Forums » General
Thanks, Inc, for your explanation. Can you tell us a bit more about what player owned stations will be like, in comparison to the current static conquerable stations? Will they exist as separate instances (per person) in a single sector, or can players share one station? Seems that you intend that they will be conquerable - what are the ramifications for the original owner?
It'll tie directly into the conquest of territory. No instancing, basically there'll be a "ring" of expanded systems that's added to the galaxy, outside of the current map. These will be player-conquerable, and there will be different benefits and ramifications to taking territory (mainly resource acquisition), and the station will be a necessary adjunct of that. People will be able to build single stations, and then multiple stations, with any given station able to handle resources from a given surrounding area based on size and relative upgraded status, etc.
Players will be able to share stations using the Key system, so I expect both Guilds and other player groups to be conquering territory, as well as individuals. It'll probably be rolled out in stages, maybe with some dynamic areas in the existing universe (greyspace), followed by an expanded galaxy, and then perhaps a very-expanded galaxy (of which the current one is the "core", always the original intent).
It'll tie directly into the conquest of territory. No instancing, basically there'll be a "ring" of expanded systems that's added to the galaxy, outside of the current map. These will be player-conquerable, and there will be different benefits and ramifications to taking territory (mainly resource acquisition), and the station will be a necessary adjunct of that. People will be able to build single stations, and then multiple stations, with any given station able to handle resources from a given surrounding area based on size and relative upgraded status, etc.
Players will be able to share stations using the Key system, so I expect both Guilds and other player groups to be conquering territory, as well as individuals. It'll probably be rolled out in stages, maybe with some dynamic areas in the existing universe (greyspace), followed by an expanded galaxy, and then perhaps a very-expanded galaxy (of which the current one is the "core", always the original intent).
That sounds awesome!
lol That's taking "Soon" to a whole new level. What decade is that, Inc? 2030?
Players will be able to share stations using the Key system
You're talking about the new and vastly improved yet-to-be-released Key system, right?
You're talking about the new and vastly improved yet-to-be-released Key system, right?
lol That's taking "Soon" to a whole new level. What decade is that, Inc? 2030?
What's the point of you asking this? There's nothing I can do that I'm not doing already. If you want to take up a collection so I can hire another developer, be my guest. I'm not being dishonest, I'm not saying it's going to launch tomorrow, I have no idea when it'll be released. But it is a major goal and intent towards which much of my work (and life) are directed.
But aside from that, we've been working on this for years, to date, so some of the "soon" is already past. It ties into the same stuff needed for my project to get rid of ion storms and re-work the universe, which has been in process since at least 2008.
Like everything in development, it often isn't the things you expect that create the delays. Some of this conquest stuff is actually not that difficult or great of a change. We've been working on things like allowing unlimited dynamic factional tables, so there could be 2394238 regions of space with different faction alignments to one another (every uniquely conquered area of space being a "faction" unto itself, so guilds/players can be aligned or un-aligned however they like).. that's something we already have in mind and partially implemented.
Player-owned capships, while they may seem unrelated, are (as far as the game is concerned) moving player-owned stations. So, a lot of the mechanics of dynamic station ownership have been inherent in our improvement of capship stuff.. and a lot of the behind-the-scenes work on that which is boring and non-evident to the userbase, has actually been towards this larger goal.
Other things are more complex, like allowing sectors to dynamically change due to player behaviour, but still have very large numbers of objects, which requires a caching system on the client that's lazily updated.. anyway, it's involved to explain. But we've implemented some of that as well. But there's still more to be done.
What's the point of you asking this? There's nothing I can do that I'm not doing already. If you want to take up a collection so I can hire another developer, be my guest. I'm not being dishonest, I'm not saying it's going to launch tomorrow, I have no idea when it'll be released. But it is a major goal and intent towards which much of my work (and life) are directed.
But aside from that, we've been working on this for years, to date, so some of the "soon" is already past. It ties into the same stuff needed for my project to get rid of ion storms and re-work the universe, which has been in process since at least 2008.
Like everything in development, it often isn't the things you expect that create the delays. Some of this conquest stuff is actually not that difficult or great of a change. We've been working on things like allowing unlimited dynamic factional tables, so there could be 2394238 regions of space with different faction alignments to one another (every uniquely conquered area of space being a "faction" unto itself, so guilds/players can be aligned or un-aligned however they like).. that's something we already have in mind and partially implemented.
Player-owned capships, while they may seem unrelated, are (as far as the game is concerned) moving player-owned stations. So, a lot of the mechanics of dynamic station ownership have been inherent in our improvement of capship stuff.. and a lot of the behind-the-scenes work on that which is boring and non-evident to the userbase, has actually been towards this larger goal.
Other things are more complex, like allowing sectors to dynamically change due to player behaviour, but still have very large numbers of objects, which requires a caching system on the client that's lazily updated.. anyway, it's involved to explain. But we've implemented some of that as well. But there's still more to be done.
This sounds great Incarnate. Can I assume that the resources that are available in the future systems will be both needed and scarce?
If you want to take up a collection so I can hire another developer, be my guest.
We tried that, I still have your "Holy shit, dude!" email somewhere. If you ever get around to doing it again, I'll see about pitching in.
The point in my posting is you guys keep talking about where you expect to go, what will happen with VO, etc...without any recognition or discussion of how any of it is anything but a pipedream absent some kind of way of speeding things up. A lot.
We tried that, I still have your "Holy shit, dude!" email somewhere. If you ever get around to doing it again, I'll see about pitching in.
The point in my posting is you guys keep talking about where you expect to go, what will happen with VO, etc...without any recognition or discussion of how any of it is anything but a pipedream absent some kind of way of speeding things up. A lot.
The point in my posting is you guys keep talking about where you expect to go, what will happen with VO, etc...without any recognition or discussion of how any of it is anything but a pipedream absent some kind of way of speeding things up. A lot.
Do you really not comprehend that? We're a bunch of underpaid people working on a massive project because we believe-in and love the thing we're doing. Of course we're optimistic, otherwise we'd have a hell of a time getting up in the morning.
You, on the other hand, are overly pessimistic. I could do some searches to scare up a few things you've claimed were "never going to happen" that were, in fact, released, but I'm not going to burn the energy. You know it has happened.
The truth is probably somewhere in between us. But it sure as hell isn't "2030". The future is uncertain, and unexpected stuff can happen. When it happens to a small team, it can make things a lot harder. People have long-term illnesses and health problems (has happened to us in the last 2 years), loved ones in awful accidents, all sorts of stuff crops up.. and we aren't very replaceable people, one person may have tremendous knowledge of a particular thing that no one else can replicate, and their vanishing can stall out projects for years (happened with Andy, etc). This is not even including our general financial instabilities.
But, things are looking up lately. We may be in a position soon where I can make some longer-term development plans. Ie, not so hasty and chaotic and driven by need.. instead a bit more of what we "want to do" instead of what we "have to do".
If anyone has doubts about how quickly things can happen when we have more financial and developmental freedom, check out Lemming's uber patch log, and look at how rapidly the game evolved between 2002 and 2004. Things can move fast, when we have the luxury of longer-term focus.
[EDIT] On a note about rapid development: we recently went from zero dynamic lighting whatsoever, on a Monday, to an implementation and release of 32 simultaneous dynamic light sources (per object) on a Friday. Not that it was fully "done" at that time (more polished tonight), but still.. big engine changes that evolved quickly.
Do you really not comprehend that? We're a bunch of underpaid people working on a massive project because we believe-in and love the thing we're doing. Of course we're optimistic, otherwise we'd have a hell of a time getting up in the morning.
You, on the other hand, are overly pessimistic. I could do some searches to scare up a few things you've claimed were "never going to happen" that were, in fact, released, but I'm not going to burn the energy. You know it has happened.
The truth is probably somewhere in between us. But it sure as hell isn't "2030". The future is uncertain, and unexpected stuff can happen. When it happens to a small team, it can make things a lot harder. People have long-term illnesses and health problems (has happened to us in the last 2 years), loved ones in awful accidents, all sorts of stuff crops up.. and we aren't very replaceable people, one person may have tremendous knowledge of a particular thing that no one else can replicate, and their vanishing can stall out projects for years (happened with Andy, etc). This is not even including our general financial instabilities.
But, things are looking up lately. We may be in a position soon where I can make some longer-term development plans. Ie, not so hasty and chaotic and driven by need.. instead a bit more of what we "want to do" instead of what we "have to do".
If anyone has doubts about how quickly things can happen when we have more financial and developmental freedom, check out Lemming's uber patch log, and look at how rapidly the game evolved between 2002 and 2004. Things can move fast, when we have the luxury of longer-term focus.
[EDIT] On a note about rapid development: we recently went from zero dynamic lighting whatsoever, on a Monday, to an implementation and release of 32 simultaneous dynamic light sources (per object) on a Friday. Not that it was fully "done" at that time (more polished tonight), but still.. big engine changes that evolved quickly.
This sounds great Incarnate. Can I assume that the resources that are available in the future systems will be both needed and scarce?
Scarcity will be dependent on the particular resource, but.. yes. And scarcity is relative to scale too, of course. When we're talking about building a single centurion, that's not much. When it's a single capship, that's a bit more. When it's manufacturing items and ships and entire station inventories on a much more industrial scale, all of a sudden even getting "enough" trivial ores may be a meaningful issue.
Scarcity will be dependent on the particular resource, but.. yes. And scarcity is relative to scale too, of course. When we're talking about building a single centurion, that's not much. When it's a single capship, that's a bit more. When it's manufacturing items and ships and entire station inventories on a much more industrial scale, all of a sudden even getting "enough" trivial ores may be a meaningful issue.
Sounds great, Inc! I look forward to it.
Thanks for making such a great game and keeping at it, despite the challenges! You have my respect and support. I was part of a failed bootstrap business, and it's not easy to go for a long period underpaid or not paid at all. So I know a little of what you're going through. VO might not be as polished and completed as all of the AAA games, but you've gone a long way with what little resources you have.
Thanks for making such a great game and keeping at it, despite the challenges! You have my respect and support. I was part of a failed bootstrap business, and it's not easy to go for a long period underpaid or not paid at all. So I know a little of what you're going through. VO might not be as polished and completed as all of the AAA games, but you've gone a long way with what little resources you have.
Excellent! Glad to hear it.
"If you want to take up a collection so I can hire another developer, be my guest."
Do this! Seriously. Start a crowd-funding effort specifically for hiring another developer for 18 months. Let us contribute incrementally, and when we reach the appropriate level, do it.
Do this! Seriously. Start a crowd-funding effort specifically for hiring another developer for 18 months. Let us contribute incrementally, and when we reach the appropriate level, do it.
But, things are looking up lately. We may be in a position soon where I can make some longer-term development plans. Ie, not so hasty and chaotic and driven by need.. instead a bit more of what we "want to do" instead of what we "have to do".
Awesome. I'll believe it when I can log in and see it.
Awesome. I'll believe it when I can log in and see it.
What keeps you logging in now, Lecter? Why are you still engaged enough to keep tabs on VO?
Perhaps he's just a space tragic and there's nothing else on the market remotely close to what fans of the genre want except VO.
He doesn't want to believe. That's why he never logs in. ;)
+1 to Savet. I'd like to contribute incrementally to get funding for another developer. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
You sort of already can. Buy extra subs. Even better, buy them for other people who you think might be interested, no strings attached (or attach strings; be the puppet master!).
The main differences are that the money wouldn't be getting set aside for specific uses, and there wouldn't be any public tracking of it.
The main differences are that the money wouldn't be getting set aside for specific uses, and there wouldn't be any public tracking of it.
Excellent! Glad to hear it.
Heard it in 2003, but it's still the dream and I'm still waiting.
[edit]
Please don't take this as a negative comment, it really isn't.
Heard it in 2003, but it's still the dream and I'm still waiting.
[edit]
Please don't take this as a negative comment, it really isn't.
"The main differences are that the money wouldn't be getting set aside for specific uses, and there wouldn't be any public tracking of it."
Rin, exactly. The problem most people have is that "things that keep the lights on" take priority over shiny things we want, and we feel a sense of entitlement, often unjustified, in thinking we should direct the focus of the efforts. Giving us the ability to directly compete with lights-on activities by contributing focused money in addition to our subscription would go a long way towards giving players a sense of fullfillment.
Example:
1. I want the ability to become unaligned and grey-named.
2. I make the request to the suggestion forum.
3. Incarnate reviews the suggestion, and gives it a yay or nay.
4. Incarnate assigns a dollar value to his estimate to complete the effort.
5. A crowd-funding project is started for the enhancement with the $goal.
6. When the goal is reached, GS collects the money and starts the effort. If the goal is not reached, I tuck my tail between my legs and realize that my suggestion is not worth the cost of the effort to implement.
It's win-win for everyone.
Rin, exactly. The problem most people have is that "things that keep the lights on" take priority over shiny things we want, and we feel a sense of entitlement, often unjustified, in thinking we should direct the focus of the efforts. Giving us the ability to directly compete with lights-on activities by contributing focused money in addition to our subscription would go a long way towards giving players a sense of fullfillment.
Example:
1. I want the ability to become unaligned and grey-named.
2. I make the request to the suggestion forum.
3. Incarnate reviews the suggestion, and gives it a yay or nay.
4. Incarnate assigns a dollar value to his estimate to complete the effort.
5. A crowd-funding project is started for the enhancement with the $goal.
6. When the goal is reached, GS collects the money and starts the effort. If the goal is not reached, I tuck my tail between my legs and realize that my suggestion is not worth the cost of the effort to implement.
It's win-win for everyone.