours or days. The free-for-all-near-stations thing was not fixed for how long? 3 month? So many bugs just don't get fixed. Some stuff doesn't even get looked at.
4. Short Term vs Long Term Features. Vendetta is boring. Very. We have about 10 different missions. Wonderful. A new mission editor is great, but if it takes month to develop it, it would have been better to invest 1 month in adding 100 new missions so its a little bit less boring for us. Its not very interesting work, but hey, we guys pay you to do it.
5. News/In Progress. Last update was in March. Its August for crying out loud. If you decide to take a hiatus from short term bugfixes/feature implementation, at least tell us whats going on. It takes 10 minutes to write something up. The weekly updates from Alpha were really nice.
6. CTC escorts. Broken forever. They can attack me near a station and the defbots don't care. If I shoot back, I get banged. Worse, CTC escorts hang out where the transport died. Near a station they ambush docking players (who can't defend). I have complained about this many times. It just won't get fixed. Frustrating.
7. Pirating. Totally impossible. Vendetta used to be so much fun in Alpha. Running was really hard. Trading was suicidal when Icarus was on. I had a blast. Now a gazillion-hull-points-with-infiniturbo-moth is all you need and noone will ever catch you. The devs removed an entire genre from the game.
8. Storms. Totally useless. Most people know how to avoid it. I have sat in storms for hours. Nobody ever comes by. Its just annoying when you run into one. Its just pure nonsense.
9. Running. Its impossible to kill anyone if they decide they don't want to be killed. The fastet ship can barely catch the slowest. I have successfully evaded a valk in a stock bus. Just jump from sector to sector. WHY? This is not space monopoly. Gray space should be dangerous. Noobs fly through it all the time in busses. Come on.
10. (redacted upon request)
Don't get me wrong. I love this game. I prefer to complain about stuff up front instead of just silently dropping my subscription. And boy there is a lot to complain about.
1. Wingbug. This has been with us for as long as I am here (which is a long time). The devs simply refuse to fix it, even though it makes vults pretty much useless near roids or stations. I never much understood why its so difficult to fix in the first place.
2. Faction system. Don't get me started. Utterly broken to the point of ridicule. The worst Serco griefers fly IDF valks to pop transports in Itani space. FUBAR.
3. Features vs Bugfixes. Yes, Vendetta still needs a lot of work and adding new features is great, but as paying users I think we can expect serious bugs/exploits to be fixed within hours or days. The free-for-all-near-stations thing was not fixed for how long? 3 month? So many bugs just don't get fixed. Some stuff doesn't even get looked at.
4. Short Term vs Long Term Features. Vendetta is boring. Very. We have about 10 different missions. Wonderful. A new mission editor is great, but if it takes month to develop it, it would have been better to invest 1 month in adding 100 new missions so its a little bit less boring for us. Its not very interesting work, but hey, we guys pay you to do it.
5. News/In Progress. Last update was in March. Its August for crying out loud. If you decide to take a hiatus from short term bugfixes/feature implementation, at least tell us whats going on. It takes 10 minutes to write something up. The weekly updates from Alpha were really nice.
6. CTC escorts. Broken forever. They can attack me near a station and the defbots don't care. If I shoot back, I get banged. Worse, CTC escorts hang out where the transport died. Near a station they ambush docking players (who can't defend). I have complained about this many times. It just won't get fixed. Frustrating.
7. Pirating. Totally impossible. Vendetta used to be so much fun in Alpha. Running was really hard. Trading was suicidal when Icarus was on. I had a blast. Now a gazillion-hull-points-with-infiniturbo-moth is all you need and noone will ever catch you. The devs removed an entire genre from the game.
8. Storms. Totally useless. Most people know how to avoid it. I have sat in storms for hours. Nobody ever comes by. Its just annoying when you run into one. Its just pure nonsense.
9. Running. Its impossible to kill anyone if they decide they don't want to be killed. The fastet ship can barely catch the slowest. I have successfully evaded a valk in a stock bus. Just jump from sector to sector. WHY? This is not space monopoly. Gray space should be dangerous. Noobs fly through it all the time in busses. Come on.
10. (redacted upon request)
Don't get me wrong. I love this game. I prefer to complain about stuff up front instead of just silently dropping my subscription. And boy there is a lot to complain about.
Yay for nonconstructive criticism. And now, your host, genka!
*prerecorded cheering*
*prerecorded cheering*
I just wing-bugged my valk trying to dock in Sedina after some left-over CTC escorts ambushed me. On the way back from Edras I hit 6 freak'n storms in Odia. I think I have the right to be a little cranky.
He's got a point though. Stuff does need to get changed, and I won't say that he got every issue with his post. While VO is a good game, it is still incomplete, and moving (seemingly) slowly. I'm curious when the Hive update is going to come, though. After that, I'd *really* like to see more variety in NPCs, including pirates, etc, as well as fixing the Faction standing system.
My opinions on those:
1. Not a problem. I've actually never had any more of a problem with Vultures, even in dense 'roid fields or at stations, than with any other light armored ship. Even if I did have a problem with it, I'd be fine with that, I'd just take it into consideration when I choose which ship to fly.
2. I agree the faction standing system can and should be improved greatly. But while it's not perfect, it works well enough for now.
3. Quite frankly, I've been impressed with how quickly bugs get fixed. When setting multiple nav-points with shift-click was first introduced, it didn't work properly on Linux, but within a couple hours there was another patch that used space-click as a work-around, and the full fix was out in less than a day if my memory serves. Yes, other things take longer than that, but I have been very impressed with Guild.
4. That wasn't an option. Here were the choices the devs had: spend a month creating a mission editor, and then once that's finished make dozens of missions a month; or else spend a month making a couple missions. Before they had the mission editor, they didn't have the framework to build missions quickly, so it takes much longer. Just guessing, but it probably took a month for them to make the new Trade Guild missions, and those are much simpler missions than I hope to see now that the mission editor is nearing completion.
5. Heh. IMO the News and In Progress pages should be combined. There have been several updates to the News page, including info on the work that was in-progress, since the last In Progress update.
6. A mild annoyance at worst.
7. Again, I agree that it needs improvement, but I have faith that it will be. Patience is a virtue.
8. So... you're complaining because players can avoid storms? How would you suggest "fixing" that? There's no way to really force players to follow a certain route. Do you think storms should be removed? I disagree. Especially with the Hive updates, and the more dynamic economy, and more NPCs coming, storms will start to player a bigger role. But even with the way things have been, storms have added plenty to the gameplay.
10. This is pure opinion. I very much do not see Storms, the Faction system, or Infiniturbo to be design mistakes. I see them as promising design elements that do not currently completely fulfil their promise. But really, it doesn't matter what my opinion, or your opinion, is. This is the devs' game. They can do what they want with it. They're never going to get it to be exactly the way everyone else wants it, even if they wanted to.
1. Not a problem. I've actually never had any more of a problem with Vultures, even in dense 'roid fields or at stations, than with any other light armored ship. Even if I did have a problem with it, I'd be fine with that, I'd just take it into consideration when I choose which ship to fly.
2. I agree the faction standing system can and should be improved greatly. But while it's not perfect, it works well enough for now.
3. Quite frankly, I've been impressed with how quickly bugs get fixed. When setting multiple nav-points with shift-click was first introduced, it didn't work properly on Linux, but within a couple hours there was another patch that used space-click as a work-around, and the full fix was out in less than a day if my memory serves. Yes, other things take longer than that, but I have been very impressed with Guild.
4. That wasn't an option. Here were the choices the devs had: spend a month creating a mission editor, and then once that's finished make dozens of missions a month; or else spend a month making a couple missions. Before they had the mission editor, they didn't have the framework to build missions quickly, so it takes much longer. Just guessing, but it probably took a month for them to make the new Trade Guild missions, and those are much simpler missions than I hope to see now that the mission editor is nearing completion.
5. Heh. IMO the News and In Progress pages should be combined. There have been several updates to the News page, including info on the work that was in-progress, since the last In Progress update.
6. A mild annoyance at worst.
7. Again, I agree that it needs improvement, but I have faith that it will be. Patience is a virtue.
8. So... you're complaining because players can avoid storms? How would you suggest "fixing" that? There's no way to really force players to follow a certain route. Do you think storms should be removed? I disagree. Especially with the Hive updates, and the more dynamic economy, and more NPCs coming, storms will start to player a bigger role. But even with the way things have been, storms have added plenty to the gameplay.
10. This is pure opinion. I very much do not see Storms, the Faction system, or Infiniturbo to be design mistakes. I see them as promising design elements that do not currently completely fulfil their promise. But really, it doesn't matter what my opinion, or your opinion, is. This is the devs' game. They can do what they want with it. They're never going to get it to be exactly the way everyone else wants it, even if they wanted to.
>1. Wingbug. This has been with us for as long as I am here
>(which is a long time). The devs simply refuse to fix it, even
>though it makes vults pretty much useless near roids or
>stations. I never much understood why its so difficult to
>fix in the first place.
I should note the Vulture isn't the only ship that suffers from this. I've had a Hornet break like glass after tapping an asteroid from behind. I'm sure several other ships fall in this category too. There are two ways of solving this—redesign all the old ships, or rewrite the collision code.
The easy way out would be to redesign the "old" ships. But that won't solve the problem in the long run, as new ships and content make it into the game with little or no time placed on collision tests. So most likely the code for that will get rewritten. Unfortunately that takes A LOT of time to test. Time which they don't have right now.
Priority is currently given to the mission system, so the game will actually be fun to play and people will be getting their money's worth. Whereas a bug is only a temporary issue. You need to put things into perspective and look at the bigger picture here. With the limited manpower they have right now, they're trying their best to focus on the big stuff first.
>2. Faction system. Don't get me started. Utterly broken to the
>point of ridicule. The worst Serco griefers fly IDF valks to
>pop transports in Itani space. FUBAR.
Yes, it's broken. This will get fixed eventually. For the time being it is avoidable. Or have some fun with it and return the favor. Remember, everyone falls under those same rules. Nobody is being cheated here.
>4. Short Term vs Long Term Features. Vendetta is boring. Very.
>We have about 10 different missions. Wonderful. A new mission
>editor is great, but if it takes month to develop it, it would
>have been better to invest 1 month in adding 100 new missions
>so its a little bit less boring for us. Its not very
>interesting work, but hey, we guys pay you to do it.
The very reason why the mission editor is being created is to allow new mission content to be placed on a weekly basis, rather than a monthly one. It takes a lot of time to create, but in the end it'll be worth it. We'll be seeing a huge explosion of new missions available to us.
Scripting out and creating missions by hand takes weeks to properly implement and test. You'll be lucky to get one done within a month! Think of this as a long-term investment. Rather than getting 2-3 new missions in place, we could have 10 or 20 more within that same timespan.
I should also note that most of the bugs you point out with the current missions won't even be an issue with the new mission editor in place. Everything will be much more organized and easier to test out than the old hand-made missions. This will be a huge step in providing new content for the game once the ball gets rolling. It just takes a little patience.
>5. News/In Progress. Last update was in March. Its August for
>crying out loud. If you decide to take a hiatus from short term
>bugfixes/feature implementation, at least tell us whats going
>on. It takes 10 minutes to write something up. The weekly
>updates from Alpha were really nice.
While I agree that more news updates would be nice, I don't think it's necessary. Log in and have fun with the game. Enjoy it the way it is. The devs will continue working on the next update regardless of whether they tell us or not. I mean sure it would be nice to have some indication of process. But they're not sitting at their office twiddling their thumbs either.
>7. Pirating. Totally impossible. Vendetta used to be so much
>fun in Alpha. Running was really hard. Trading was suicidal >when Icarus was on. I had a blast. Now a
>gazillion-hull-points-with-infiniturbo-moth is all you need
>and noone will ever catch you. The devs removed an entire
>genre from the game.
Hard? Yes. Impossible? No. It's clear that the new universe has placed a few unforeseen setbacks throughout some of the more traditional gameplay styles. But as with any other bug or design flaw, it's a temporary issue. It will eventually be dealt with one way or another, since it is within the devs' best interests to freely provide those types of roles to every player in the game.
>8. Storms. Totally useless. Most people know how to avoid it. I
>have sat in storms for hours. Nobody ever comes by. Its just
>annoying when you run into one. Its just pure nonsense.
These were created to prevent players from skipping through each system too quickly. While I agree that they're too predictable and easily avoidable, I do think they help accomplish that task in most cases. But I also agree that something better could've been placed instead to solve that problem (i.e. battery capacity limiting you to the number of grid units you can jump). But like any other bug or design flaw, this is temporary.
>9. Running. Its impossible to kill anyone if they decide they
>don't want to be killed. The fastet ship can barely catch the
>slowest. I have successfully evaded a valk in a stock bus. Just
>jump from sector to sector. WHY? This is not space monopoly.
>Gray space should be dangerous. Noobs fly through it all the
>time in busses. Come on.
Running should be allowed during combat. The positives and negatives to running will naturally settle in once more meaningful missions are placed. Objectives like escort and defense will have a huge impact on that.
Also, killing runners is not impossible. As much as most people like to complain about it, it is in fact possible to destroy a runner. Just don't expect to get a kill everytime. You need to be patient and you need to have an efficient setup.
And lastly, I'm hoping there will be an easier way to follow your targets in future versions. If they want to preserve PvP combat, I think they'll need to look into offering those types of options eventually. So I wouldn't worry too much about it.
(EDIT: #10 deleted. Response remains below.)
The devs have repeatedly acknowledged that the game is still far from being what they had originally envisioned. That's part of the reason why they haven't fully marketed it yet. They know it isn't finished. They know a lot of work still needs to be done. They know about all the exploits and bugs. They listen.
You can't assume that they're ignoring you just because they're not offering feedback. They've already got their hands full and they don't have time to respond to concerns which are repeated over and over. You have to give them some credit. Even though updates are few and far between, each update always offers something good.
>(which is a long time). The devs simply refuse to fix it, even
>though it makes vults pretty much useless near roids or
>stations. I never much understood why its so difficult to
>fix in the first place.
I should note the Vulture isn't the only ship that suffers from this. I've had a Hornet break like glass after tapping an asteroid from behind. I'm sure several other ships fall in this category too. There are two ways of solving this—redesign all the old ships, or rewrite the collision code.
The easy way out would be to redesign the "old" ships. But that won't solve the problem in the long run, as new ships and content make it into the game with little or no time placed on collision tests. So most likely the code for that will get rewritten. Unfortunately that takes A LOT of time to test. Time which they don't have right now.
Priority is currently given to the mission system, so the game will actually be fun to play and people will be getting their money's worth. Whereas a bug is only a temporary issue. You need to put things into perspective and look at the bigger picture here. With the limited manpower they have right now, they're trying their best to focus on the big stuff first.
>2. Faction system. Don't get me started. Utterly broken to the
>point of ridicule. The worst Serco griefers fly IDF valks to
>pop transports in Itani space. FUBAR.
Yes, it's broken. This will get fixed eventually. For the time being it is avoidable. Or have some fun with it and return the favor. Remember, everyone falls under those same rules. Nobody is being cheated here.
>4. Short Term vs Long Term Features. Vendetta is boring. Very.
>We have about 10 different missions. Wonderful. A new mission
>editor is great, but if it takes month to develop it, it would
>have been better to invest 1 month in adding 100 new missions
>so its a little bit less boring for us. Its not very
>interesting work, but hey, we guys pay you to do it.
The very reason why the mission editor is being created is to allow new mission content to be placed on a weekly basis, rather than a monthly one. It takes a lot of time to create, but in the end it'll be worth it. We'll be seeing a huge explosion of new missions available to us.
Scripting out and creating missions by hand takes weeks to properly implement and test. You'll be lucky to get one done within a month! Think of this as a long-term investment. Rather than getting 2-3 new missions in place, we could have 10 or 20 more within that same timespan.
I should also note that most of the bugs you point out with the current missions won't even be an issue with the new mission editor in place. Everything will be much more organized and easier to test out than the old hand-made missions. This will be a huge step in providing new content for the game once the ball gets rolling. It just takes a little patience.
>5. News/In Progress. Last update was in March. Its August for
>crying out loud. If you decide to take a hiatus from short term
>bugfixes/feature implementation, at least tell us whats going
>on. It takes 10 minutes to write something up. The weekly
>updates from Alpha were really nice.
While I agree that more news updates would be nice, I don't think it's necessary. Log in and have fun with the game. Enjoy it the way it is. The devs will continue working on the next update regardless of whether they tell us or not. I mean sure it would be nice to have some indication of process. But they're not sitting at their office twiddling their thumbs either.
>7. Pirating. Totally impossible. Vendetta used to be so much
>fun in Alpha. Running was really hard. Trading was suicidal >when Icarus was on. I had a blast. Now a
>gazillion-hull-points-with-infiniturbo-moth is all you need
>and noone will ever catch you. The devs removed an entire
>genre from the game.
Hard? Yes. Impossible? No. It's clear that the new universe has placed a few unforeseen setbacks throughout some of the more traditional gameplay styles. But as with any other bug or design flaw, it's a temporary issue. It will eventually be dealt with one way or another, since it is within the devs' best interests to freely provide those types of roles to every player in the game.
>8. Storms. Totally useless. Most people know how to avoid it. I
>have sat in storms for hours. Nobody ever comes by. Its just
>annoying when you run into one. Its just pure nonsense.
These were created to prevent players from skipping through each system too quickly. While I agree that they're too predictable and easily avoidable, I do think they help accomplish that task in most cases. But I also agree that something better could've been placed instead to solve that problem (i.e. battery capacity limiting you to the number of grid units you can jump). But like any other bug or design flaw, this is temporary.
>9. Running. Its impossible to kill anyone if they decide they
>don't want to be killed. The fastet ship can barely catch the
>slowest. I have successfully evaded a valk in a stock bus. Just
>jump from sector to sector. WHY? This is not space monopoly.
>Gray space should be dangerous. Noobs fly through it all the
>time in busses. Come on.
Running should be allowed during combat. The positives and negatives to running will naturally settle in once more meaningful missions are placed. Objectives like escort and defense will have a huge impact on that.
Also, killing runners is not impossible. As much as most people like to complain about it, it is in fact possible to destroy a runner. Just don't expect to get a kill everytime. You need to be patient and you need to have an efficient setup.
And lastly, I'm hoping there will be an easier way to follow your targets in future versions. If they want to preserve PvP combat, I think they'll need to look into offering those types of options eventually. So I wouldn't worry too much about it.
(EDIT: #10 deleted. Response remains below.)
The devs have repeatedly acknowledged that the game is still far from being what they had originally envisioned. That's part of the reason why they haven't fully marketed it yet. They know it isn't finished. They know a lot of work still needs to be done. They know about all the exploits and bugs. They listen.
You can't assume that they're ignoring you just because they're not offering feedback. They've already got their hands full and they don't have time to respond to concerns which are repeated over and over. You have to give them some credit. Even though updates are few and far between, each update always offers something good.
Yes. Game broken and boring. Working on that.
Yes, lack of information from developers. Working on that too.
I am also greatly fed up with many issues facing our game. All I can do is try and fix them, and direct other people to fix them, and keep you all appraised.
The trouble with "big" development is that it's difficult to break down into obvious milestones of "tomorrow we get flying teapots!@#", when in reality it's "my coworkers are reading research papers to try and figure out how to fix our retarded AI." (as an example). A lot of the stuff we're doing has been pretty major projects for the last couple of months. A lot of fantastic work has happened, but again, it's tough for me to say "hey look, Michael and Andy made this.. lisp.. thingie.. it does.. stuff!@#" At least, say that and make it sound very exciting. But I do try.
A lot of the big problems in the game haven't been fixed, not because we're unaware, but because the *real* solution isn't possible yet. We're working on what we believe to be the *real* solutions to most of the major problems facing the game. For instance, the existing missions in the game took *weeks* to make each one. Like, on the order of a month per mission, which is just hilariously bad, but was a result of unforseen debugging problems with lua. Thus, we thought it better to spend a few months working on an actual "mission editor" (so we could then churn them out at high speed) than it was to spend those months making like.. 5 missions. There is an Ideal Solution to each of the major problems in our game, that balances out development time against desired new behaviour and gives the best balance for all, and sometimes those solutions require Big Development Time on the order of a few months.
The trouble is, it's sometimes more difficult to gauge progress than with normal "next week we make another spaceship" type of development. Someone runs into a bug, the bug takes a week to fix, blah blah blah. Or we spend an entire month developing a next-generation technology for something, that eventually is proven completely unfeasable by some bizarre unforseen circumstance, and we have to back out of weeks of work.
Eventually we get there, but we don't know exactly when, and I absolutely refuse to say that "it'll be finished when it's done!@#" crap even though it's often true. So I sort of waffle and wave my hands around and say "Soon!@#(tm)" and you guys mutter (and rightfully so) about nothing really changing in the game.
Anyway, stuff *is* going really well here. I'm working on a milestone/design schedule, lots of cool stuff is happening. We're all very jazzed here, but we haven't had a lot to show you other than what's on the test server. So anyway, once this schedule is all agreed upon and ready, I'll post that to the wiki and you can all get a clearer idea of what we're fixing, how, and why. We've reached a point where that sort of constant progress is now.. feasable.
In other news, it's much more constructive to suggest ways of fixing.. say.. the stupid storm thing, rather than just telling me it's broken. Yes yes, I know, people get fed up writing suggestions too when none of them appear for long periods of time, but it is a much more worthwhile and useful way of expending energy. I already *know* that storms are pointless and dumb.
Also, I deprecated In Progress months ago, in favor of News and the wiki (which has been woefully underused by me). I'll just remove In Progress entirely one of these days. I do still post to News when I can (weekly, of late, but somtimes longer). Not as consistently as I used to do In Progress, and not as often as I should.
Yes, lack of information from developers. Working on that too.
I am also greatly fed up with many issues facing our game. All I can do is try and fix them, and direct other people to fix them, and keep you all appraised.
The trouble with "big" development is that it's difficult to break down into obvious milestones of "tomorrow we get flying teapots!@#", when in reality it's "my coworkers are reading research papers to try and figure out how to fix our retarded AI." (as an example). A lot of the stuff we're doing has been pretty major projects for the last couple of months. A lot of fantastic work has happened, but again, it's tough for me to say "hey look, Michael and Andy made this.. lisp.. thingie.. it does.. stuff!@#" At least, say that and make it sound very exciting. But I do try.
A lot of the big problems in the game haven't been fixed, not because we're unaware, but because the *real* solution isn't possible yet. We're working on what we believe to be the *real* solutions to most of the major problems facing the game. For instance, the existing missions in the game took *weeks* to make each one. Like, on the order of a month per mission, which is just hilariously bad, but was a result of unforseen debugging problems with lua. Thus, we thought it better to spend a few months working on an actual "mission editor" (so we could then churn them out at high speed) than it was to spend those months making like.. 5 missions. There is an Ideal Solution to each of the major problems in our game, that balances out development time against desired new behaviour and gives the best balance for all, and sometimes those solutions require Big Development Time on the order of a few months.
The trouble is, it's sometimes more difficult to gauge progress than with normal "next week we make another spaceship" type of development. Someone runs into a bug, the bug takes a week to fix, blah blah blah. Or we spend an entire month developing a next-generation technology for something, that eventually is proven completely unfeasable by some bizarre unforseen circumstance, and we have to back out of weeks of work.
Eventually we get there, but we don't know exactly when, and I absolutely refuse to say that "it'll be finished when it's done!@#" crap even though it's often true. So I sort of waffle and wave my hands around and say "Soon!@#(tm)" and you guys mutter (and rightfully so) about nothing really changing in the game.
Anyway, stuff *is* going really well here. I'm working on a milestone/design schedule, lots of cool stuff is happening. We're all very jazzed here, but we haven't had a lot to show you other than what's on the test server. So anyway, once this schedule is all agreed upon and ready, I'll post that to the wiki and you can all get a clearer idea of what we're fixing, how, and why. We've reached a point where that sort of constant progress is now.. feasable.
In other news, it's much more constructive to suggest ways of fixing.. say.. the stupid storm thing, rather than just telling me it's broken. Yes yes, I know, people get fed up writing suggestions too when none of them appear for long periods of time, but it is a much more worthwhile and useful way of expending energy. I already *know* that storms are pointless and dumb.
Also, I deprecated In Progress months ago, in favor of News and the wiki (which has been woefully underused by me). I'll just remove In Progress entirely one of these days. I do still post to News when I can (weekly, of late, but somtimes longer). Not as consistently as I used to do In Progress, and not as often as I should.
Excellent.
1. While this can be annoying, I'd prefer devs work on othe things.
2. Same as 1
3. Not gonna coment, caus I don't have much experience in this area
4. I think the mission editor concept is promising, but how many times have we expected it "Next week"? "Soon tm" is too true in this case
5. Gotta agree here. Like 4, how long ago was this promised "soon"?
6. Not much experience here
7. Yes, PLEASE get this fixed. It also helps the "Money is too easy" thing
8. Good point
9. This is true, but this seems to be kinda in the same category as 7. I prefer a solution to 7 comes up.
Incarnate:
This post was good variety from the "We understand and are working on it" that we usually get from the devs (no offense, just stating that that's usually what you guys say in response to this), thank you. I found it quite informative.
I think the problem really comes down to Soon (tm) being the signature phrase. I understand that its quite impossible to predict when things are gonna be done, but saying "Hive Update will come out in a week" and then not having it released for a week or more just reflects badly. When I joined this game, end of october of 2004, everyone said "Multi-person ships will come out in 6 months"...3 months from then people still said 6 months. Now people don't even say that...the estimation for the Trident is "Update after Hive Update." Now, lessee...the last "content" update was 1.2.3.2...racetracks. How long ago was that? Now don't get me wrong, there are tons of possibilities with this...but how long was racing *the* thing people do? A week? Then Apex' VRL started, and died, a shame. Since then the only group thing I've seen at a racetrack was the bus fight the other day.
My point? This was the most recently added content (not counting BP update) and it was a long time ago. How long was it between that and the Hive Update? Well, I don't know, seeing as how the Hive Update isn't even complete yet. But then we have to go through that again for the Trident?
But then look at BP...okay, I don't know how long it took to fix that, but seeing as it was one update after the Racetracks, must not have been too long. That was a GOOD update (and not because it gave lots of XP and money). People are still filling groups to do it.
Don't take this as a "LISTEN TO SMITTENS HE KNOWS ALL" but take it as a suggestion from one who does not want this game to fail (along with the other hundreds who play :D). Work on the Hive, but when we dont' even have a release date for it yet, would it hurt that much to fix/change something already ingame to make it better? /group duel, /group race (a 3-2-1 for the group), http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/8568, work on 7; do whatever happened in Alpha to make it this way, fixing Adv Combat (in my opinion it should be a bit better than BP, as it seems more boring), group trade missions, etc etc.
Well I think thats all I had to say, I'm quite tired so I'm sure some of it seems unjust, uncomprehensable, mean, or some other such thing. Sorry.
2. Same as 1
3. Not gonna coment, caus I don't have much experience in this area
4. I think the mission editor concept is promising, but how many times have we expected it "Next week"? "Soon tm" is too true in this case
5. Gotta agree here. Like 4, how long ago was this promised "soon"?
6. Not much experience here
7. Yes, PLEASE get this fixed. It also helps the "Money is too easy" thing
8. Good point
9. This is true, but this seems to be kinda in the same category as 7. I prefer a solution to 7 comes up.
Incarnate:
This post was good variety from the "We understand and are working on it" that we usually get from the devs (no offense, just stating that that's usually what you guys say in response to this), thank you. I found it quite informative.
I think the problem really comes down to Soon (tm) being the signature phrase. I understand that its quite impossible to predict when things are gonna be done, but saying "Hive Update will come out in a week" and then not having it released for a week or more just reflects badly. When I joined this game, end of october of 2004, everyone said "Multi-person ships will come out in 6 months"...3 months from then people still said 6 months. Now people don't even say that...the estimation for the Trident is "Update after Hive Update." Now, lessee...the last "content" update was 1.2.3.2...racetracks. How long ago was that? Now don't get me wrong, there are tons of possibilities with this...but how long was racing *the* thing people do? A week? Then Apex' VRL started, and died, a shame. Since then the only group thing I've seen at a racetrack was the bus fight the other day.
My point? This was the most recently added content (not counting BP update) and it was a long time ago. How long was it between that and the Hive Update? Well, I don't know, seeing as how the Hive Update isn't even complete yet. But then we have to go through that again for the Trident?
But then look at BP...okay, I don't know how long it took to fix that, but seeing as it was one update after the Racetracks, must not have been too long. That was a GOOD update (and not because it gave lots of XP and money). People are still filling groups to do it.
Don't take this as a "LISTEN TO SMITTENS HE KNOWS ALL" but take it as a suggestion from one who does not want this game to fail (along with the other hundreds who play :D). Work on the Hive, but when we dont' even have a release date for it yet, would it hurt that much to fix/change something already ingame to make it better? /group duel, /group race (a 3-2-1 for the group), http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/8568, work on 7; do whatever happened in Alpha to make it this way, fixing Adv Combat (in my opinion it should be a bit better than BP, as it seems more boring), group trade missions, etc etc.
Well I think thats all I had to say, I'm quite tired so I'm sure some of it seems unjust, uncomprehensable, mean, or some other such thing. Sorry.
some people are never happy... from you saying about the news posts i take it you where here in alpha you remember what it was like? 4? 7? systems each as small as one of the new sectors inside a system and what did we want then, more space ,a basic mission system ,a large bot pressence, and many other things that are here today and now it is here your not even enjoying it your just asking for more. in two and a half years this thing has come farward massively and now you are saying nothing is being done?
dude...mission editor = player-made missions.
duh.
duh.
The problem is your going in to a $10 game and thinking it's gonna be the best thing ever with no problems. You ever heard of you get what you pay for?
I think VO is fine my self, but then I look at bugs as more of features to be used in my favor.
I think VO is fine my self, but then I look at bugs as more of features to be used in my favor.
"I look at bugs as more of features to be used in my favor."
That's explicitly AGAINST the User Agreement! Ban him! >:P
Anyway, I agree weekly updates would be nice. I think a lot of frustration comes from the fact that the player base simply does not know what Guild is doing weekly. The best update by far was the one with the screenshot of the development environment.
I say keep the news for news releases and maintain the devwiki to be a summary of your internal roadmap. Add a section for weekly updates.
How about a thread for "10 Things I LOVE About You?"
That's explicitly AGAINST the User Agreement! Ban him! >:P
Anyway, I agree weekly updates would be nice. I think a lot of frustration comes from the fact that the player base simply does not know what Guild is doing weekly. The best update by far was the one with the screenshot of the development environment.
I say keep the news for news releases and maintain the devwiki to be a summary of your internal roadmap. Add a section for weekly updates.
How about a thread for "10 Things I LOVE About You?"
dude...mission editor = player-made missions.
no, actually it doesn't.
It means the tools are in place for the developers to create a much more varied and versatile mission set for us.
It also means that at some point in the future, probably with quite a bit of additional work, parts of it might be usable to allow players to create formal hiring contracts for other players. The game will still create the mission, a player will simply be able to specify a few variables such as where, when and how much cash (which the player will deposit directly into the mission computer at the station in question)
no, actually it doesn't.
It means the tools are in place for the developers to create a much more varied and versatile mission set for us.
It also means that at some point in the future, probably with quite a bit of additional work, parts of it might be usable to allow players to create formal hiring contracts for other players. The game will still create the mission, a player will simply be able to specify a few variables such as where, when and how much cash (which the player will deposit directly into the mission computer at the station in question)
"That's explicitly AGAINST the User Agreement! Ban him! >:P"
No, no, no, my good man that would be exploiting, and I would never admit to doing that where the devs could see. Sides if I find a I always make sure it is reported before um, testing how bad it really is...
No, no, no, my good man that would be exploiting, and I would never admit to doing that where the devs could see. Sides if I find a I always make sure it is reported before um, testing how bad it really is...
to keep us from being boreed, we can randomly shuffle the weapons/ships stats everyweek.
I love this movie. The Taming of the Shrew was a fav of mine.
"to keep us from being boreed, we can randomly shuffle the weapons/ships stats everyweek"
That's the old thing. Remember balance updates? (kidding!)
"dude...mission editor = player-made missions.
no, actually it doesn't. "
Well, indirectly it does. While it would be unwise to allow player-created missions directly into the game (ripe for abuse, high potential for errors) it is quite likely that player-suggested/designed missions will be a reality. It might even be possible to make a mission editor version that allows players to create a mission for approval - though the review process might be a bottleneck given that the reviewer would have to be vigilant for deliberate exploit attempts.
" I think a lot of frustration comes from the fact that the player base simply does not know what Guild is doing weekly."
I think that's a somewhat accurate statement, and the devs can certainly benefit from that feedback.
I would add, however, that some players simply fail to read the website, or fail to comprehend it. I'm often accosted by players in-game who demand to know why "tonight's update patch" (or whatever) is late - when no such update was announced. Just last night I was told that the Hive is a month later than promised - which is not true. No date was "promised" and frequent posts have been made to keep players in the loop as to its progress. I challenge players (and I realize that I'm preaching to the choir here, since you are reading this) to read, read carefully, and to read with the mindset that Guild wants to make Vendetta something that we can all be proud of. There has been an undercurrent of anger and mistrust that just isn't warranted.
That's the old thing. Remember balance updates? (kidding!)
"dude...mission editor = player-made missions.
no, actually it doesn't. "
Well, indirectly it does. While it would be unwise to allow player-created missions directly into the game (ripe for abuse, high potential for errors) it is quite likely that player-suggested/designed missions will be a reality. It might even be possible to make a mission editor version that allows players to create a mission for approval - though the review process might be a bottleneck given that the reviewer would have to be vigilant for deliberate exploit attempts.
" I think a lot of frustration comes from the fact that the player base simply does not know what Guild is doing weekly."
I think that's a somewhat accurate statement, and the devs can certainly benefit from that feedback.
I would add, however, that some players simply fail to read the website, or fail to comprehend it. I'm often accosted by players in-game who demand to know why "tonight's update patch" (or whatever) is late - when no such update was announced. Just last night I was told that the Hive is a month later than promised - which is not true. No date was "promised" and frequent posts have been made to keep players in the loop as to its progress. I challenge players (and I realize that I'm preaching to the choir here, since you are reading this) to read, read carefully, and to read with the mindset that Guild wants to make Vendetta something that we can all be proud of. There has been an undercurrent of anger and mistrust that just isn't warranted.
I thought I'd share my 2cr about this.
Guild, you're doin a fine job!!! Keep up the good work! Take a damned well earned vacation if you want (just not a long one...he he)
I mean come on guys, there's only 4 of them! Are any of you programmers that have developed an entire game before and know what it takes? We must be patient! There are hundreds, if not thousands, of suggestions for new content and fixes. We are bored, but like Incarnate said, some of this stuff takes many weeks.
If I may make a suggestion: I would say that the mission editor should be a top priority so that new content could be added quickly to appease the boredom that is causing many people to leave. Also, and I don't know how difficult this is, if you could develop a few new high level weapons for the more seasoned players to play with, that could keep us off your backs for a while. The ships are fine (in my opinion) you've done a great job getting them well balanced. I think that something other than the usuall loadouts will keep the boredom down. Nothing spectacular, maybe a Gauss 3 with great speed and a tiny less drain, or a neut 4, or some sharks with friggin lasers attached to their heads...or something we haven't seen yet...
I gotta rap this up cuz I just got called into work (damnit). So sorry if this is kind of incomplete.
In all, the devs are doing great. They have their dream job of creating a game and we are making their dream job into work. n00bs have a lot to do, but vets do not, and i believe there are a few more vets than n00bs. I think all we need is a little something new to do to pass the time while the devs work on the larger picture. I hope this can be accomplished.
kernel.panic
Guild, you're doin a fine job!!! Keep up the good work! Take a damned well earned vacation if you want (just not a long one...he he)
I mean come on guys, there's only 4 of them! Are any of you programmers that have developed an entire game before and know what it takes? We must be patient! There are hundreds, if not thousands, of suggestions for new content and fixes. We are bored, but like Incarnate said, some of this stuff takes many weeks.
If I may make a suggestion: I would say that the mission editor should be a top priority so that new content could be added quickly to appease the boredom that is causing many people to leave. Also, and I don't know how difficult this is, if you could develop a few new high level weapons for the more seasoned players to play with, that could keep us off your backs for a while. The ships are fine (in my opinion) you've done a great job getting them well balanced. I think that something other than the usuall loadouts will keep the boredom down. Nothing spectacular, maybe a Gauss 3 with great speed and a tiny less drain, or a neut 4, or some sharks with friggin lasers attached to their heads...or something we haven't seen yet...
I gotta rap this up cuz I just got called into work (damnit). So sorry if this is kind of incomplete.
In all, the devs are doing great. They have their dream job of creating a game and we are making their dream job into work. n00bs have a lot to do, but vets do not, and i believe there are a few more vets than n00bs. I think all we need is a little something new to do to pass the time while the devs work on the larger picture. I hope this can be accomplished.
kernel.panic
Everman7, while I agree with you that in the short term, the mission editor, which is close to finished, should be the current top priority, but missions by themselves will not solve the bordom factor for long, the missions need to have a lasting long term effect on the chars. Goals that can be reached after several completed missions would be nice. Epic raid style missions, etc., not just more take x to y and see if there is a return mission style.
New weapons will only introduce NEW balancing issues. If anything, more ships of larger sizes with manable turrets and such should be in the que near the top, along with crafting, which would utilize some of the content that is already in game (mining, and current widgets at stations). If anything, THAT is where your new weapons should come from, as well as upgradeable armor and engines. But of course none of this is new, and the devs are well aware of what is needed to be done.
New weapons will only introduce NEW balancing issues. If anything, more ships of larger sizes with manable turrets and such should be in the que near the top, along with crafting, which would utilize some of the content that is already in game (mining, and current widgets at stations). If anything, THAT is where your new weapons should come from, as well as upgradeable armor and engines. But of course none of this is new, and the devs are well aware of what is needed to be done.