Forums » Suggestions
A decent way to do this would be giving a certain value to every commodity/part and with some way to accrue points to be able to take those commodities/parts by spending the points you've accrued.
I love the idea, but it's going to be hard to implement without pissing off a lot of people, or coming up with a system that can't be gamed
I love the idea, but it's going to be hard to implement without pissing off a lot of people, or coming up with a system that can't be gamed
Just out of basic curiousity here Incarnate, but how often do you yourself play Vendetta Online? Are you aware of the current interguild politics? Things are...well..."stable" so to speak. I think you'd be kicking the hornet's nest by going through with this. Alot of backstabbing might happen, although something tells me you want this to happen in order to bring in more action to the game.
"Why do you ask for opinions, and then threaten to boot from the forum those who don't agree with you?"
Debating the content of the suggestion doesn't include berating the Devs and accusing them of favoring any portion of the playerbase over another. Or criticizing how he runs his company. If you don't like a suggestion, simply articulate the objection rationally and offer reasoned elucidation of your opinion.
Conquering the station and capturing stored cargo would be interesting.
It'll force people to move more stuff and allow for more piracy (face it, this is a part of the game). Those moving stuff will need to make friends. Friends who will help move, escort their ship, act as decoys, etc.
This sort of change would have the effect of increasing game activity. Some guilds have players that just sit in a station all day. Befriend that person, convince them to help you.
Also, get even. The game is "Vendetta." Wait for your enemy to start building and organize a station takeover -loot the storage right after.
I think Incarnate's idea has the potential to create game activity.
Debating the content of the suggestion doesn't include berating the Devs and accusing them of favoring any portion of the playerbase over another. Or criticizing how he runs his company. If you don't like a suggestion, simply articulate the objection rationally and offer reasoned elucidation of your opinion.
Conquering the station and capturing stored cargo would be interesting.
It'll force people to move more stuff and allow for more piracy (face it, this is a part of the game). Those moving stuff will need to make friends. Friends who will help move, escort their ship, act as decoys, etc.
This sort of change would have the effect of increasing game activity. Some guilds have players that just sit in a station all day. Befriend that person, convince them to help you.
Also, get even. The game is "Vendetta." Wait for your enemy to start building and organize a station takeover -loot the storage right after.
I think Incarnate's idea has the potential to create game activity.
I love the idea, but it's going to be hard to implement without pissing off a lot of people, or coming up with a system that can't be gamed
I don't know. I think a certain group of people is wildly optimistic (pirates who think conquest will be easy), and another group is wildly pessimistic (traders who think they'll lose all their stuff). And both are probably wrong.
I haven't talked about modification to defenses or any number of other topics. One could certainly end up with the exact same situation we have today (powerful guilds charging for keys) and extreme stable control of the stations, with the new motivational mechanics included.
People are just making assumptions that everything is going to be stupid. Which just ends up making the whole discussion "not very productive" for me.
I definitively want to have constructed, manufactured stations, with conquerable territory, resource acquisition based on territorial ownership, and all kinds of other factors. I'm building a whole expanded universe on that basis, so having conquest mechanics that work pretty well (and aren't "gamed" that easily) seems pretty important.
That's what we're actually trying to do here. The "three stations" don't matter. They're going away eventually. It's a testbed for conquest mechanics, and always has been.
I don't know. I think a certain group of people is wildly optimistic (pirates who think conquest will be easy), and another group is wildly pessimistic (traders who think they'll lose all their stuff). And both are probably wrong.
I haven't talked about modification to defenses or any number of other topics. One could certainly end up with the exact same situation we have today (powerful guilds charging for keys) and extreme stable control of the stations, with the new motivational mechanics included.
People are just making assumptions that everything is going to be stupid. Which just ends up making the whole discussion "not very productive" for me.
I definitively want to have constructed, manufactured stations, with conquerable territory, resource acquisition based on territorial ownership, and all kinds of other factors. I'm building a whole expanded universe on that basis, so having conquest mechanics that work pretty well (and aren't "gamed" that easily) seems pretty important.
That's what we're actually trying to do here. The "three stations" don't matter. They're going away eventually. It's a testbed for conquest mechanics, and always has been.
I love this idea. I do understand some of the misgiving the idea as well. I propose something to mitigate the concerns.
Currently the manu system allows players to choose between manufacturing their RBH at Nys F-6 and Bra M-14. The RBH manued in M-14 uses more FCP, making it much more expensive time wise (SSS farming) to manu. If Incarnate's suggestion is implemented, I think the entire manu system should be changed. Different stations across the galaxy should utilized for manu. Some parts would requires +600 Serco or Itani or UIT standing depending on their locations. Other stations might require +1000. Axia might require +1000 for something, and Valent +1000 for something else. The manufacturing at these stations would be incredibly inefficient. Probably using five to six times the resources (SSS, etc) then what is currently required. These stations would also be have a lower cap per day/week. Making the time to build a goli two years if VO is being regularly played.
The positive for this, is that players could safely build the parts they need with limited risk to their parts. Which would make the inefficiencies of all of this worthwhile to some players.
At the same time, the current conq stations are dedicated manu stations. They are not some rinky dink 3d printed prototype set ups. You can really go into mass production at them. And that how they would remain (with the exception of RBH, which would now change to be efficient at M-14). Players would have to weigh between safety of nation space manu, to the expedience and risk of grey space manu.
Some players may try to work diplomacy to their favor, and become friends with all, so they can manu grey conq stations no matter who controls them. Others may try to make life hard for those who try to be friends with all.
End result: High risk/High Reward vs Slow, Expensive, and Safe.
Currently the manu system allows players to choose between manufacturing their RBH at Nys F-6 and Bra M-14. The RBH manued in M-14 uses more FCP, making it much more expensive time wise (SSS farming) to manu. If Incarnate's suggestion is implemented, I think the entire manu system should be changed. Different stations across the galaxy should utilized for manu. Some parts would requires +600 Serco or Itani or UIT standing depending on their locations. Other stations might require +1000. Axia might require +1000 for something, and Valent +1000 for something else. The manufacturing at these stations would be incredibly inefficient. Probably using five to six times the resources (SSS, etc) then what is currently required. These stations would also be have a lower cap per day/week. Making the time to build a goli two years if VO is being regularly played.
The positive for this, is that players could safely build the parts they need with limited risk to their parts. Which would make the inefficiencies of all of this worthwhile to some players.
At the same time, the current conq stations are dedicated manu stations. They are not some rinky dink 3d printed prototype set ups. You can really go into mass production at them. And that how they would remain (with the exception of RBH, which would now change to be efficient at M-14). Players would have to weigh between safety of nation space manu, to the expedience and risk of grey space manu.
Some players may try to work diplomacy to their favor, and become friends with all, so they can manu grey conq stations no matter who controls them. Others may try to make life hard for those who try to be friends with all.
End result: High risk/High Reward vs Slow, Expensive, and Safe.
Under this concept, years of effort can be gone in seconds. I don't see why much of your current playerbase would choose to continue playing.
Why should it be incredibly inefficient when you would have to take the time to build up your standings? That would take more time then say, taking a station out. If anything, (if we apply this logically) nation manufacturing would be slightly more efficient because they aren't isolated stations in the middle of the boonies. Ofc nation stations would impose regulations, and thus would make the time it takes longer. I can easily envision the possibility of tons of mission trees to keep everyone occupied.
It sounds like you already have your vision about what you want the game to be. I'll continue counting myself lucky to play it.
Dear Incarnate,
In an attempt to convey the feelings of my guild colleagues in a respecatble manner, I would suggest you have touched on a very sensitive and emotionally complex proposal. No doubt you are aware of this already, so emotionally charged responses are to be expected. Perhaps even tolerated?
As someone who has recently spent many months manufacuting, with occasional but significant losses (as you are also aware), this proposal terrifies me personally.
I have no idea how significant my behaviour and playing patterns are within VO demographics. I would think that largely PvE players building cap ships are more likely than average to be, or to soon become subscribers. I would think this is not a demographic that should be alienated, from a VO business development perspective.
I accept the 'no safe place' policy (I'm still playing after all), but surely a balanced and careful approach is appropriate. As others have suggested, transitioning into this policy will be a nightmare. eg. What about inactive players with items in conq, that dont get the memo? One month notice? 12 months? how much is enough?
As also mentioned elsewhere in the forums, perhaps a new type of station, where there could be both elements of player managed station security and also a system of inventory sharing, might be a better platform for control disputes of both station and contents (transerable ships anyone?) There's a whole Unknown Sector (US) out there, begging for a new kind of station. With the US being the 'Wild West' of the 'Wild West', it would be the perfect place for new, super-volatile infrustructure.
In conclusion, this is a -1 from me, and I suspect from most manu-oriented guild members.
However the idea could certainly be applied elsewhere.
Thanks for listening.
Mani Sayed [TGFT]
In an attempt to convey the feelings of my guild colleagues in a respecatble manner, I would suggest you have touched on a very sensitive and emotionally complex proposal. No doubt you are aware of this already, so emotionally charged responses are to be expected. Perhaps even tolerated?
As someone who has recently spent many months manufacuting, with occasional but significant losses (as you are also aware), this proposal terrifies me personally.
I have no idea how significant my behaviour and playing patterns are within VO demographics. I would think that largely PvE players building cap ships are more likely than average to be, or to soon become subscribers. I would think this is not a demographic that should be alienated, from a VO business development perspective.
I accept the 'no safe place' policy (I'm still playing after all), but surely a balanced and careful approach is appropriate. As others have suggested, transitioning into this policy will be a nightmare. eg. What about inactive players with items in conq, that dont get the memo? One month notice? 12 months? how much is enough?
As also mentioned elsewhere in the forums, perhaps a new type of station, where there could be both elements of player managed station security and also a system of inventory sharing, might be a better platform for control disputes of both station and contents (transerable ships anyone?) There's a whole Unknown Sector (US) out there, begging for a new kind of station. With the US being the 'Wild West' of the 'Wild West', it would be the perfect place for new, super-volatile infrustructure.
In conclusion, this is a -1 from me, and I suspect from most manu-oriented guild members.
However the idea could certainly be applied elsewhere.
Thanks for listening.
Mani Sayed [TGFT]
Cool idea
Under this concept, years of effort can be gone in seconds. I don't see why much of your current playerbase would choose to continue playing.
Like.. again, how is this helpful? You're taking the most pessimistic possible view of how things could work, and then claiming it will be the end of the world.
I have an idea, how about we just aren't ****ing stupid? Does that sound okay? We could even talk about how the system could work, in advance, on like a Forum?
No doubt you are aware of this already, so emotionally charged responses are to be expected. Perhaps even tolerated?
No, I will not tolerate it. We're having a discussion on a forum. Nothing has changed, nothing is being rolled out, it's just words on a page and we're just talking about how things might change, someday.
You can either learn to keep your shit together when posting on Suggestions, or be removed from Suggestions. You certainly don't get to berate me for "pirate bias" after spending years busting my ass to build benefits for traders. That pisses me right off.
rkerst is saying "years of effort can be gone in seconds", despite the proposal fundamentally offering a re-conquest period of lockout, during which inventories would be untouchable. One of the early responses suggested just increasing that to a longer period. I mean, how long of a lockout would be okay? A day? A week? A month? A year? If someone holds a station contiguously for a YEAR, can they loot it then?
These would be actual meaningful design discussion points, that rational humans could have, without just shrilly screaming about how the sky will fall.
What about inactive players with items in conq, that dont get the memo? One month notice? 12 months? how much is enough?
I already said that people with frozen inventories (not logged in for 6 months) could be made exempt. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on every page.
Like.. again, how is this helpful? You're taking the most pessimistic possible view of how things could work, and then claiming it will be the end of the world.
I have an idea, how about we just aren't ****ing stupid? Does that sound okay? We could even talk about how the system could work, in advance, on like a Forum?
No doubt you are aware of this already, so emotionally charged responses are to be expected. Perhaps even tolerated?
No, I will not tolerate it. We're having a discussion on a forum. Nothing has changed, nothing is being rolled out, it's just words on a page and we're just talking about how things might change, someday.
You can either learn to keep your shit together when posting on Suggestions, or be removed from Suggestions. You certainly don't get to berate me for "pirate bias" after spending years busting my ass to build benefits for traders. That pisses me right off.
rkerst is saying "years of effort can be gone in seconds", despite the proposal fundamentally offering a re-conquest period of lockout, during which inventories would be untouchable. One of the early responses suggested just increasing that to a longer period. I mean, how long of a lockout would be okay? A day? A week? A month? A year? If someone holds a station contiguously for a YEAR, can they loot it then?
These would be actual meaningful design discussion points, that rational humans could have, without just shrilly screaming about how the sky will fall.
What about inactive players with items in conq, that dont get the memo? One month notice? 12 months? how much is enough?
I already said that people with frozen inventories (not logged in for 6 months) could be made exempt. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on every page.
After reading the other thoughts about this, I find myself feeling like this is an interesting and engaging idea for players with a capship, but a very threatening idea for newer players that are building their first capship.
For players with a capship already, the chance/idea of more loot is going to appeal to them, and realistically they have less at risk. If they need to use the station, they can move more at once, and if they have a dent or don't want a dent, they have no reason to keep stuff at the station.
For players without a capship, you now need to plan your hauling and manufacturing more carefully and there is more exposure to losing some of your parts. Doing your daily quota of manu missions, then hauling more stuff to the station for tomorrow becomes much more risky.
I think the point that spy alts that are only in guilds to figure out when people have stuff at stations is a good point and a likely outcome.
I don't think that this would equally effect all players unless losing a capship meant having to do some manufacturing to get it back. Or maybe when a new manufacturing item became available, like the Constellation or Trident-S/P.
For players with a capship already, the chance/idea of more loot is going to appeal to them, and realistically they have less at risk. If they need to use the station, they can move more at once, and if they have a dent or don't want a dent, they have no reason to keep stuff at the station.
For players without a capship, you now need to plan your hauling and manufacturing more carefully and there is more exposure to losing some of your parts. Doing your daily quota of manu missions, then hauling more stuff to the station for tomorrow becomes much more risky.
I think the point that spy alts that are only in guilds to figure out when people have stuff at stations is a good point and a likely outcome.
I don't think that this would equally effect all players unless losing a capship meant having to do some manufacturing to get it back. Or maybe when a new manufacturing item became available, like the Constellation or Trident-S/P.
I think the point that spy alts that are only in guilds to figure out when people have stuff at stations is a good point and a likely outcome.
Yes, that's likely, although it could be offset by new types of scanners, just like we have for ship inventories.
People will just move their stuff to non conquerable stations if you go through with this, not much else will change.
People will keep their content in stations that they think are secure. That security could be created by a corporation, or by a powerful guild. But powerful security does not mean the stations would be guaranteed to be immune from attack, or from conquest.
Ultimately, we're moving the direction of station destructibility. That means the entire station could potentially be ephemeral, including inventories.
But, that's all pretty far out-of-scope for the OP..
You also fail to mention if this will also apply to ships stored in conq stations. Let's also mention a serious can of worms you'll open with that.
I didn't think it was necessary to cover every single case in a single post on a concept. Obviously there are faction-specific ships and other gameplay aspects. Again, the fact that change will occur does not mean it must necessarily be terrible and implemented in the dumbest way possible.
Yes, that's likely, although it could be offset by new types of scanners, just like we have for ship inventories.
People will just move their stuff to non conquerable stations if you go through with this, not much else will change.
People will keep their content in stations that they think are secure. That security could be created by a corporation, or by a powerful guild. But powerful security does not mean the stations would be guaranteed to be immune from attack, or from conquest.
Ultimately, we're moving the direction of station destructibility. That means the entire station could potentially be ephemeral, including inventories.
But, that's all pretty far out-of-scope for the OP..
You also fail to mention if this will also apply to ships stored in conq stations. Let's also mention a serious can of worms you'll open with that.
I didn't think it was necessary to cover every single case in a single post on a concept. Obviously there are faction-specific ships and other gameplay aspects. Again, the fact that change will occur does not mean it must necessarily be terrible and implemented in the dumbest way possible.
A decent way to do this would be giving a certain value to every commodity/part and with some way to accrue points to be able to take those commodities/parts by spending the points you've accrued.
Could you expand on what you mean by this? Is there like a secondary "currency" or something that someone wins by conquering stations with content, and then that.. currency can be used somehow, to do something else?
Could you expand on what you mean by this? Is there like a secondary "currency" or something that someone wins by conquering stations with content, and then that.. currency can be used somehow, to do something else?
Just out of basic curiousity here Incarnate, but how often do you yourself play Vendetta Online? Are you aware of the current interguild politics?
I handle all Abuse reports and tickets, I'm pretty familiar with interguild politics. And yes, I play fairly often, on alts.
I value guilds themselves, and their varied play-styles and so on. But I do not place any importance on guild-politics whatsoever, I never have (over 20 years) and I never will.
I have no interest in stirring up a nest of guild-vs-guild angst either, that usually just creates more community-management overhead for me, and slows down development as a result.
But seriously, the transient grousing of guilds at one-another has zero impact on my development goals. I have a much longer-term view, and much bigger fish to fry.
This is why I would rather keep all mention of individual guilds and their transient political outlooks off of Suggestions. It's just not useful. (And it'll seem quite irrelevant once marketing begins).
I handle all Abuse reports and tickets, I'm pretty familiar with interguild politics. And yes, I play fairly often, on alts.
I value guilds themselves, and their varied play-styles and so on. But I do not place any importance on guild-politics whatsoever, I never have (over 20 years) and I never will.
I have no interest in stirring up a nest of guild-vs-guild angst either, that usually just creates more community-management overhead for me, and slows down development as a result.
But seriously, the transient grousing of guilds at one-another has zero impact on my development goals. I have a much longer-term view, and much bigger fish to fry.
This is why I would rather keep all mention of individual guilds and their transient political outlooks off of Suggestions. It's just not useful. (And it'll seem quite irrelevant once marketing begins).
"Ultimately, we're moving the direction of station destructibility. That means the entire station could potentially be ephemeral, including inventories."
...do I dare ask if those plans eventually extend towards nation stations?
...do I dare ask if those plans eventually extend towards nation stations?
>You also fail to mention if this will also apply to ships stored in conq stations. Let's also mention a serious can of worms you'll open with that.
If you are a UIT, you cannot buy a prom from Latos. I am fairly certain it will work this way too.
If you are a UIT, you cannot buy a prom from Latos. I am fairly certain it will work this way too.
Shouldn't the expense of having to increase your standings to POS be enough of a detriment? You're just going to strengthen the well off players because they'll have a choke hold on the easier manufacturing.
Firstly, I really like the idea in general. I especially like another suggestion that this be implemented in full for the planned player-built and owned stations (i.e. if someone captures it, all your stuff is up for grabs). It would be an acceptable risk for something so powerful and proprietary. If you lose it - you lose it.
Secondly, while I like (and am here for) the "no truly safe spaces" concept, maybe a middle ground could be reached between "everything you put in the grayspace station is secure forever" and "everything you put in there can be lost if a few people put their minds to it, even if it's a huge amount of items".
You could:
A) Make it so when you take a station, a small and random set of items stored there become available to you. Think capturing a city in Civilization - you get a random tech that you weren't expecting, and it gives you an edge without completely stealing everything your opponent has worked for. It also incentivizes defending your station without making you just throw in the towel when you lose it. There would likely have to be some cooldown for this per player to keep people from juggling the station. Maybe a cooldown in tandem with the other suggestion that stations initially have very strong defenses that taper off to further discourage said juggling?
B) Apply some sort of process (be it automatic or some sort of mission) to slowly pull other players' items out of storage. Think burning the lock off of a storage unit - xirite is strong and space thermite is costly. It takes some time and money (or just a long period of the station being uncontested), but eventually those lockers start to leak some gear. It could be random like the above system, or it could be directed with commensurate requirements to pull the stuff out? If someone stores a Vulture Mk I you can steal it with very little, but some FCP will take more time/money/resources.
I like both of these, but am a bit biased toward A because the current amount of items stored there mean you'd have a level of safety in numbers, and players with vastly more capital/ability/time would not be able to slowly pull everything out if the system ended up unbalanced as it might initially be with B.
Secondly, while I like (and am here for) the "no truly safe spaces" concept, maybe a middle ground could be reached between "everything you put in the grayspace station is secure forever" and "everything you put in there can be lost if a few people put their minds to it, even if it's a huge amount of items".
You could:
A) Make it so when you take a station, a small and random set of items stored there become available to you. Think capturing a city in Civilization - you get a random tech that you weren't expecting, and it gives you an edge without completely stealing everything your opponent has worked for. It also incentivizes defending your station without making you just throw in the towel when you lose it. There would likely have to be some cooldown for this per player to keep people from juggling the station. Maybe a cooldown in tandem with the other suggestion that stations initially have very strong defenses that taper off to further discourage said juggling?
B) Apply some sort of process (be it automatic or some sort of mission) to slowly pull other players' items out of storage. Think burning the lock off of a storage unit - xirite is strong and space thermite is costly. It takes some time and money (or just a long period of the station being uncontested), but eventually those lockers start to leak some gear. It could be random like the above system, or it could be directed with commensurate requirements to pull the stuff out? If someone stores a Vulture Mk I you can steal it with very little, but some FCP will take more time/money/resources.
I like both of these, but am a bit biased toward A because the current amount of items stored there mean you'd have a level of safety in numbers, and players with vastly more capital/ability/time would not be able to slowly pull everything out if the system ended up unbalanced as it might initially be with B.
..do I dare ask if those plans eventually extend towards nation stations?
The core of Nation Space will likely be "invulnerable", since it's transitioning into mainly being a center for refined goods, and for training newbies.
But, in terms of having "secure storage" in Nation Space, it won't necessarily be relevant, if all the places where you would use the stored content are further out, in stations that might face conquest.
Conversely, I think there's a misapprehension that.. if Corporate stations were conquerable, they would be "just like" the conquerable-station-test from like 10 years ago. Do you have any idea how much firepower would be needed to conquer a TPG station? They're the biggest military contractor in the universe. This is not something that some guy will be able to do, solo, at 3am on a Tuesday.
But, at some point, I think conceptual "conquest" is an interesting thing. It could engage people with defending against an encroaching Hive, if they start to directly threaten stations.. there are lots of things that come out of it.
It's not just a "fake game mechanic", like every other MMORPG with an NPC that says "help us! please go kill more Angry Rabbits and bring back their pelts!". I mean, it's way more interesting if 10,000 pissed-off rabbits might actually invade and burn the city. Plus that would be a hell of a sight.
We can have conquerable content, and still have a reasonably balanced game, and not be stupid about it; just like anything else.
There are a lot of ways that "Pillaging" could work, and this thread was created to talk about all of that.
Inevitable has thoughts around some kind of point-system I don't fully understand. But there's lot of other options.. one could only pillage a percentage of station assets, or station-inventories could be "insured" like capships, or.. an infinity of other options. (Thanks to IonicPaulTheSecond, who started offering exactly these kinds of useful solutions while I was finishing this post).
But, we can only meaningfully talk about things if we can get off the ground of the "worst-case scenario".
The core of Nation Space will likely be "invulnerable", since it's transitioning into mainly being a center for refined goods, and for training newbies.
But, in terms of having "secure storage" in Nation Space, it won't necessarily be relevant, if all the places where you would use the stored content are further out, in stations that might face conquest.
Conversely, I think there's a misapprehension that.. if Corporate stations were conquerable, they would be "just like" the conquerable-station-test from like 10 years ago. Do you have any idea how much firepower would be needed to conquer a TPG station? They're the biggest military contractor in the universe. This is not something that some guy will be able to do, solo, at 3am on a Tuesday.
But, at some point, I think conceptual "conquest" is an interesting thing. It could engage people with defending against an encroaching Hive, if they start to directly threaten stations.. there are lots of things that come out of it.
It's not just a "fake game mechanic", like every other MMORPG with an NPC that says "help us! please go kill more Angry Rabbits and bring back their pelts!". I mean, it's way more interesting if 10,000 pissed-off rabbits might actually invade and burn the city. Plus that would be a hell of a sight.
We can have conquerable content, and still have a reasonably balanced game, and not be stupid about it; just like anything else.
There are a lot of ways that "Pillaging" could work, and this thread was created to talk about all of that.
Inevitable has thoughts around some kind of point-system I don't fully understand. But there's lot of other options.. one could only pillage a percentage of station assets, or station-inventories could be "insured" like capships, or.. an infinity of other options. (Thanks to IonicPaulTheSecond, who started offering exactly these kinds of useful solutions while I was finishing this post).
But, we can only meaningfully talk about things if we can get off the ground of the "worst-case scenario".