Forums » Suggestions
thesupermadman, looks like you're whining and out of topic.
He didn't blame you, he blamed you line of thinking... which is in fact accurate.
You want an alternative? Here you go...
1. Group or person builds station.
2. Group or person pays others to builds station.
3. Group or person takes station by force.
You want an alternative? Here you go...
1. Group or person builds station.
2. Group or person pays others to builds station.
3. Group or person takes station by force.
"He didn't blame you, he blamed you line of thinking... which is in fact accurate."
Since you guys OBVIOUSLY know my way of thinking better than even I do, why don't you tell me how it links to revolts at all? And since you're still so interested in talking about it, can I ask how the comment is in any way relevant or constructive to the discussion of this idea or its implementation, and how talking about it at all in this thread will hasten the implementation of player-built stations in the game? You know, all it actually took was:
(by Alloh) "But despite clear advantages of fostering Guilds, Guild Software is against anything that favours Guilds over individual, lone players."
That's all! That's all that needed to be said for me to decide that, actually, this implementation wouldn't be the best way to do it and needed to be changed! Was that so hard? Really?
"You want an alternative? Here you go...
1. Group or person builds station.
2. Group or person pays others to builds station.
3. Group or person takes station by force."
OK, good start. Now what about finance? Trade? Defence? Types of station? Hostility/KoS switch? Production of goods? Factions? Amount of health? Cost of construction? Sizes of stations? Types and mount of produce? If it was as easy as chirping, "Player-built stations!" over and over, it'd be done by now and we'd be talking about something else. The issue is in the details, which is what I was hoping we'd be discussing right before people resorted unprovoked to personal insults.
Since you guys OBVIOUSLY know my way of thinking better than even I do, why don't you tell me how it links to revolts at all? And since you're still so interested in talking about it, can I ask how the comment is in any way relevant or constructive to the discussion of this idea or its implementation, and how talking about it at all in this thread will hasten the implementation of player-built stations in the game? You know, all it actually took was:
(by Alloh) "But despite clear advantages of fostering Guilds, Guild Software is against anything that favours Guilds over individual, lone players."
That's all! That's all that needed to be said for me to decide that, actually, this implementation wouldn't be the best way to do it and needed to be changed! Was that so hard? Really?
"You want an alternative? Here you go...
1. Group or person builds station.
2. Group or person pays others to builds station.
3. Group or person takes station by force."
OK, good start. Now what about finance? Trade? Defence? Types of station? Hostility/KoS switch? Production of goods? Factions? Amount of health? Cost of construction? Sizes of stations? Types and mount of produce? If it was as easy as chirping, "Player-built stations!" over and over, it'd be done by now and we'd be talking about something else. The issue is in the details, which is what I was hoping we'd be discussing right before people resorted unprovoked to personal insults.
finance: Dependent on owners, NPC trade and players allowed to dock.
Trade: Dependent on owners, NPC trade and players allowed to dock.
Defence: Dependent on owners and NPCs.
Types of station: Already covered this.
Hostility/KoS switch: Dependent on owners.
Production of goods: Dependent on owners.
Factions: Already covered this.
Amount of health: Dependent on size/construction materials.
Cost of construction: Dependent on size/construction materials.
Sizes of stations: Dependent on owners.
Types and mount of produce: Dependent on owners.
There, now that you've asked and I've covered all the things that have been talked about for years and no doubt the developers have thought already thought of, can you add something new to this idea or drop it?
Trade: Dependent on owners, NPC trade and players allowed to dock.
Defence: Dependent on owners and NPCs.
Types of station: Already covered this.
Hostility/KoS switch: Dependent on owners.
Production of goods: Dependent on owners.
Factions: Already covered this.
Amount of health: Dependent on size/construction materials.
Cost of construction: Dependent on size/construction materials.
Sizes of stations: Dependent on owners.
Types and mount of produce: Dependent on owners.
There, now that you've asked and I've covered all the things that have been talked about for years and no doubt the developers have thought already thought of, can you add something new to this idea or drop it?
Here now, here now. Have some nice cheese all of you.
"Types of station: Already covered this."
Where?
"Factions: Already covered this."
Where?
"Types and amount of produce: Dependent on owners."
Really? So the owners can just say, "produce this amount of this ore" and it'll be done? What factors will affect what stations produce (vicinity to the produce, type of station etc.)?
"There, now that you've asked and I've covered all the things that have been talked about for years and no doubt the developers have thought already thought of, can you add something new to this idea"
I already did. See:
First post:
"3. Types of station (military, mining, research, commercial) and where they are built (in an asteroid belt, near a planet etc.) will determine what the station produces (trade goods/ships, military weapons/ships, bulk-trading goods, minerals/ores) and how much (a mining station near an asteroid belt will produce more ore than one far away). Guilds will also be able to define what to produce and how much (however, in the case of mining/trade goods, due to their nature the Guild will not be able to dictate what/how much of it is produced) and potentially, what to research (which may lead to cheaper production, cheaper services, or the production of certain trade goods).
[snip]
6. If stations lack common materials (some trade goods such as Purified Water/Food, ores or other materials), production rates may decrease on related items (low ores --> low weapon/ship production) or increase the cost of services (low Purified Water/Food --> increased Ship Repair cost). This motivates Guilds[/Individuals] to either make wise choices about the type of Stations to build, or else forces them to request trade of certain materials (which will likely be produced/sold by other Guilds[/Individuals]) at increased prices (otherwise, why might a trader sell produce to them?). This will create a player-driven economy, where guilds[/individuals] compete on price/quantity of produce to sell and buy produce to make up for lacks in stock. It also opens up the opportunity for heavily-specialized Guilds (Mining/Trading/Military/Whatever Guilds)[This works even for individual-built/managed stations]."
"I still believe the following ideas apply and therefore should be the focus of discussion:
[snip]
3. A, "perfect" construction of the station will take a predefined amount of time based on budget, though this can be extended by opposing players attacking the construction site (question: should it be possible to destroy the construction site completely? Given the assumed expense of building a station, I think this would be unwise).
[snip]
5. A lack of certain types of produce might hinder certain activities [as discussed above]."
"New considerations:
[snip]
2. Budgets can be set to different aspects of the station, such as automated defenses and defense forces or production. These could all be part of the station's bank."
And even though I've gone into a certain amount of detail, it's still hardly a specification, more like a jumble of vague ideas. Your post only increases the vagueness, rather than lowering it.
No, I don't want to drop it, because I think it's an excellent feature to go into VO and that the only thing it lacks is clarity and focus. That was the entire point of my bringing the discussion up for the Nth time: I highly doubt it's going to be implemented if I just sit around thinking, "Would be great if I could have my own station, but it'll never happen". I'll write the design documentation myself, send it to the developers and have them tell me personally, "4 guys can't do this in 5 years; it's not doable; we completely disagree; it would break stuff; it would require major changes to underlying code etc." if it means I actually get a valid reason for its lack of discussion or implementation. In the meantime, though, I could use some of that cheese.
Where?
"Factions: Already covered this."
Where?
"Types and amount of produce: Dependent on owners."
Really? So the owners can just say, "produce this amount of this ore" and it'll be done? What factors will affect what stations produce (vicinity to the produce, type of station etc.)?
"There, now that you've asked and I've covered all the things that have been talked about for years and no doubt the developers have thought already thought of, can you add something new to this idea"
I already did. See:
First post:
"3. Types of station (military, mining, research, commercial) and where they are built (in an asteroid belt, near a planet etc.) will determine what the station produces (trade goods/ships, military weapons/ships, bulk-trading goods, minerals/ores) and how much (a mining station near an asteroid belt will produce more ore than one far away). Guilds will also be able to define what to produce and how much (however, in the case of mining/trade goods, due to their nature the Guild will not be able to dictate what/how much of it is produced) and potentially, what to research (which may lead to cheaper production, cheaper services, or the production of certain trade goods).
[snip]
6. If stations lack common materials (some trade goods such as Purified Water/Food, ores or other materials), production rates may decrease on related items (low ores --> low weapon/ship production) or increase the cost of services (low Purified Water/Food --> increased Ship Repair cost). This motivates Guilds[/Individuals] to either make wise choices about the type of Stations to build, or else forces them to request trade of certain materials (which will likely be produced/sold by other Guilds[/Individuals]) at increased prices (otherwise, why might a trader sell produce to them?). This will create a player-driven economy, where guilds[/individuals] compete on price/quantity of produce to sell and buy produce to make up for lacks in stock. It also opens up the opportunity for heavily-specialized Guilds (Mining/Trading/Military/Whatever Guilds)[This works even for individual-built/managed stations]."
"I still believe the following ideas apply and therefore should be the focus of discussion:
[snip]
3. A, "perfect" construction of the station will take a predefined amount of time based on budget, though this can be extended by opposing players attacking the construction site (question: should it be possible to destroy the construction site completely? Given the assumed expense of building a station, I think this would be unwise).
[snip]
5. A lack of certain types of produce might hinder certain activities [as discussed above]."
"New considerations:
[snip]
2. Budgets can be set to different aspects of the station, such as automated defenses and defense forces or production. These could all be part of the station's bank."
And even though I've gone into a certain amount of detail, it's still hardly a specification, more like a jumble of vague ideas. Your post only increases the vagueness, rather than lowering it.
No, I don't want to drop it, because I think it's an excellent feature to go into VO and that the only thing it lacks is clarity and focus. That was the entire point of my bringing the discussion up for the Nth time: I highly doubt it's going to be implemented if I just sit around thinking, "Would be great if I could have my own station, but it'll never happen". I'll write the design documentation myself, send it to the developers and have them tell me personally, "4 guys can't do this in 5 years; it's not doable; we completely disagree; it would break stuff; it would require major changes to underlying code etc." if it means I actually get a valid reason for its lack of discussion or implementation. In the meantime, though, I could use some of that cheese.
Nearly everything you have covered/asked where it was covered is dependent on the station owners. As I have stated multiple times. The Devs have been working towards player owned stations for a long time and have doubtlessly covered all of this.
"The Devs have been working towards player owned stations for a long time and have doubtlessly covered all of this."
And you didn't mention this sooner, why?
And you didn't mention this sooner, why?
"The devs intend for there to be multiple stations in the same sector, so no opposing stations in the same system is out of the question.
1A. Guild politics shift so it would be a PITA for the devs. "
As you can see, I did. Then there's the stations that players can conquer/defend, so I thought it was pretty clear that this was already on the way.
A thought on station defense... (for the Devs)... assuming that player owned stations would have station guards and a Strike Force, maybe even turrets or even cooler weapons built into the station. Who could dock or enter your stations NFZ might be handled in a similar fashion to the "ignore" feature. Just click a tab, and enter the name. So if X player(s) enter your NFZ, a strike force is dispatched. There is also the "Attack anyone I hate" feature for bots/NPCs, however that might cause grief for multinational guilds.
1A. Guild politics shift so it would be a PITA for the devs. "
As you can see, I did. Then there's the stations that players can conquer/defend, so I thought it was pretty clear that this was already on the way.
A thought on station defense... (for the Devs)... assuming that player owned stations would have station guards and a Strike Force, maybe even turrets or even cooler weapons built into the station. Who could dock or enter your stations NFZ might be handled in a similar fashion to the "ignore" feature. Just click a tab, and enter the name. So if X player(s) enter your NFZ, a strike force is dispatched. There is also the "Attack anyone I hate" feature for bots/NPCs, however that might cause grief for multinational guilds.
Perhaps it would help if this thread were stickied at the top of the thread list for players to reference their new ideas against?
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/7692
Or this one :p
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/22425
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/7692
Or this one :p
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/22425
That would be helpful, wouldn't it?
"can I ask how the comment is in any way relevant or constructive to the discussion of this idea or its implementation, and how talking about it at all in this thread will hasten the implementation of player-built stations in the game?"
We're all still waiting on Soon(tm) to arrive. Hastening does not occur in this game unless it is a tweak of an existing object.
"No, I don't want to drop it, because I think it's an excellent feature to go into VO and that the only thing it lacks is clarity and focus. That was the entire point of my bringing the discussion up for the Nth time"
It would be an excellent feature. One that most of us have been waiting for as part of the previously mentioned Soon(tm). However, being argumentative about the responses you get isn't going to save the thread. People are intelligent enough to see through the trolling which you've only had a teensy sampling of in this here.
I fully agree with Ryan. Leave the details in the hands of the owners of the stations. To borrow a capitalist phrase 'Let the market sort it out'. Player should be able to make good and bad decisions (ie succeed & fail). I don't see what more your trying to get. Are you wanting a set of rules that have to be followed? Only xyz or zyx station types can be built in a specific sector or system type? No. Just no.
You want to talk about banking and defense? If the station can't generate enough credits to bankroll both is operation and defense, it should fail. Yes, the owner could subsidize the station, in some cases indefinitely since I doubt credits will ever be truly difficult to get. The only subsidy that I would be willing to support at a non owner level would be for defense. And this only because of the current small size of the player base is really not enough to support player owned stations imo. Hell, we can't even sustain a war for Mommerath's sake!
As far as station size, they would likely be modular, so that they can be built and expanded upon as needed. A decision would have to be made. Does Station size matter? The reality is that station size does not currently matter. Any of the capital ships are larger than most of the stations. As it is, stations are currently magic tents. Construction of a station would currently have to be generic as there are no specialized construction materials to differentiate a commercial station from a barracks from a research. These materials could easily be provided of course but would they matter?
As to station types, mining, commercial, manufacturing and military are the only practical models. Research does not exist in VO. Nor will it ever. (it might upset the Balance and cause Incarnates mighty hand of Nerf to fall upon us and lay waste to what we have created). However, I see no real need to differentiate these at the point of construction.
The only real choice at present would be what the external appearance would be. And without numerous modifications from development, the only advantage to choosing any of them, would be aesthetics.
Once constructed the owner(s) can then determine its function via the manufacturing produced. These can be bought, stolen, mission prizes, etc. and set up at the stations like current manufacturing- well, lets hope not, because current manufacturing sucks ass- does.
""The Devs have been working towards player owned stations for a long time and have doubtlessly covered all of this."
And you didn't mention this sooner, why?"
Why didn't you do your homework before presuming to enlighten the rest of us? Seriously, this is what I meant by argumentative.
Anyway, +1 to the title & player owned constructed stations
We're all still waiting on Soon(tm) to arrive. Hastening does not occur in this game unless it is a tweak of an existing object.
"No, I don't want to drop it, because I think it's an excellent feature to go into VO and that the only thing it lacks is clarity and focus. That was the entire point of my bringing the discussion up for the Nth time"
It would be an excellent feature. One that most of us have been waiting for as part of the previously mentioned Soon(tm). However, being argumentative about the responses you get isn't going to save the thread. People are intelligent enough to see through the trolling which you've only had a teensy sampling of in this here.
I fully agree with Ryan. Leave the details in the hands of the owners of the stations. To borrow a capitalist phrase 'Let the market sort it out'. Player should be able to make good and bad decisions (ie succeed & fail). I don't see what more your trying to get. Are you wanting a set of rules that have to be followed? Only xyz or zyx station types can be built in a specific sector or system type? No. Just no.
You want to talk about banking and defense? If the station can't generate enough credits to bankroll both is operation and defense, it should fail. Yes, the owner could subsidize the station, in some cases indefinitely since I doubt credits will ever be truly difficult to get. The only subsidy that I would be willing to support at a non owner level would be for defense. And this only because of the current small size of the player base is really not enough to support player owned stations imo. Hell, we can't even sustain a war for Mommerath's sake!
As far as station size, they would likely be modular, so that they can be built and expanded upon as needed. A decision would have to be made. Does Station size matter? The reality is that station size does not currently matter. Any of the capital ships are larger than most of the stations. As it is, stations are currently magic tents. Construction of a station would currently have to be generic as there are no specialized construction materials to differentiate a commercial station from a barracks from a research. These materials could easily be provided of course but would they matter?
As to station types, mining, commercial, manufacturing and military are the only practical models. Research does not exist in VO. Nor will it ever. (it might upset the Balance and cause Incarnates mighty hand of Nerf to fall upon us and lay waste to what we have created). However, I see no real need to differentiate these at the point of construction.
The only real choice at present would be what the external appearance would be. And without numerous modifications from development, the only advantage to choosing any of them, would be aesthetics.
Once constructed the owner(s) can then determine its function via the manufacturing produced. These can be bought, stolen, mission prizes, etc. and set up at the stations like current manufacturing- well, lets hope not, because current manufacturing sucks ass- does.
""The Devs have been working towards player owned stations for a long time and have doubtlessly covered all of this."
And you didn't mention this sooner, why?"
Why didn't you do your homework before presuming to enlighten the rest of us? Seriously, this is what I meant by argumentative.
Anyway, +1 to the title & player owned constructed stations
Let me just qualify my comments about station construction above.
They are made based on the current 'station conquer' method and that stations do not presently take damage. Now, it isn't what I would necessarily call satisfying and at least one interesting alternative has been suggested by Shank here http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/24173 it does work, and continues to provide entertainment. And while I don't know the specifics of how much work actually went into developing and working out the assorted bugs, I do not favor starting over at this time as I am almost positive that developing a conquest system that negates my observations would take longer than the benefits would justify atm.
They are made based on the current 'station conquer' method and that stations do not presently take damage. Now, it isn't what I would necessarily call satisfying and at least one interesting alternative has been suggested by Shank here http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/24173 it does work, and continues to provide entertainment. And while I don't know the specifics of how much work actually went into developing and working out the assorted bugs, I do not favor starting over at this time as I am almost positive that developing a conquest system that negates my observations would take longer than the benefits would justify atm.