In general, there needs to be more continuity of consequences in this game. Like CtC, even though that only lasts a week.

Say after a week of fighting in Deneb, whichever nation has the most kills gains a sector, and if it gets 100% either way, ownership of the system changes. If the Serco capture the system entirely, then the battleground moves to Eo. If the Itani capture the Deneb system entirely, then the battleground moves to Geira. The slow progression of battle lines would be interesting to watch. Station sectors change allegiance when captured.

Could be the same for trading. Total the amount of trade XP earned by all individuals of each nation and prices go up or down for that nation depending on whether they are in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place for trading. This could be made even more complex by adding in interaction between the grayspace factions.

Same for mining. The winning mining nation/faction/whatever "discovers" a new very valuable asteroid deep in their territority, this message is broadcast over channel 11.

Espionage missions and/or subversion missions could permanently change the allegiance of stations.

New stations could be built. Possibly planets could be terraformed. New systems discovered by <Insert Playername here>. Exploits get written into the backstory. Etc etc. I think that the playerbase would really get into this. Look at how the station NEWS is being utilized to add atmosphere to this game!

Having a permanent impact on game play would be very interesting. I think this kind of stuff will be easier to accomplish with the new mission editor. However, will it allow permanent changes to the game?

Nice ideas leebs... but... NOT YET.

We need a larger player base to make that even marginally fair... there aren't enough Serco players.

I'd like to see this developed... and maybe tested out on ye olde test server... but NOT implemented on the Production server until VO goes public.

Have I made a point or is the above just random drivel?

First off icbm1987, VO IS public, just lacking in advertising as I'm sure you're well aware.

Secondly, there will _never_ be even sides in VO, to use that as an argument not to create new content is just plain dumb.

I'm all for the idea, and agree that it should be tested onthe test server first but see no reason that this would not be good for the production server. If nothing else it will need periodic resetting of sector/systems if it gets out of control.

But first, lets get all the goodies that the devs already have on there plate out into the publics hands and play with those for a while. They have illuded to the fact that they have a fair bit more planned then what they have already disclosed. Lets see what it is.

As far as taking over systems/sectors maybe have a new set of systems out side of the main grouping of systems where this battle takes place. That way you don't have to worry about the main systems being over ran because of a lack of players for one side.

Not a bad suggestion Morner, but perhaps yet another way which is similar to yours. Instances of the sector/systems involved.

A group/guild activates a war script, those players in that group are now in a seperate instance of the server where a war is going on. Others who take the mission can join that instance of the server until it comes to an end and everyone disbands or quits.

This way the war could literally take over the whole known univers including grey space, if the party so wished to. And any normal play would not be disrupted.

Although I think a more persistant universe would be nice over a static snapshot like we have now. Nothing ever changes.

Agreed. A persistent, CHANGEABLE universe. Where you can blow up a station and it STAYS dead. And there are newsposts about it. And the faction whose station you blew up makes you KOS permanently and puts continual bounties out on you. THAT's what this game is missing, adding that would be rather attractive.

There woudl definitely need to be a way to rebuild lost stations, and relatively quickly or the universe as we know it now would change over night and then there would be no where to trade to and from. Horizens is still the best I've seen at doing just that. Cities were created by players and were also attacked weekly, at random, and the player base had to defend or they would loose the city. They of course had a better playerbase but�c It's been done and works just fine, so why not here. Just going to take a while for the devs to be able to actually implement such a system, give it a few years

Ar...

silly me... but yeah...

I mean sides that are even enough that it won't be such a major divide like it is now.

Whatever... I guess there will always be those who are dedicated enough to try to make up for the difference. /me thinks of Xet and ctc.

This is one of the best ideas I've heard yet.

I prefer captureable new areas instead of capturing existing areas.

Known universe is basically a big circle. Have new systems "discovered" in between. If all new systems are "captured" by say....Itan! then itani can use the captured systems to shorten trade routes until one of the linked systems is retaken by an opposing faction. Once a system is "taken" the winning faction can construct a station, that station can be destroyed by opposing factions, thereby taking control of the sector. Instead of having trade stations just have war buckets with manable turrets similar to a what you find on a cap ship.

(similar in thought to Unreal Tournament 2K4's onslaught)

kernel.panic where you AT, punk? Come back ingame sos I can get some easy PK's with ScurvyMac! Yar!

Yeah, your idea sounds awesome. Perhaps the current systems are unchanging and can never be captured... New systems are in a constant state of flux and whatever you do there can be destroyed...

Kind of like a PVP vs non-PVP zone for stations. Build a station in Divinia and it's always going to be safe and non-destructible. Build one in one of the NEW systems, and the destructibility rules apply. Of course, ship-to-ship non-consensual PVP will always be around.

This might be a good balance between those of us who would LOVE to blow up stations, and those of us (like me) that think a player- or guild-owned station is just too much to lose.

There would need to be some kind of "National" or "Faction" A.I. that would attempt to colonize the new systems, building stations, trying to hamper the progress of its competitors, outright war between Itani and Serco, etc etc.

Why not make it that the player constructed stations aren't completely destroyable. Instead you can only beat them down to a barebone power core and docking bay. What you would be able to destroy are all of the other things that stations should have like, comercial pods, residential pods, cargo area (rentable space), solar panels, etc. etc. And that if you got it down to bare bones you have to rebuild those parts. You would never "loose" your station but you might need to rebuild it. Kind of like a tornado destroying a home and leaving just the foundation to rebuild on.

Also, people seem to forget that just because a wormhole connects say�c Latos and Sedina, that does not mean that if you fly from Latos in a strate line that you will ever reach sedina, you might end up reaching Itan instead, the wormholes take us all over the universe. That's why a better map and navigation system is really needed before we start adding new systems of undiscovered territory.

They should be able to adapt the Hive's expansion AI for this purpose methinks...

And yeah... Being able to take it down to a core station would be nice. It's like the feature of ogame.org in which you can never lose your production capability... just all your units!