Forums » General
I love you.
So wait, how can you load up a certain amount of ships and drop it off at another location?
So wait, how can you load up a certain amount of ships and drop it off at another location?
I full heartedly disagree that a skyprom should take up 15% less cargo space than a valk. They are larger, heavier, and higher capacity ships.
It seems Meridian had a system for determining the sizes, but they make no sense to me. A hog takes up 1/6 the space a vulture does? Wtf? A raptor takes up to 10 times the space that a hog does?
Here's a more even handed chart to try on for size (cross post).
EC 50
Centurion 75
Vulture 80
Valkyrie 100
Raptor 100
Warthog 95
Hornet 110
Revenant 110
Wraith 95
Atlas 95
Centaur 175
Marauder 175
Ragnarok 175
Prometheus 175
Behemoth 300
It seems Meridian had a system for determining the sizes, but they make no sense to me. A hog takes up 1/6 the space a vulture does? Wtf? A raptor takes up to 10 times the space that a hog does?
Here's a more even handed chart to try on for size (cross post).
EC 50
Centurion 75
Vulture 80
Valkyrie 100
Raptor 100
Warthog 95
Hornet 110
Revenant 110
Wraith 95
Atlas 95
Centaur 175
Marauder 175
Ragnarok 175
Prometheus 175
Behemoth 300
I think you are confused, Greenwall. My proposed volume for the warthog was 150 cu and the vulture 100 cu.
You should post your suggested numbers on the suggestion thread.
EDIT: nvm, I see you posted on both threads, lol
You should post your suggested numbers on the suggestion thread.
EDIT: nvm, I see you posted on both threads, lol
I think I am confused now. What I thought was Meridians post appears to be Bladerus's post, and your (meridian's) proposal appears to be missing... bad link?... durrrrrrrr
Sorry about that. I edited the post to show the direct link to the image. Hopefully that works better for you.
I hope the problem with ships not having engines when other players get into them is fixed I know at least for me there are a number of ships i can no longer buy due to faction standing so a few more unscrupulus traders could make some money selling me XCs and SCPs. we might have the beginning of a real player run economy here.
While it's obviously correct to fix the fact that an unlimited number of smaller ships could dock with a Trident, and that the charged cannon shouldn't be an unlimited-fire machine gun usable while turboing, I think correcting these issues may have been premature.
Tridents are quite difficult to obtain, but limited in utility. Limiting the number of ships that can dock an one time further reduces their utility. No doubt, it should have been done eventually, but perhaps not until some other useful feature was introduced - capship-class main guns, for example.
Tridents are very difficult to destroy. The *only* reasonably effective anti-capship weapon was a Hornet equipped with charged cannons. Even against that, a Trident could usually escape at will. Now, it's a near certainty that a Trident captain who decides to retreat will succeed. No doubt, it should have been fixed eventually, but perhaps not until some useful anti-capship weapon was introduced - torpedoes with vastly higher damage than Avalons, for example.
Tridents are quite difficult to obtain, but limited in utility. Limiting the number of ships that can dock an one time further reduces their utility. No doubt, it should have been done eventually, but perhaps not until some other useful feature was introduced - capship-class main guns, for example.
Tridents are very difficult to destroy. The *only* reasonably effective anti-capship weapon was a Hornet equipped with charged cannons. Even against that, a Trident could usually escape at will. Now, it's a near certainty that a Trident captain who decides to retreat will succeed. No doubt, it should have been fixed eventually, but perhaps not until some useful anti-capship weapon was introduced - torpedoes with vastly higher damage than Avalons, for example.
I appreciate the concerns, but..
How about we focus on actually adding balanced, intentional stuff, instead of alleviating perceived flaws through unintentional bugs.. and then keeping those bugs around because they're convenient.
How about we focus on actually adding balanced, intentional stuff, instead of alleviating perceived flaws through unintentional bugs.. and then keeping those bugs around because they're convenient.
I hope the problem with ships not having engines when other players get into them is fixed I know at least for me there are a number of ships i can no longer buy due to faction standing so a few more unscrupulus traders could make some money selling me XCs and SCPs. we might have the beginning of a real player run economy here.
FYI, we're going to have to remove the ability of capships to jettison/drop ships as cargo for now. The problem is that they aren't being handled properly, and this is resulting in any cargo or addons that belong to the ships becoming "orphaned" objects in the game universe.. not something we ever want to happen.
The ship-as-trade-good thing was an un-intended side effect of Ray's method of implementing the ability for a capship-captain to be able to undock from their own ship. We'll do what we can to keep trade-able ships for now, but the more black-market aspect will have to wait until we can actually do it properly.
FYI, we're going to have to remove the ability of capships to jettison/drop ships as cargo for now. The problem is that they aren't being handled properly, and this is resulting in any cargo or addons that belong to the ships becoming "orphaned" objects in the game universe.. not something we ever want to happen.
The ship-as-trade-good thing was an un-intended side effect of Ray's method of implementing the ability for a capship-captain to be able to undock from their own ship. We'll do what we can to keep trade-able ships for now, but the more black-market aspect will have to wait until we can actually do it properly.
I'm just saying that removing unintentional stuff that mostly works before there's an intentional replacement for it doesn't make the whole picture better; it just leaves gaps in the gameplay where there was previously something usable.
Of course, if you did it to motivate yourselves to get intentional solutions in place faster, I'll withdraw my complaint.
Of course, if you did it to motivate yourselves to get intentional solutions in place faster, I'll withdraw my complaint.
Well, like with creating cargo limits, I prefer to put in place the conceptual limitation that's actually sane, and then tweak the simple number values that we have available to make them work. Instead of keeping a strange and dumb implementation around for a longer period. Do it right, then make it work.
In the case of cargo limits, while that situation is still in flux, it's noteworthy that I changed the cargo requirements of many ships, per user feedback, within a few hours of the release, so it's not like I'm being un-reactive to the need for related tweaks as we make these changes.
But I am heading towards a specific vision and set of goals. In the meantime, new gameplay may evolve out of the transitional pieces, and I'll try to preserve that when I can.. but I am still heading for my specific goals, and that is the overriding priority.
So, no, I will not maintain broken stuff in favor of fixed stuff, simply because it's something people are used to right now. I will absolutely consider making changes to other gameplay areas to help with current goals, as we move forward.. like buffing avalons, or making Tridents more susceptible to explosion damage (something that is possible now). But those are best addressed in a Suggestions thread.
To sum up, my intent for the next year is to bring about a lot of the big changes in the game that we've all wanted for a long time. The only thing I can promise during this process is.. change, some of which WILL be chaotic. There are development priorities that often conflict with short-term player priorities, and in those conflicts (during this time of significant change).. I will choose the development priority every time and twice on sunday. Because if I don't it'll take us another goddamn decade to finish this game.
Most games aren't made this way. We can't do it the regular way and release everything all at once in a year, our team is too small and we require the interim testing of the codebase in a live environment. Small periodic changes are the only way we can manage the development load of potential bug-fixes, and the nature and order of those changes is driven by the needs of development.
So, if there's something you want that's supplanted by a change, or has been temporarily removed, or an issue you want to bring up.. do so on Suggestions (and link from here, or whatever) and I'll do what I can to mitigate your concerns while maintaining the heading very inexorably towards my own goals.
In the case of cargo limits, while that situation is still in flux, it's noteworthy that I changed the cargo requirements of many ships, per user feedback, within a few hours of the release, so it's not like I'm being un-reactive to the need for related tweaks as we make these changes.
But I am heading towards a specific vision and set of goals. In the meantime, new gameplay may evolve out of the transitional pieces, and I'll try to preserve that when I can.. but I am still heading for my specific goals, and that is the overriding priority.
So, no, I will not maintain broken stuff in favor of fixed stuff, simply because it's something people are used to right now. I will absolutely consider making changes to other gameplay areas to help with current goals, as we move forward.. like buffing avalons, or making Tridents more susceptible to explosion damage (something that is possible now). But those are best addressed in a Suggestions thread.
To sum up, my intent for the next year is to bring about a lot of the big changes in the game that we've all wanted for a long time. The only thing I can promise during this process is.. change, some of which WILL be chaotic. There are development priorities that often conflict with short-term player priorities, and in those conflicts (during this time of significant change).. I will choose the development priority every time and twice on sunday. Because if I don't it'll take us another goddamn decade to finish this game.
Most games aren't made this way. We can't do it the regular way and release everything all at once in a year, our team is too small and we require the interim testing of the codebase in a live environment. Small periodic changes are the only way we can manage the development load of potential bug-fixes, and the nature and order of those changes is driven by the needs of development.
So, if there's something you want that's supplanted by a change, or has been temporarily removed, or an issue you want to bring up.. do so on Suggestions (and link from here, or whatever) and I'll do what I can to mitigate your concerns while maintaining the heading very inexorably towards my own goals.
I suppose you could call upon the PCC to test things on the test server before release.
Anyway, in defense of Inc's decision to make ships undroppable in the interim: I for one would not like my characters' inventory db corrupted by tons of disembodied ship-addon-containers because of this half-implemented feature... :P
Anyway, in defense of Inc's decision to make ships undroppable in the interim: I for one would not like my characters' inventory db corrupted by tons of disembodied ship-addon-containers because of this half-implemented feature... :P
I suppose you could call upon the PCC to test things on the test server before release.
The density isn't really high enough to be robust. We're on a clock, we need things to be really thrashed in a few days to a week, so we can use whatever codepath we're testing to further build a given feature. Historically, the PCC doesn't do much more than we do internally (and we do a lot of internal testing, even though sometimes it may not seem that way).
The density isn't really high enough to be robust. We're on a clock, we need things to be really thrashed in a few days to a week, so we can use whatever codepath we're testing to further build a given feature. Historically, the PCC doesn't do much more than we do internally (and we do a lot of internal testing, even though sometimes it may not seem that way).
There are development priorities that often conflict with short-term player priorities, and in those conflicts (during this time of significant change).. I will choose the development priority every time and twice on sunday. Because if I don't it'll take us another goddamn decade to finish this game.
This is kind of the reason I had my bitch about the ships using cargo space thing here rather than in suggestions. It wasn't a legitimate complaint, it was me "having a bitch" about a change I didn't like much. Sure, I didn't like it, but I knew it was intentional, and I didn't expect it to be changed to suit my whims.
Sometimes I just need to complain about something...
Faille.
This is kind of the reason I had my bitch about the ships using cargo space thing here rather than in suggestions. It wasn't a legitimate complaint, it was me "having a bitch" about a change I didn't like much. Sure, I didn't like it, but I knew it was intentional, and I didn't expect it to be changed to suit my whims.
Sometimes I just need to complain about something...
Faille.
Very well then - suggestion posted: http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/28153
Oh well, I'm sure it will all get sorted out in the end Inc. As ever just try it and ask, we are always happy to test stuff.
Anyway, all this whinging about ending up with a a ship with no engine. Really, us vets remember the days when you could end up in space with an engine and no ship. Honestly, it could be done. Damn cold it was too, and ye had to paddle the thing back home....
Anyway, all this whinging about ending up with a a ship with no engine. Really, us vets remember the days when you could end up in space with an engine and no ship. Honestly, it could be done. Damn cold it was too, and ye had to paddle the thing back home....
Upstream also. ;)
Another side effect of this cargo deal and the tridents is that affects your ability to dock with NPC tridents, which really kinda sucks when you need to hitch a ride. You cannot dock cause the thing is full. (please fix)
Hopefully this doesn't effect the ability to dock, rep and reload with the tridents on Hive Crit missions. I'll get around to testing this later tonight unless someone beats me to it.
Another side effect of this cargo deal and the tridents is that affects your ability to dock with NPC tridents, which really kinda sucks when you need to hitch a ride. You cannot dock cause the thing is full. (please fix)
Hopefully this doesn't effect the ability to dock, rep and reload with the tridents on Hive Crit missions. I'll get around to testing this later tonight unless someone beats me to it.
This is kind of the reason I had my bitch about the ships using cargo space thing here rather than in suggestions. It wasn't a legitimate complaint, it was me "having a bitch" about a change I didn't like much. Sure, I didn't like it, but I knew it was intentional, and I didn't expect it to be changed to suit my whims.
Sometimes I just need to complain about something...
Faille.
Heheh, well, I do understand where you're coming from. But it's not very productive to bitch in General posts about this kind of stuff. That was kind of the point of my lengthier post above.. if something changes that upsets you, then tell me why, and suggest how we might mitigate it, and link to a Suggestion thread about it. Then I can actually do something. If people just bitch and moan and demand that I reverse course, I'm probably just going to say "NO", resulting in more frustration for everyone (me included, since we're working really hard on each of these releases). But if people say "This has a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of our losing X-desired-gameplay, it'd be great if we could bring this back via another method or tweak, like (link to suggestions post)".. then that's a lot more likely have a result that makes everyone happy (me included).
I'm very open to input, but the knee-jerk reactions of "change it back" are not that helpful. Because we Aren't Going Back.
Sometimes I just need to complain about something...
Faille.
Heheh, well, I do understand where you're coming from. But it's not very productive to bitch in General posts about this kind of stuff. That was kind of the point of my lengthier post above.. if something changes that upsets you, then tell me why, and suggest how we might mitigate it, and link to a Suggestion thread about it. Then I can actually do something. If people just bitch and moan and demand that I reverse course, I'm probably just going to say "NO", resulting in more frustration for everyone (me included, since we're working really hard on each of these releases). But if people say "This has a consequence, unintended or otherwise, of our losing X-desired-gameplay, it'd be great if we could bring this back via another method or tweak, like (link to suggestions post)".. then that's a lot more likely have a result that makes everyone happy (me included).
I'm very open to input, but the knee-jerk reactions of "change it back" are not that helpful. Because we Aren't Going Back.
Hehehe, I never expected you to change it back Inc. I had tried to word my complaint in such a way that it was obviously just a whinge, but I guess I failed there. I've mentioned before that I understand what's popular isn't always what's good, and that goes for my own likes and wants from games. While I do think TTM's (well, Capital class ships in general) should have dedicated hanger bays, its a very long way from being a "deal-breaker" for me.
VO has captured my interest like no other computer game ever has. Even my other love, Bethesda's Elder Scrolls capped out at around 600 hrs for Oblivion, and less for Morrowind and Skyrim (though Daggerfall prolly gives VO a run for its money), so please forgive my occasional whinge.
Faille.
VO has captured my interest like no other computer game ever has. Even my other love, Bethesda's Elder Scrolls capped out at around 600 hrs for Oblivion, and less for Morrowind and Skyrim (though Daggerfall prolly gives VO a run for its money), so please forgive my occasional whinge.
Faille.
I finally figured out what song Inc reminded me of in that last post:
Staaaaarrrr Trekkin', across the universe,
On the starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk!
Staaaaarrrr Trekkin', across the universe,
Boldly going forward 'cause we can't find reverse!
Staaaaarrrr Trekkin', across the universe,
On the starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk!
Staaaaarrrr Trekkin', across the universe,
Boldly going forward 'cause we can't find reverse!