Forums » General
I can say a couple of things:
1) Capships will probably never be completely purchasable like any other ship. They will probably always be convoluted to acquire. Maybe less convoluted than they're shaping up to be now, but still not as trivial as buying a Vulture or whatever.
2) I greatly dislike making content hinge on guild membership, or "effective" guild membership (in the sense of requiring enough people to acquire, etc). This is a personal design philosophy that I've expounded on previously.
3) There are difficult-to-foresee ramifications to adding capships, which may have adverse server-side effects. Because of this, I'm being kind of careful about rolling out the initial implementation, and making them challenging to acquire. There may also be hard limits on the number of available capships, even beyond the difficulty of acquiring them. This is not the long-term goal, this is purely me hedging to make sure we don't do anything that creates a destabilizing situation for the game. I did tie the existing missions to conquerable stations, mostly to add an immediate visible benefit to the conquerable station stuff, but I do not expect that to be a permanent situation.
So, I understand the concerns, and as soon as we have something remotely stable for the construction of capships, I'll probably move missions around and things. I do suspect, like PaKettle says, that there may be an interesting black market springing up to help people acquire this stuff more easily, which could also figure into how we change things (I'd like to enable more player-market stuff).
One way or the other, in the long run I do not want capships to require guild membership, or "effectively" require relations with a guild. In the short term I may do all sorts of wacky things in the name of getting "live game" testing out of the way, without too much risk to server capacity or other areas.
1) Capships will probably never be completely purchasable like any other ship. They will probably always be convoluted to acquire. Maybe less convoluted than they're shaping up to be now, but still not as trivial as buying a Vulture or whatever.
2) I greatly dislike making content hinge on guild membership, or "effective" guild membership (in the sense of requiring enough people to acquire, etc). This is a personal design philosophy that I've expounded on previously.
3) There are difficult-to-foresee ramifications to adding capships, which may have adverse server-side effects. Because of this, I'm being kind of careful about rolling out the initial implementation, and making them challenging to acquire. There may also be hard limits on the number of available capships, even beyond the difficulty of acquiring them. This is not the long-term goal, this is purely me hedging to make sure we don't do anything that creates a destabilizing situation for the game. I did tie the existing missions to conquerable stations, mostly to add an immediate visible benefit to the conquerable station stuff, but I do not expect that to be a permanent situation.
So, I understand the concerns, and as soon as we have something remotely stable for the construction of capships, I'll probably move missions around and things. I do suspect, like PaKettle says, that there may be an interesting black market springing up to help people acquire this stuff more easily, which could also figure into how we change things (I'd like to enable more player-market stuff).
One way or the other, in the long run I do not want capships to require guild membership, or "effectively" require relations with a guild. In the short term I may do all sorts of wacky things in the name of getting "live game" testing out of the way, without too much risk to server capacity or other areas.
This first capship implementation will still have some flaws, like a lack of shields and the like, our target has always been "fastest to get it out there", but we do have some decent plans on how to refine and improve it as time goes on.
Because that's worked out so well in the past... [rolls eyes emoticon]
Because that's worked out so well in the past... [rolls eyes emoticon]
Inc,
Might I suggest putting crafting missions for the cappies at Corvus or other Gray stations as well, simply becuase...
A. Some people have no interest in conquering stations.
and
B. "I greatly dislike making content hinge on guild membership, or "effective" guild membership (in the sense of requiring enough people to acquire, etc). This is a personal design philosophy that I've expounded on previously."
Flies directly in the face of...
"I did tie the existing missions to conquerable stations, mostly to add an immediate visible benefit to the conquerable station stuff" As the stations are generally held by one or several or all of VO's largest guilds. And by generally I mean always.
A lot of MIA players have stated that they would return for Cappies, the economy being fixed or the faction system being fixed. Personally I don't think making Cappies, a chore to get will help anything, all that will accomplish is guaranteeing that only members of large guilds and their allies have them.
What would likely be more helpful (for both the players and the devs, in that it would increase player retention as well as luring MIA vets back) would be for cappies to be less of a hassle to get you hands on and there to be some cappie related missons.
Might I suggest putting crafting missions for the cappies at Corvus or other Gray stations as well, simply becuase...
A. Some people have no interest in conquering stations.
and
B. "I greatly dislike making content hinge on guild membership, or "effective" guild membership (in the sense of requiring enough people to acquire, etc). This is a personal design philosophy that I've expounded on previously."
Flies directly in the face of...
"I did tie the existing missions to conquerable stations, mostly to add an immediate visible benefit to the conquerable station stuff" As the stations are generally held by one or several or all of VO's largest guilds. And by generally I mean always.
A lot of MIA players have stated that they would return for Cappies, the economy being fixed or the faction system being fixed. Personally I don't think making Cappies, a chore to get will help anything, all that will accomplish is guaranteeing that only members of large guilds and their allies have them.
What would likely be more helpful (for both the players and the devs, in that it would increase player retention as well as luring MIA vets back) would be for cappies to be less of a hassle to get you hands on and there to be some cappie related missons.
What Ryan says is completely sensible, and therefore has no chance in hell of being considered.
"MIA" implies someone is missing you fuckers, which pretty clearly, no-one is.
I wouldn't say VO's player count is so low as to say that "no-one" is missing them, genka.
What's with the trolls lately?
Much as I hate to admit it, ryan has a point. Some way to aquire a capship outside conquerable stations is needed if capships will ever get into individuals' hands. Tying it into military mission trees in Deneb would also serve to add content up there, and I would think the UIT, being the traders they are, might sell one for a very large price and perfect standing, as well as other large corporations like TPG.
Much as I hate to admit it, ryan has a point. Some way to aquire a capship outside conquerable stations is needed if capships will ever get into individuals' hands. Tying it into military mission trees in Deneb would also serve to add content up there, and I would think the UIT, being the traders they are, might sell one for a very large price and perfect standing, as well as other large corporations like TPG.
Inc has already stated that he'd like to make them conquerable eventually. That's one way to take them.
Some small adjustments to the key system could theoretically make it possible for players to sell them to eachother. I think that would be a pretty dumb thing to not do eventually.
Also, go back and re-read Incarnate's point #3. I thought he made pretty clear that getting them is only going to be this retarded as a temporary condition, until they've got them running smoothly. There is no need to tell him how retarded it will be at first. He already knows this and intends to change it later. So kick back, relax, and prepare to enjoy the very large explosions I will be causing when these things start rolling out.
Some small adjustments to the key system could theoretically make it possible for players to sell them to eachother. I think that would be a pretty dumb thing to not do eventually.
Also, go back and re-read Incarnate's point #3. I thought he made pretty clear that getting them is only going to be this retarded as a temporary condition, until they've got them running smoothly. There is no need to tell him how retarded it will be at first. He already knows this and intends to change it later. So kick back, relax, and prepare to enjoy the very large explosions I will be causing when these things start rolling out.
What's with the trolls lately?
Even our patience and good humor have limits.
Even our patience and good humor have limits.
If people would prefer to wait until summer for a capship implementation, I'm sure I can come up with something that will satisfy the stated objections.
At the time when I first started tying future capship content to conquerable stations, they were not "always" held by guilds, in fact you guys were still figuring out how to fight over them. I wasn't sure how the station conquest thing would shake out. Now, with how things have played out, clearly construction being heavily guild-influenced is a concern.
I've said I intend capships to eventually be available to everyone, guild affiliated or not. I've said I'm doing a compromised short-term release, both to get something out more quickly (for you) and do a minimizing testbed (for me, but actually, for you too. since server stability is generally.. valued).
I totally respect the concerns that Ryan is raising, and I share them, and no.. I haven't thought through every ramification of this first case, because to me it's a testbed, it's not a "real" implementation. I appreciate that others will view it with more criticism because it's the "first" release (when things are most new and exciting), and because we have a history of long-term "testbeds" (like Deneb warfare). I guess we could have done it on the test server instead, but I thought this would spice things up in the game.
Ultimately, we only have so many hours to go around. Honeycomb is releasing soon, I'm trying to ship VO as a pre-loaded game on some fascinating new devices, we have committed to certain functionality on Android by GDC (end of the month), and now Ray and I are flying to Barcelona for a week (something we only learned about 3 weeks ago). This isn't game development, this is "business development", and honestly it is high stress and low fun. But it is seriously in the best long-term interests of VO and the company. I mean, the Galaxy Tab shipped over a million units last quarter. Imagine a Tegra device that has VO on it doing similarly. This is not the sort of opportunity that will be available in six months or a year, when EA and other big companies have a more significant presence on the platform; the whole point of being "first" on Android is to reap these kinds of rewards.
So yes, all development resources are not focused on adding capships, or adding the absolute best capship implementation. I am, however, still trying to add them as fast as I can, and I'm trying to do so in such a way that uses up as little coding time as possible, so the work mostly falls on me. People can take this or leave it. If you think we're better off waiting for a completely designed-out implementation, that's fine, but there's no way it'll happen before June or July.
At the time when I first started tying future capship content to conquerable stations, they were not "always" held by guilds, in fact you guys were still figuring out how to fight over them. I wasn't sure how the station conquest thing would shake out. Now, with how things have played out, clearly construction being heavily guild-influenced is a concern.
I've said I intend capships to eventually be available to everyone, guild affiliated or not. I've said I'm doing a compromised short-term release, both to get something out more quickly (for you) and do a minimizing testbed (for me, but actually, for you too. since server stability is generally.. valued).
I totally respect the concerns that Ryan is raising, and I share them, and no.. I haven't thought through every ramification of this first case, because to me it's a testbed, it's not a "real" implementation. I appreciate that others will view it with more criticism because it's the "first" release (when things are most new and exciting), and because we have a history of long-term "testbeds" (like Deneb warfare). I guess we could have done it on the test server instead, but I thought this would spice things up in the game.
Ultimately, we only have so many hours to go around. Honeycomb is releasing soon, I'm trying to ship VO as a pre-loaded game on some fascinating new devices, we have committed to certain functionality on Android by GDC (end of the month), and now Ray and I are flying to Barcelona for a week (something we only learned about 3 weeks ago). This isn't game development, this is "business development", and honestly it is high stress and low fun. But it is seriously in the best long-term interests of VO and the company. I mean, the Galaxy Tab shipped over a million units last quarter. Imagine a Tegra device that has VO on it doing similarly. This is not the sort of opportunity that will be available in six months or a year, when EA and other big companies have a more significant presence on the platform; the whole point of being "first" on Android is to reap these kinds of rewards.
So yes, all development resources are not focused on adding capships, or adding the absolute best capship implementation. I am, however, still trying to add them as fast as I can, and I'm trying to do so in such a way that uses up as little coding time as possible, so the work mostly falls on me. People can take this or leave it. If you think we're better off waiting for a completely designed-out implementation, that's fine, but there's no way it'll happen before June or July.
The easy fix for this is to stop the turrets from auto-healing. Making undefended (by players) stations impossible to solo (regardless of pilot skill) due to game dynamics has caused the current guild stagnation with the stations.
It is possible to solo the stations with no one defending. It can take a while, though.
Lecter, turrets don't auto-heal the way you are implying they do. They never have. However, they are now nerfed to spawn at 10% and repair an additional 90% over 9 minutes instead of spawning immediately at 100%, but that's it. If you damage a turret, it stays damaged forever until someone comes with a repair gun and repairs it, or until it gets destroyed. Stations are quite solo-able. It's been done many times before.
There should be some benefits for large groups of cooperating players. It's absolutely ridiculous that some people seem to think that everything available to groups of players should be equally available to a single player, or that a single player should be able to compete equally with large groups of players. PvP already sort of works like that. Any moron in a hog can turbo in and out of a sector swarming a large group of players with hit and run tactics, and the group pretty much can't do anything about it (like in an organized event). In real life, if some single person repeatedly pissed off a large group of armed people, that person would get his ass kicked. VO PvP doesn't work that way. Extending that to other new aspects of the game is a mistake.
I'm not saying any aspects of the game should be limited to guilds, but certain things should at least be very difficult to do without working with a group of some sort. This is common sense stuff. If there are no benefits to cooperation, then no one is going to do it, and we'll never move past space quake. This doesn't mean that cap ships should only ever be available through conquerable stations specifically, but they should generally be easier to obtain by large groups of players than by small groups or single players, same as conquerable stations.
There should be some benefits for large groups of cooperating players. It's absolutely ridiculous that some people seem to think that everything available to groups of players should be equally available to a single player, or that a single player should be able to compete equally with large groups of players. PvP already sort of works like that. Any moron in a hog can turbo in and out of a sector swarming a large group of players with hit and run tactics, and the group pretty much can't do anything about it (like in an organized event). In real life, if some single person repeatedly pissed off a large group of armed people, that person would get his ass kicked. VO PvP doesn't work that way. Extending that to other new aspects of the game is a mistake.
I'm not saying any aspects of the game should be limited to guilds, but certain things should at least be very difficult to do without working with a group of some sort. This is common sense stuff. If there are no benefits to cooperation, then no one is going to do it, and we'll never move past space quake. This doesn't mean that cap ships should only ever be available through conquerable stations specifically, but they should generally be easier to obtain by large groups of players than by small groups or single players, same as conquerable stations.
Strat is right, the turrets have to be protected until they reach full strength.
I would agree with the general idea that any asset in vo should be available to a single player. Stations are, they can be soloed. Capships should, in time, be available to a single player.
That said the effort that a single player has to put into the game should reflect the level of effort a group or guild puts in to own one via a manufacturing tree. Similarly the loss suffered by a single player if their capship is lost should be equivalent to the shared losses of any group or guild that loses one.
Lastly, you cannot please all of the people all of the time. I have always supported the idea of bringing stuff into the game and seeing what happens. If imbalances occur then they can be dealt with. I'd say go for it Inc.
I would agree with the general idea that any asset in vo should be available to a single player. Stations are, they can be soloed. Capships should, in time, be available to a single player.
That said the effort that a single player has to put into the game should reflect the level of effort a group or guild puts in to own one via a manufacturing tree. Similarly the loss suffered by a single player if their capship is lost should be equivalent to the shared losses of any group or guild that loses one.
Lastly, you cannot please all of the people all of the time. I have always supported the idea of bringing stuff into the game and seeing what happens. If imbalances occur then they can be dealt with. I'd say go for it Inc.
I agree with Strat, that there should be advantages to working in groups in a game, just as in real life. My opinion is that we've waited a very long time for cap ships. Let's get them, see how it all works, and make changes as we go along. Just as has been done all through the game. How about we quit whining about unfair advantages until we actually have something to whine about? Everyone has looked forward to capships, and now that we're on the cusp of getting them up springs opposition? A pox on all the houses of detractors! Let's go here! Forward into the future, however uncertain. That's what a pioneer does, is it not? At first the way is uncertain, but over time becomes known, then embraced.
People can take this or leave it. If you think we're better off waiting for a completely designed-out implementation, that's fine, but there's no way it'll happen before June or July.
Sooner will work just fine if the you can honestly afford to spend the time, thanks. :)
Test implementations can be just as much fun as the real ones while you figure out their limits.
Strat: It's a participation thing. A pilot can take on three and have have a chance in a dogfight. And that's fun. There's no reason for the game to make numbers trump skill to the point of exclusion. Cooperation has its own benefit. In real life we have institutions to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
Sooner will work just fine if the you can honestly afford to spend the time, thanks. :)
Test implementations can be just as much fun as the real ones while you figure out their limits.
Strat: It's a participation thing. A pilot can take on three and have have a chance in a dogfight. And that's fun. There's no reason for the game to make numbers trump skill to the point of exclusion. Cooperation has its own benefit. In real life we have institutions to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
It's a participation thing. A pilot can take on three and have have a chance in a dogfight. And that's fun. There's no reason for the game to make numbers trump skill to the point of exclusion. Cooperation has its own benefit. In real life we have institutions to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
Given pilots of approximate equal skill and experience, more should be better. You can try to spin it however you want, but some people seem to think it's unfair that individuals or small groups of players are at a disadvantage to large groups in conquerable station gameplay (or other aspects of competitive gameplay), which is ridiculous. Anyway, small groups of players can participate and even compete with large groups in station gameplay. [CHRN] proved that last year, as did [Itan] more recently. However, it requires a huge investment of time and effort on behalf of the small group to match relatively casual efforts of the large group, which is very difficult for the small group to maintain for any extended period of time. I'm not sure how else it should or could work without somehow artificially neutralizing the natural advantages of multiplayer cooperation, which would be a mistake. There should be benefits to owning conquerable stations, otherwise they're pointless, and there aren't many right now.
That being said, it doesn't necessarily have to be that something as major as cap ships are only available through access to conquerable stations. It doesn't have to be a competitive thing where either one side has it or the other. Maybe Corvus can offer a way of building them illegally or something, but it should be as hard or harder than building them in conquerable stations, but at least both the stronger and weaker side of a conflict would have potential access to them simultaneously.
Either way, please don't postpone the introduction of player-owned cap ships, and don't avoid adding benefits to conquerable station access just because some players don't have easy or stable access to them. Also, to go a little bit more off-topic, I don't think having an owner key to a station should have any extra advantages over having a user key, other than the ability to give out and revoke keys.
Given pilots of approximate equal skill and experience, more should be better. You can try to spin it however you want, but some people seem to think it's unfair that individuals or small groups of players are at a disadvantage to large groups in conquerable station gameplay (or other aspects of competitive gameplay), which is ridiculous. Anyway, small groups of players can participate and even compete with large groups in station gameplay. [CHRN] proved that last year, as did [Itan] more recently. However, it requires a huge investment of time and effort on behalf of the small group to match relatively casual efforts of the large group, which is very difficult for the small group to maintain for any extended period of time. I'm not sure how else it should or could work without somehow artificially neutralizing the natural advantages of multiplayer cooperation, which would be a mistake. There should be benefits to owning conquerable stations, otherwise they're pointless, and there aren't many right now.
That being said, it doesn't necessarily have to be that something as major as cap ships are only available through access to conquerable stations. It doesn't have to be a competitive thing where either one side has it or the other. Maybe Corvus can offer a way of building them illegally or something, but it should be as hard or harder than building them in conquerable stations, but at least both the stronger and weaker side of a conflict would have potential access to them simultaneously.
Either way, please don't postpone the introduction of player-owned cap ships, and don't avoid adding benefits to conquerable station access just because some players don't have easy or stable access to them. Also, to go a little bit more off-topic, I don't think having an owner key to a station should have any extra advantages over having a user key, other than the ability to give out and revoke keys.
How adding members to a group increases its potency depends on the game's rules and has a huge impact on the gameplay. In a furball, a smaller skilled group of players can always put up a real fight against a larger one. The conquerable station implementation favors skill less and rewards numbers more to the extent that smaller groups of skilled pilots can effectively be shut out. Why favor the latter over the former? [CHRN] couldn't really compete against an alliance of nearly everyone else and we played less as a consequence. Why not let ownership be more ephemeral and contests be more skill intensive? We've made improvements in that direction already but more can be done.
There is skill involved, but not much traditional PvP skill. Believe me. There is a huge difference between a group of guys with conquerable station experience and a group without. It's less based on skill than traditional PvP, but only to a degree. Keep in mind that you and I are good at PvP and enjoy it, but not everyone else does. I've seen a lot of players who usually shy away from PvP get into station gameplay, which isn't a bad thing. I'm not sure I'd want to turn it into another traditional PvP activity. We have a lot of that.
Ok first of all, Maalick is good at PvP, Strat is good at PvP in ONE SETUP. The same can be said of the current conquerable station dynamic: A large group of unskilled labor can take and hold a station even against a small group of elite pilots. In a furball elite pilots can win at 2 or even 3:1 outnumbered. In station combat it's simply not possible. Linking any acquisition of equipment to that dynamic flies in the face of what VO is supposed to be. The one thing that keeps me coming back is the fact that pilot skill MATTERS. That can't be said of any other game. If I'm better than you, I should win most of the time, and in VO that's true. Unfortunately the game mechanics of station conquest nullify that, hence the carebears hold the stations. Linking that to the single most desirable content addition (cap ships) is a HUGE mistake. Yes, I'd rather wait until summer for that addition to fall in line with the spirit of VO. Unfortunately, I don't think VO will last that long, and if it does in it's current incarnation it will be devoid of any real player on player action, because the lazy, afraid and skilless will far outnumber the rest, as the rest have left for greener pastures.