Forums » Suggestions
Allways requested, and no sign of Devs interest... so we can workaround it:
1. Create a subscribed account, with Guild's name
2. Build a Trident with that account
3. Share the login/pwd among Guild members
Done! Now you can have more than one player being able to pilot/share a capship.
And more interesting, the guild will effectivelly be able to OWN things, as cappies, bank account, shared storage, etc.
Even during the building stage this account can be shared among Guild members, to easen the effort, and increase the presence of guild, alternating players piloting it!
Comments?
1. Create a subscribed account, with Guild's name
2. Build a Trident with that account
3. Share the login/pwd among Guild members
Done! Now you can have more than one player being able to pilot/share a capship.
And more interesting, the guild will effectivelly be able to OWN things, as cappies, bank account, shared storage, etc.
Even during the building stage this account can be shared among Guild members, to easen the effort, and increase the presence of guild, alternating players piloting it!
Comments?
/me facepalms
Anybody who wanted to log into that account would have to be careful to check whether it's already online, because logging into an account that is already online kicks the other person off, rather than refusing to connect.
Also, the "shared storage" would only apply to one person at a time, whoever is currently logged in. So if you had multiple people out mining at the same time, only one of those could put his ore directly into the shared area.
Also, the "shared storage" would only apply to one person at a time, whoever is currently logged in. So if you had multiple people out mining at the same time, only one of those could put his ore directly into the shared area.
Not to mention the bug that if anyone's docked on the trident and it gets 'kicked off' they die and loose all their cargo.
And the fact some dweeb could change the password.
And finally...
who gonna pay?!
And the fact some dweeb could change the password.
And finally...
who gonna pay?!
Note, I am not talking about a "public account", but instead a "GUILD ACCOUNT"....
So, it is up to Guild members (commander, council, etc) to decide in RL who will have the password, who can use it, and what procedure to use for takeover.
It should be tested, but probably "swapping pilot" would not kick players present. Last time I tried that on 2 PCs, the ship I was flying was kept instact, with its cargo, location, movement vector, etc...
Who pays? The Guild, of course.
For shared storage, just "kick" the crate in the trident, done! Many can "deposit", but only who's logged now can withdraw.
Finally, title says: "WORKAROUND", and not "solution"...
So, it is up to Guild members (commander, council, etc) to decide in RL who will have the password, who can use it, and what procedure to use for takeover.
It should be tested, but probably "swapping pilot" would not kick players present. Last time I tried that on 2 PCs, the ship I was flying was kept instact, with its cargo, location, movement vector, etc...
Who pays? The Guild, of course.
For shared storage, just "kick" the crate in the trident, done! Many can "deposit", but only who's logged now can withdraw.
Finally, title says: "WORKAROUND", and not "solution"...
As usual, you bring out the worst of the suggestions forum
^
Alloh, the bug the otter mentioned is that when you log out while in a trident, all docked ships (and their cargo) get destroyed. The trident of course does not get destroyed and would indeed be sitting right there when you log back in, with the same cargo etc.
So the question is whether the people docked in the ship would still be there when logging into an online account. I doubt it, but it depends on whether the game fully logs out the first instance of a user when a second instance logs in. If it cheats by not briefly removing the ship. docked people might be okay.
So the question is whether the people docked in the ship would still be there when logging into an online account. I doubt it, but it depends on whether the game fully logs out the first instance of a user when a second instance logs in. If it cheats by not briefly removing the ship. docked people might be okay.
oh, C'mon, CS, I'm not that good... surely the regular trolls and lost newbies do a better job in that...
Yeah, I know, whoever thinks different is a treat and must be hated, since this is the internet.
But other than that, stick to the topic... discuss the idea... you used to know that. Do you have something to add, any missing problem? Because all cons raised so far were downed.
--->Back to topic:
add this workaround to "persistent trident" that CD proposed, and when the pilot/owner goes away in the middle of the battle, no matter what reason, someone else in Guild can take over.
And if a few Guild start using it, no doubt that official support (Devs) will come to shared resources.
-----[EDIT, since Pizza's post came while I was writing]----
That is a BUG to be fixed, not a feature to be added. And we should test what happens when "swap-login".
Anyone with a capship and 2 boxes to test?
Yeah, I know, whoever thinks different is a treat and must be hated, since this is the internet.
But other than that, stick to the topic... discuss the idea... you used to know that. Do you have something to add, any missing problem? Because all cons raised so far were downed.
--->Back to topic:
add this workaround to "persistent trident" that CD proposed, and when the pilot/owner goes away in the middle of the battle, no matter what reason, someone else in Guild can take over.
And if a few Guild start using it, no doubt that official support (Devs) will come to shared resources.
-----[EDIT, since Pizza's post came while I was writing]----
That is a BUG to be fixed, not a feature to be added. And we should test what happens when "swap-login".
Anyone with a capship and 2 boxes to test?
This is the best suggestion by Alloh so far!
1 ) it does not require dev time
2 ) it has no effect on the player base (besides wasting time on complaining about it on forum)
3 ) it does not change the game play
4 ) if you dont like/care about it you can ignore it totally
Awesome hun, keep the good werk with those kind of suggestions : ]
1 ) it does not require dev time
2 ) it has no effect on the player base (besides wasting time on complaining about it on forum)
3 ) it does not change the game play
4 ) if you dont like/care about it you can ignore it totally
Awesome hun, keep the good werk with those kind of suggestions : ]
Testing wouldn't necessarily require multiple boxes. You can run more than one instance of VO on the same machine if you install them to separate places and run them in windowed mode. Though if you use a joystick, all instances of VO on the same machine will try to use it at the same time, which can be interesting. :)
While you wait for somebody with a trident to try it, you could try testing yourself with gunners in an atlas or moth. It's not quite the same, but if one is effected I would expect the other to be as well.
While you wait for somebody with a trident to try it, you could try testing yourself with gunners in an atlas or moth. It's not quite the same, but if one is effected I would expect the other to be as well.
Spence... PoL and Bungaris were and always will be way worse than Alloh.
As for the suggestion... yes, it's great because I can't think of at least three people who have robbed their guilds.
As for the suggestion... yes, it's great because I can't think of at least three people who have robbed their guilds.
ahahah 1+ to Blood Thirsty
@RR
That "infiltration" seems to me a valid gameplay... choose wisely who you give headquarters keys to...
If that ever happens, "pray to gods" to recover your stolen cappie / account (a ticket for Devs) can solve that...
---
Maybe it is just me, but I fail to see a trident belonging to "Conflict Diamond" as the same as belonging to "[ORE]" ... while now, using this workaround, we would be able to have itens owned by [GUILD]... visible by anyone, in main HUD. And shared a cappie between many players, increasing the fun on belonging to a Guild.
That "infiltration" seems to me a valid gameplay... choose wisely who you give headquarters keys to...
If that ever happens, "pray to gods" to recover your stolen cappie / account (a ticket for Devs) can solve that...
---
Maybe it is just me, but I fail to see a trident belonging to "Conflict Diamond" as the same as belonging to "[ORE]" ... while now, using this workaround, we would be able to have itens owned by [GUILD]... visible by anyone, in main HUD. And shared a cappie between many players, increasing the fun on belonging to a Guild.
It kicks out gunners when you log in from a different client. I've already done this.
Ok, so improving the idea, and working around existing bugs:
All required is a procedure OFF-GAME to control who can login when. And the most simple yet efficient already exists in-game: /guild
/guild Anyone using OurBoat now, or can I take it?
/guild Leaving for today, who wants to become pilot?
or
/guild Our pilot dropped, I'm taking over. Everybody launch now,
Anyway, this is the proposal, and it is up to existing Guilds to adopt it or not. The idea of a shared account for guilds benefits GS, and allows guild to effectivelly become "entities" in game now!
All required is a procedure OFF-GAME to control who can login when. And the most simple yet efficient already exists in-game: /guild
/guild Anyone using OurBoat now, or can I take it?
/guild Leaving for today, who wants to become pilot?
or
/guild Our pilot dropped, I'm taking over. Everybody launch now,
Anyway, this is the proposal, and it is up to existing Guilds to adopt it or not. The idea of a shared account for guilds benefits GS, and allows guild to effectivelly become "entities" in game now!
"If that ever happens, "pray to gods" to recover your stolen cappie / account (a ticket for Devs) can solve that..."
I don't think that the devs would be very happy if they had to sort out people's issues due to sharing account information. If I were one of them I simply wouldn't bother. I might not outright point and laugh due to professional courtesy, but...
Also, I should point out that section 1 of the EULA clearly forbids sharing accounts. So if you were going to do this you should either keep it on the down-low, or notify the devs ahead of time and find out if it will be a problem. Because it would suck to build a trident and then get the account suspended for breaking the EULA. The devs are pretty relaxed about stuff like that though, and a lot of the EULA and ROC are BS lawyer-speak that don't actually reflect the reality of the game. For example, a lot of piratey type gameplay is technically against the rules despite the devs explicitely indending for players to be piratey. Mostly those documents just serve as a way for the devs to make up an excuse to do anything they want.
I don't think that the devs would be very happy if they had to sort out people's issues due to sharing account information. If I were one of them I simply wouldn't bother. I might not outright point and laugh due to professional courtesy, but...
Also, I should point out that section 1 of the EULA clearly forbids sharing accounts. So if you were going to do this you should either keep it on the down-low, or notify the devs ahead of time and find out if it will be a problem. Because it would suck to build a trident and then get the account suspended for breaking the EULA. The devs are pretty relaxed about stuff like that though, and a lot of the EULA and ROC are BS lawyer-speak that don't actually reflect the reality of the game. For example, a lot of piratey type gameplay is technically against the rules despite the devs explicitely indending for players to be piratey. Mostly those documents just serve as a way for the devs to make up an excuse to do anything they want.
EULA:
Corporations and other entities are not eligible to procure Accounts. Headshot!
Corporations and other entities are not eligible to procure Accounts. Headshot!
So basically, your suggestion is shit, Alloh. Move on, and stop resurrecting this ass-worthy suggestion.
So, Kierky, you ressurected a buried post to say that ressurecting posts is ugly?
HAve you been eating shit again?
HAve you been eating shit again?