Forums » Suggestions
Factions and Warlords
This is sort of a response from the Kill Draw thread, but with a huge suggestion that would probably require its own thread. So here it goes...
Human based factions might be a little hard to implement. You'd need some way for the player to build their own stations. You'd need some way for the player to input names, descriptions, and all kinds of data in order to make your station become successful. I mean what would determine what type of cargo and ships you'd have in your station, you know?
I certainly like how there are factions right now, but not with how they interact with players. I'd much rather see more focus on players being a part of factions rather than their governments, with each faction containing their own unique culture of weapons and ships. And from there factions would be fighting each other for territory. Alliances between factions and players will be formed or will be broken as always, based on how the players interact.
Essentially this goes back to the idea of taking over stations. Anyone ever play Warlords? That's kind of the idea I'm going for here. Anyway, the game starts out with an equal number of stations for each faction. Each player can pick whatever faction they want from a huge list. The list will contain information as to what type of people they are, how they do business, what benefits the player will have, etc. This helps give the player a nice introduction as to whether they'd want to join Faction A or Faction B.
Each faction, like governments, will also have a capital or home sector. And so as the game is played we'll be seeing factions gaining and losing territory over time. It's just an ongoing war. The three races will exist as always, but they will be given an opportunity to change whether they'd be friends or enemies... which will ultimately help create a more dynamic player than one whose fate is set in stone like currently. Oh yes, and friendly fire will be turned on! Hehe.
So you may be thinking, "Well, won't there be extinct factions or factions with little territory when I join the game later on?" Aha, but wait! As I mentioned before factions will each have their own home sector. Home stations cannot be taken over and will be heavily guarded. As far as territory disadvantages go, players will be rewarded with more money and opportunities if they join a faction with little territory advantage. Think of it as the leaders of the faction being desperate to hire people for help.
As far as stats go, rather than posting individual kills, score, etc. for each player on the Vendetta website, there'd be a universe map (or one for each system) showing you how your faction is doing in regions. Players would be more engaged to a game like Vendetta if they knew their faction would need help in the front lines, if they see that they're losing territory. And on the flipside you may be compelled to log on to help your faction advance in territory. IMO this would get the player more engaged to the game.
And the final part to my suggestion--squadrons. Okay, so now we got governments and then factions. The next and last subdivision would be squadrons. This is something that could be completely optional. You can choose to be a lone fighter ace, or you can form a squadron by gathering a group of your friends and trave in fleets throughout the universe. Each squadron will be given one frigate, a few bombers that can be manned with multiple players, and your typical single fighters. People with higher rank gain access to the bigger ships, while newbies must earn their way up as a fighter pilot.
And well... that's about it! I'm not sure where Vendetta is really headed but I'm hoping its within this general direction. In terms of combat (just one of many professions), I'd much rather see a game that involves wars over territory and the allowance for such subdivisions of players.
Human based factions might be a little hard to implement. You'd need some way for the player to build their own stations. You'd need some way for the player to input names, descriptions, and all kinds of data in order to make your station become successful. I mean what would determine what type of cargo and ships you'd have in your station, you know?
I certainly like how there are factions right now, but not with how they interact with players. I'd much rather see more focus on players being a part of factions rather than their governments, with each faction containing their own unique culture of weapons and ships. And from there factions would be fighting each other for territory. Alliances between factions and players will be formed or will be broken as always, based on how the players interact.
Essentially this goes back to the idea of taking over stations. Anyone ever play Warlords? That's kind of the idea I'm going for here. Anyway, the game starts out with an equal number of stations for each faction. Each player can pick whatever faction they want from a huge list. The list will contain information as to what type of people they are, how they do business, what benefits the player will have, etc. This helps give the player a nice introduction as to whether they'd want to join Faction A or Faction B.
Each faction, like governments, will also have a capital or home sector. And so as the game is played we'll be seeing factions gaining and losing territory over time. It's just an ongoing war. The three races will exist as always, but they will be given an opportunity to change whether they'd be friends or enemies... which will ultimately help create a more dynamic player than one whose fate is set in stone like currently. Oh yes, and friendly fire will be turned on! Hehe.
So you may be thinking, "Well, won't there be extinct factions or factions with little territory when I join the game later on?" Aha, but wait! As I mentioned before factions will each have their own home sector. Home stations cannot be taken over and will be heavily guarded. As far as territory disadvantages go, players will be rewarded with more money and opportunities if they join a faction with little territory advantage. Think of it as the leaders of the faction being desperate to hire people for help.
As far as stats go, rather than posting individual kills, score, etc. for each player on the Vendetta website, there'd be a universe map (or one for each system) showing you how your faction is doing in regions. Players would be more engaged to a game like Vendetta if they knew their faction would need help in the front lines, if they see that they're losing territory. And on the flipside you may be compelled to log on to help your faction advance in territory. IMO this would get the player more engaged to the game.
And the final part to my suggestion--squadrons. Okay, so now we got governments and then factions. The next and last subdivision would be squadrons. This is something that could be completely optional. You can choose to be a lone fighter ace, or you can form a squadron by gathering a group of your friends and trave in fleets throughout the universe. Each squadron will be given one frigate, a few bombers that can be manned with multiple players, and your typical single fighters. People with higher rank gain access to the bigger ships, while newbies must earn their way up as a fighter pilot.
And well... that's about it! I'm not sure where Vendetta is really headed but I'm hoping its within this general direction. In terms of combat (just one of many professions), I'd much rather see a game that involves wars over territory and the allowance for such subdivisions of players.
"Human based factions might be a little hard to implement. You'd need some way for the player to build their own stations. You'd need some way for the player to input names, descriptions, and all kinds of data in order to make your station become successful. I mean what would determine what type of cargo and ships you'd have in your station, you know?"
Well, naming a station wouldn't be that hard. What other data would you need? Individual rooms, except for maybe a bar (Chatroom) wont have different names. Because cargo will be dynamic, hopefully, people would deliver to the station. Gradually, the station could become part of a trade network, or be a place to buy certain things. It depends a little on if the station is near a field of particularly rare asteroid minerals.
"I certainly like how there are factions right now, but not with how they interact with players. I'd much rather see more focus on players being a part of factions rather than their governments, with each faction containing their own unique culture of weapons and ships. And from there factions would be fighting each other for territory. Alliances between factions and players will be formed or will be broken as always, based on how the players interact."
I agree with everything. But how will Alliances be formed and broken? Who gets to be the leader of each faction to decide who is the friend and who is the enemy?
"Essentially this goes back to the idea of taking over stations. Anyone ever play Warlords? That's kind of the idea I'm going for here. Anyway, the game starts out with an equal number of stations for each faction. Each player can pick whatever faction they want from a huge list. The list will contain information as to what type of people they are, how they do business, what benefits the player will have, etc. This helps give the player a nice introduction as to whether they'd want to join Faction A or Faction B."
I've never played Warlords, so I'm kinda confused. Does one take a station by just going into it? Do they have to defeat all the defenses that the station has first? I think that once a certain number of people in the enemy station, it can be taken over.
"Each faction, like governments, will also have a capital or home sector. And so as the game is played we'll be seeing factions gaining and losing territory over time. It's just an ongoing war. The three races will exist as always, but they will be given an opportunity to change whether they'd be friends or enemies... which will ultimately help create a more dynamic player than one whose fate is set in stone like currently. Oh yes, and friendly fire will be turned on! Hehe."
I like this idea. Wait. No. Friendly fire shouldn't be on in home sectors. That way SOME people who happen to not be too kind can't spawn/n00b kill their own people. I also think that a person will be able to join another faction if he has a good enough rating in it. This way, an Itani who kills lots of Itani is forced into the NT once his Itani standing goes too far down. Same with a Serco. From the NT, one can join any other faction by having a high enough rating with them. This sort pushes pirates into NT, so that they don't have to be in Serco or Itani.
"So you may be thinking, "Well, won't there be extinct factions or factions with little territory when I join the game later on?" Aha, but wait! As I mentioned before factions will each have their own home sector. Home stations cannot be taken over and will be heavily guarded. As far as territory disadvantages go, players will be rewarded with more money and opportunities if they join a faction with little territory advantage. Think of it as the leaders of the faction being desperate to hire people for help."
Well, I don't really get what your saying here. Does this mean that there will be home stations all over the place? What're you getting at in this paragraph?
"As far as stats go, rather than posting individual kills, score, etc. for each player on the Vendetta website, there'd be a universe map (or one for each system) showing you how your faction is doing in regions. Players would be more engaged to a game like Vendetta if they knew their faction would need help in the front lines, if they see that they're losing territory. And on the flipside you may be compelled to log on to help your faction advance in territory. IMO this would get the player more engaged to the game."
Very nice idea, but why does it have to only be in the website? We'd want a large map ingame too.
"And the final part to my suggestion--squadrons. Okay, so now we got governments and then factions. The next and last subdivision would be squadrons. This is something that could be completely optional. You can choose to be a lone fighter ace, or you can form a squadron by gathering a group of your friends and trave in fleets throughout the universe. Each squadron will be given one frigate, a few bombers that can be manned with multiple players, and your typical single fighters. People with higher rank gain access to the bigger ships, while newbies must earn their way up as a fighter pilot."
Nice idea. No more suggestions here.
Well, naming a station wouldn't be that hard. What other data would you need? Individual rooms, except for maybe a bar (Chatroom) wont have different names. Because cargo will be dynamic, hopefully, people would deliver to the station. Gradually, the station could become part of a trade network, or be a place to buy certain things. It depends a little on if the station is near a field of particularly rare asteroid minerals.
"I certainly like how there are factions right now, but not with how they interact with players. I'd much rather see more focus on players being a part of factions rather than their governments, with each faction containing their own unique culture of weapons and ships. And from there factions would be fighting each other for territory. Alliances between factions and players will be formed or will be broken as always, based on how the players interact."
I agree with everything. But how will Alliances be formed and broken? Who gets to be the leader of each faction to decide who is the friend and who is the enemy?
"Essentially this goes back to the idea of taking over stations. Anyone ever play Warlords? That's kind of the idea I'm going for here. Anyway, the game starts out with an equal number of stations for each faction. Each player can pick whatever faction they want from a huge list. The list will contain information as to what type of people they are, how they do business, what benefits the player will have, etc. This helps give the player a nice introduction as to whether they'd want to join Faction A or Faction B."
I've never played Warlords, so I'm kinda confused. Does one take a station by just going into it? Do they have to defeat all the defenses that the station has first? I think that once a certain number of people in the enemy station, it can be taken over.
"Each faction, like governments, will also have a capital or home sector. And so as the game is played we'll be seeing factions gaining and losing territory over time. It's just an ongoing war. The three races will exist as always, but they will be given an opportunity to change whether they'd be friends or enemies... which will ultimately help create a more dynamic player than one whose fate is set in stone like currently. Oh yes, and friendly fire will be turned on! Hehe."
I like this idea. Wait. No. Friendly fire shouldn't be on in home sectors. That way SOME people who happen to not be too kind can't spawn/n00b kill their own people. I also think that a person will be able to join another faction if he has a good enough rating in it. This way, an Itani who kills lots of Itani is forced into the NT once his Itani standing goes too far down. Same with a Serco. From the NT, one can join any other faction by having a high enough rating with them. This sort pushes pirates into NT, so that they don't have to be in Serco or Itani.
"So you may be thinking, "Well, won't there be extinct factions or factions with little territory when I join the game later on?" Aha, but wait! As I mentioned before factions will each have their own home sector. Home stations cannot be taken over and will be heavily guarded. As far as territory disadvantages go, players will be rewarded with more money and opportunities if they join a faction with little territory advantage. Think of it as the leaders of the faction being desperate to hire people for help."
Well, I don't really get what your saying here. Does this mean that there will be home stations all over the place? What're you getting at in this paragraph?
"As far as stats go, rather than posting individual kills, score, etc. for each player on the Vendetta website, there'd be a universe map (or one for each system) showing you how your faction is doing in regions. Players would be more engaged to a game like Vendetta if they knew their faction would need help in the front lines, if they see that they're losing territory. And on the flipside you may be compelled to log on to help your faction advance in territory. IMO this would get the player more engaged to the game."
Very nice idea, but why does it have to only be in the website? We'd want a large map ingame too.
"And the final part to my suggestion--squadrons. Okay, so now we got governments and then factions. The next and last subdivision would be squadrons. This is something that could be completely optional. You can choose to be a lone fighter ace, or you can form a squadron by gathering a group of your friends and trave in fleets throughout the universe. Each squadron will be given one frigate, a few bombers that can be manned with multiple players, and your typical single fighters. People with higher rank gain access to the bigger ships, while newbies must earn their way up as a fighter pilot."
Nice idea. No more suggestions here.
/me twitches eye
This...is...the...GREATEST IDEA EVER!!!! (for Vendetta anwyays)
It'd be hard to implement, but if it made its way in it'd make the game EASILY 10x better. See, it'd make it so players have a reason to come back, which the game desperately needs.
This...is...the...GREATEST IDEA EVER!!!! (for Vendetta anwyays)
It'd be hard to implement, but if it made its way in it'd make the game EASILY 10x better. See, it'd make it so players have a reason to come back, which the game desperately needs.
My suggestion for player-run factional stations:
Basic Station = 10,000,000 credits.
This gives you basic repair, global chat ability (a soon-to-be implemented feature), and up through level 4 ships, weapons, engines, and batteries.
We then can have different upgrade modules for the station, for about 1,500,000 credits each. Each one upgrades the station's capability by one level. However, before you can pay the contractor to build the module, you must collect the equipment. Each different class of module upgrade will require different widgets. I'm thinking that the main widget required by an upgrade might be a count of 500. Specialized widgets might be anywhere from 50 - 300. Once you assemble all the required materials, construction will begin. In real time, construction should take anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours.
Upgrade your station enough, and depending on what natural resources are in proximity, you might be able to manufacture nanites at a lower price than s18 can. You might be able to offer cheaper ships or equipment. You might even be able to build frigates (for a not so modest sum).
Stations should not be able to be destroyed, but captured or made uninhabitable. Perhaps there might be a mega-avalon weapon that can do severe damage to stations, but the devs would have to purposefully insert it into the game somewhere for the sole purpose of influencing the storyline. Bottom line: stations should not be able to be destroyed.
Yet, that is not to say that you couldn't park your fleet of frigates outside of a station, obliterate the station defenses, and then send pods of space marines at the station to capture it. At this point, the battle will become one of attrition, and the station garrison must battle the assaulting marines. I don't think this would be player controlled. A simple health bar of the station would tell friendly players how well its garrison is holding up. That is not to say, however, that defending players can't shoot down incoming space pods.
tell me what you guys think....
Basic Station = 10,000,000 credits.
This gives you basic repair, global chat ability (a soon-to-be implemented feature), and up through level 4 ships, weapons, engines, and batteries.
We then can have different upgrade modules for the station, for about 1,500,000 credits each. Each one upgrades the station's capability by one level. However, before you can pay the contractor to build the module, you must collect the equipment. Each different class of module upgrade will require different widgets. I'm thinking that the main widget required by an upgrade might be a count of 500. Specialized widgets might be anywhere from 50 - 300. Once you assemble all the required materials, construction will begin. In real time, construction should take anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours.
Upgrade your station enough, and depending on what natural resources are in proximity, you might be able to manufacture nanites at a lower price than s18 can. You might be able to offer cheaper ships or equipment. You might even be able to build frigates (for a not so modest sum).
Stations should not be able to be destroyed, but captured or made uninhabitable. Perhaps there might be a mega-avalon weapon that can do severe damage to stations, but the devs would have to purposefully insert it into the game somewhere for the sole purpose of influencing the storyline. Bottom line: stations should not be able to be destroyed.
Yet, that is not to say that you couldn't park your fleet of frigates outside of a station, obliterate the station defenses, and then send pods of space marines at the station to capture it. At this point, the battle will become one of attrition, and the station garrison must battle the assaulting marines. I don't think this would be player controlled. A simple health bar of the station would tell friendly players how well its garrison is holding up. That is not to say, however, that defending players can't shoot down incoming space pods.
tell me what you guys think....
I agree with what you've said for the beginning, but I think that user-created stations SHOULD be destructible, to keep from having 20 stations in one sector hammering away at each other 24/7. If you're parked in a station and it's destroyed, your home station is reset to the closest station with which you have a +500 (Respect?) or greater with. All inventory at the destroyed station is, um, destroyed. That's my addition.
Stations shouldn't be invincible. Say I'm the owner of a station on the edge of Itani-Serco space. Well, the Sercos get really mad one day and start attacking my brand new station. Though backup comes, they proceed to destroy the stations defenses and are about to take it over. I sigh, set the thing to self destruct in 30 seconds, and run like hell. And stations shouldn't be 10,000,000 credits. WAAAAAAAY too cheap. More like 50,000,000 for a basic station, and then upgrades should cost different to have different things (ex: more weapons, another dock, another bluedock etc.)
I don't see why different widgets should be harder to hold, unless they're special like have a "radioactive" setting on them. Then upgrading would work.
Manufacturing should only work when you have other widgets that can be used to create the thing. If you have stationupgrade A and 20 of widgets X, Y, and Z, you can manufacture 20 widget Ws.
I do like your idea about upgrading letting people buy certain level ships, though. Maybe there can be black market upgrades that put illegal weapons or ships or manufacturers on/in your station.
I don't see why different widgets should be harder to hold, unless they're special like have a "radioactive" setting on them. Then upgrading would work.
Manufacturing should only work when you have other widgets that can be used to create the thing. If you have stationupgrade A and 20 of widgets X, Y, and Z, you can manufacture 20 widget Ws.
I do like your idea about upgrading letting people buy certain level ships, though. Maybe there can be black market upgrades that put illegal weapons or ships or manufacturers on/in your station.
Well the problem lies with having a lot of rich people crowding up sectors with thousands and thousands of stations. Well okay, thousands is an exaggeration but there'd still be a lot. Can you imagine the framerate hit on a sector if users could just build stations whereever they'd want? The idea is cool but I don't see it ever becoming a reality. If it does, kudos to the devs for making the game one step cooler!
Now in response to granuadulater's reply...
>I agree with everything. But how will Alliances be formed and broken? Who gets to
>be the leader of each faction to decide who is the friend and who is the enemy?
Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto? You can choose to work for multiple gangs, or betray 'em all later if you wish. The idea is you're not stuck in one faction. If you do good things for two different factions, you'll have a lot of friends. But that may naturally cause friction between the two and you may have to decide which one to stay with later on (if war erupts).
Realistically speaking, however, I do think this would take a lot of time and effort to implement. So for simplicity sake let's just say the player can stay with one faction at a time, but can continue to trade with others as long as they're not hated (just like currently). In other words keep this idea in the back of your mind when the game is more developed. Teeheee...
>I've never played Warlords, so I'm kinda confused. Does one take a station by just
>going into it? Do they have to defeat all the defenses that the station has first? I
>think that once a certain number of people in the enemy station, it can be taken
>over.
Warlords is a pretty simple 2D strategy game where you group units together. Each unit has a certain strength and movement value. Depending on what type of units are grouped and how many, your chances of winning a battle with an enemy group will vary. The "board" of this game is littered with castles. These castles already exist throughout the landscape, so you don't create them or gather resources. So all you do to conquer enemy castles is to simply drag your groups into the castles and the war begins automatically, fighting against whoever is occupying the castle. If you manage to kill everyone in the castle, you take it over for your empire. Simple.
Basically you're fighting over a station that already exists. Let's say every station is given some type of defensive turrets, in addition to maybe some type of destructable object that must be defended. Anyone who destroys all the defenses and "things" of the station will win that station for their faction. You can then see why it would be important for players to use teamwork to defend their faction's station. Stations would automatically repair over time, depending on whether enough resources are available (or maybe without resources?).
As you can imagine this would take a lot of teamwork. However, I think it'll help players get more involved in the game. Again, let me remind you that this is only the combat portion of the game. You can still be a friendly trader who goes around making money on their own. As long as you're not involved in a faction that's at war with a particular station or you don't fire at any of the stations' defenses, you won't be fired upon. So there's still a lot in terms of player freedom.
As far as your concern with friendly fire goes, n00b killing will be a thing of the past. A penalty system is already in place, but I don't think it's strong enough to really prevent it. -10 combat points should be more like -500 combat points. A more severe penalty needs to be implemented before we stop seeing the n00b killing. I don't think something like n00b killing should deter the inclusion of friendly fire. Because the emphasis will be more on factions than nations, friendly fire may be necessary sometimes to restore order.
>Well, I don't really get what your saying here. Does this mean that there will be
>home stations all over the place? What're you getting at in this paragraph?
Yes. Each faction will have their own home sector. But just one, unlike the governments. But keep in mind that there will be hundreds of neutral sectors in the future. Having five or six factions in a hundred sector universe won't be too bad. As Vendetta becomes more successful and continues to expand, the inclusion of more factions (if necessary) and sectors will always be a possibility. So there really won't be any crowding as you'd imagine.
Also, there may still be "neutral" stations that can't be owned by any player faction. For example secret sectors. I don't think it would be fair to have a player faction own one when it's something that's supposed to be explored by everyone. So stuff like that is inevitable. Bottom line, however, is that these factions need to be kept alive to at least one invulnerable station in order for the game to continue. But your success is still determined by who "owns" the most stations.
>Very nice idea, but why does it have to only be in the website? We'd want a large
>map ingame too.
Absolutely. The same goes for the mission system. I think the current mission system needs to ditch the whole /msg thing and pull it all together into one menu. Some type of system map wouldn't be out of the question either. Heck, put everything together with the sector stats window and slap some tabs at the top. It wouldn't be too hard to implement.
Now in response to granuadulater's reply...
>I agree with everything. But how will Alliances be formed and broken? Who gets to
>be the leader of each faction to decide who is the friend and who is the enemy?
Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto? You can choose to work for multiple gangs, or betray 'em all later if you wish. The idea is you're not stuck in one faction. If you do good things for two different factions, you'll have a lot of friends. But that may naturally cause friction between the two and you may have to decide which one to stay with later on (if war erupts).
Realistically speaking, however, I do think this would take a lot of time and effort to implement. So for simplicity sake let's just say the player can stay with one faction at a time, but can continue to trade with others as long as they're not hated (just like currently). In other words keep this idea in the back of your mind when the game is more developed. Teeheee...
>I've never played Warlords, so I'm kinda confused. Does one take a station by just
>going into it? Do they have to defeat all the defenses that the station has first? I
>think that once a certain number of people in the enemy station, it can be taken
>over.
Warlords is a pretty simple 2D strategy game where you group units together. Each unit has a certain strength and movement value. Depending on what type of units are grouped and how many, your chances of winning a battle with an enemy group will vary. The "board" of this game is littered with castles. These castles already exist throughout the landscape, so you don't create them or gather resources. So all you do to conquer enemy castles is to simply drag your groups into the castles and the war begins automatically, fighting against whoever is occupying the castle. If you manage to kill everyone in the castle, you take it over for your empire. Simple.
Basically you're fighting over a station that already exists. Let's say every station is given some type of defensive turrets, in addition to maybe some type of destructable object that must be defended. Anyone who destroys all the defenses and "things" of the station will win that station for their faction. You can then see why it would be important for players to use teamwork to defend their faction's station. Stations would automatically repair over time, depending on whether enough resources are available (or maybe without resources?).
As you can imagine this would take a lot of teamwork. However, I think it'll help players get more involved in the game. Again, let me remind you that this is only the combat portion of the game. You can still be a friendly trader who goes around making money on their own. As long as you're not involved in a faction that's at war with a particular station or you don't fire at any of the stations' defenses, you won't be fired upon. So there's still a lot in terms of player freedom.
As far as your concern with friendly fire goes, n00b killing will be a thing of the past. A penalty system is already in place, but I don't think it's strong enough to really prevent it. -10 combat points should be more like -500 combat points. A more severe penalty needs to be implemented before we stop seeing the n00b killing. I don't think something like n00b killing should deter the inclusion of friendly fire. Because the emphasis will be more on factions than nations, friendly fire may be necessary sometimes to restore order.
>Well, I don't really get what your saying here. Does this mean that there will be
>home stations all over the place? What're you getting at in this paragraph?
Yes. Each faction will have their own home sector. But just one, unlike the governments. But keep in mind that there will be hundreds of neutral sectors in the future. Having five or six factions in a hundred sector universe won't be too bad. As Vendetta becomes more successful and continues to expand, the inclusion of more factions (if necessary) and sectors will always be a possibility. So there really won't be any crowding as you'd imagine.
Also, there may still be "neutral" stations that can't be owned by any player faction. For example secret sectors. I don't think it would be fair to have a player faction own one when it's something that's supposed to be explored by everyone. So stuff like that is inevitable. Bottom line, however, is that these factions need to be kept alive to at least one invulnerable station in order for the game to continue. But your success is still determined by who "owns" the most stations.
>Very nice idea, but why does it have to only be in the website? We'd want a large
>map ingame too.
Absolutely. The same goes for the mission system. I think the current mission system needs to ditch the whole /msg thing and pull it all together into one menu. Some type of system map wouldn't be out of the question either. Heck, put everything together with the sector stats window and slap some tabs at the top. It wouldn't be too hard to implement.
In reply to Arolte
>>I've never played Warlords, so I'm kinda confused. Does one >take a station by just
>>going into it? Do they have to defeat all the defenses that the >station has first? I
>>think that once a certain number of people in the enemy >station, it can be taken
>>over.
>
>Warlords is a pretty simple 2D strategy game where you group >units together. Each unit has a certain strength and movement >value. Depending on what type of units are grouped and how many, >your chances of winning a battle with an enemy group will vary. >The "board" of this game is littered with castles. These castles >already exist throughout the landscape, so you don't create them >or gather resources. So all you do to conquer enemy castles is >to simply drag your groups into the castles and the war begins >automatically, fighting against whoever is occupying the castle. >If you manage to kill everyone in the castle, you take it over >for your empire. Simple.
>
>Basically you're fighting over a station that already exists. >Let's say every station is given some type of defensive turrets, >in addition to maybe some type of destructable object that must >be defended. Anyone who destroys all the defenses and "things" >of the station will win that station for their faction. You can >then see why it would be important for players to use teamwork >to defend their faction's station. Stations would automatically >repair over time, depending on whether enough resources are >available (or maybe without resources?).
>
>As you can imagine this would take a lot of teamwork. However, I >think it'll help players get more involved in the game. Again, >let me remind you that this is only the combat portion of the >game. You can still be a friendly trader who goes around making >money on their own. As long as you're not involved in a faction >that's at war with a particular station or you don't fire at any >of the stations' defenses, you won't be fired upon. So there's >still a lot in terms of player freedom.
Hmm. The problem is, realisticly, you would need ground troups to "take over" a station. I suppose you could create purchasable, or winable assault teams, and then have odds of capture calculated by skill and the # of troups the attackers/defenders have. That would be kinda cool, with assualt ship transports and stuff like that. Or you could have it something like the Assault-Mothership level in UT 2k4, where you have to fly inside the mothership and destroy the core. And destroying the core/sheild generators/turrets will yeild you to station. Or you could just have the option of wiping out the station entirly, blowing it up with extream fire. Think 2000 avalons.
Those are my ideas.
>As far as your concern with friendly fire goes, n00b killing >will be a thing of the past. A penalty system is already in >place, but I don't think it's strong enough to really prevent >it. -10 combat points should be more like -500 combat points. A >more severe penalty needs to be implemented before we stop >seeing the n00b killing. I don't think something like n00b >killing should deter the inclusion of friendly fire. Because the >emphasis will be more on factions than nations, friendly fire >may be necessary sometimes to restore order.
Vendetta currently has a very problimatic reputations system. Stronger penalties right now would be disaster. Untill the system gets inteligent enought to figure out exacly how to penalize fairly.
>>I've never played Warlords, so I'm kinda confused. Does one >take a station by just
>>going into it? Do they have to defeat all the defenses that the >station has first? I
>>think that once a certain number of people in the enemy >station, it can be taken
>>over.
>
>Warlords is a pretty simple 2D strategy game where you group >units together. Each unit has a certain strength and movement >value. Depending on what type of units are grouped and how many, >your chances of winning a battle with an enemy group will vary. >The "board" of this game is littered with castles. These castles >already exist throughout the landscape, so you don't create them >or gather resources. So all you do to conquer enemy castles is >to simply drag your groups into the castles and the war begins >automatically, fighting against whoever is occupying the castle. >If you manage to kill everyone in the castle, you take it over >for your empire. Simple.
>
>Basically you're fighting over a station that already exists. >Let's say every station is given some type of defensive turrets, >in addition to maybe some type of destructable object that must >be defended. Anyone who destroys all the defenses and "things" >of the station will win that station for their faction. You can >then see why it would be important for players to use teamwork >to defend their faction's station. Stations would automatically >repair over time, depending on whether enough resources are >available (or maybe without resources?).
>
>As you can imagine this would take a lot of teamwork. However, I >think it'll help players get more involved in the game. Again, >let me remind you that this is only the combat portion of the >game. You can still be a friendly trader who goes around making >money on their own. As long as you're not involved in a faction >that's at war with a particular station or you don't fire at any >of the stations' defenses, you won't be fired upon. So there's >still a lot in terms of player freedom.
Hmm. The problem is, realisticly, you would need ground troups to "take over" a station. I suppose you could create purchasable, or winable assault teams, and then have odds of capture calculated by skill and the # of troups the attackers/defenders have. That would be kinda cool, with assualt ship transports and stuff like that. Or you could have it something like the Assault-Mothership level in UT 2k4, where you have to fly inside the mothership and destroy the core. And destroying the core/sheild generators/turrets will yeild you to station. Or you could just have the option of wiping out the station entirly, blowing it up with extream fire. Think 2000 avalons.
Those are my ideas.
>As far as your concern with friendly fire goes, n00b killing >will be a thing of the past. A penalty system is already in >place, but I don't think it's strong enough to really prevent >it. -10 combat points should be more like -500 combat points. A >more severe penalty needs to be implemented before we stop >seeing the n00b killing. I don't think something like n00b >killing should deter the inclusion of friendly fire. Because the >emphasis will be more on factions than nations, friendly fire >may be necessary sometimes to restore order.
Vendetta currently has a very problimatic reputations system. Stronger penalties right now would be disaster. Untill the system gets inteligent enought to figure out exacly how to penalize fairly.
You need to hit enter after every line, not just let the line wrap take care of things. Like this:
>Warlords is a pretty simple 2D strategy game where you group
>units together. Each unit has a certain strength and movement
>value. Depending on what type of units are grouped and how many,
>your chances of winning a battle with an enemy group will vary.
>The "board" of this game is littered with castles. These castles
>already exist throughout the landscape, so you don't create them
>or gather resources. So all you do to conquer enemy castles is
>to simply drag your groups into the castles and the war begins
>automatically, fighting against whoever is occupying the castle.
>If you manage to kill everyone in the castle, you take it over
>for your empire. Simple.
>
>Warlords is a pretty simple 2D strategy game where you group
>units together. Each unit has a certain strength and movement
>value. Depending on what type of units are grouped and how many,
>your chances of winning a battle with an enemy group will vary.
>The "board" of this game is littered with castles. These castles
>already exist throughout the landscape, so you don't create them
>or gather resources. So all you do to conquer enemy castles is
>to simply drag your groups into the castles and the war begins
>automatically, fighting against whoever is occupying the castle.
>If you manage to kill everyone in the castle, you take it over
>for your empire. Simple.
>
Skyfox, "ground troops" really aren't needed to take over a station. I was thinking more along the lines of being required to destroy a power generator (very hard to crack open without avalons) and defensive turrets. When all those components of the station has been destroyed, the faction that destroyed it will get the station for themselves. I hate to use UT2K4 as an example (I hate that game), but it's kind of like the onslaught mode in that.
Think of your pilots as being armed soldiers and mercenaries. The station only contains civilians that ally with whoever protects them. Their only defense is computer-controlled defense turrets which are powered by the central power generator. And guess who provides them with that defense? The faction which is currently occupying the station. In other words us players are the ones that are armed to the teeth. The station occupants are just there and are at our mercy when it comes to helping your faction spread.
Think of your pilots as being armed soldiers and mercenaries. The station only contains civilians that ally with whoever protects them. Their only defense is computer-controlled defense turrets which are powered by the central power generator. And guess who provides them with that defense? The faction which is currently occupying the station. In other words us players are the ones that are armed to the teeth. The station occupants are just there and are at our mercy when it comes to helping your faction spread.
wow, this is a lot more refined since our last talk about "capture the station" feature.
way I see it:
1. can't create new stations, but take over existing ones scattered around huge galaxy.
2. no need for ground troops, just take out station defenses and power generators AND then dock. keep in mind that you have to build and reprogram defenses and fix the generator pretty quick otherwise your station won't be yours for long.
3. i don't know how to deal with station upgrades, perhaps upgrades should perish shall the station be overrun. perhaps EMP blast wipes out the computers inside with all backups as well as destroys the generator.
4. station upgrades will not modify the model of the station. however, defense upgrades will increase number and quality of turrets and bots defending station. manufacturing upgrades will enable you to create widgets from other resources. weapon foundries will be able to create new weapons and so on.
5. commanding faction of station should be able to create missions for other pilots. that is my most expected and valued feature :)
way I see it:
1. can't create new stations, but take over existing ones scattered around huge galaxy.
2. no need for ground troops, just take out station defenses and power generators AND then dock. keep in mind that you have to build and reprogram defenses and fix the generator pretty quick otherwise your station won't be yours for long.
3. i don't know how to deal with station upgrades, perhaps upgrades should perish shall the station be overrun. perhaps EMP blast wipes out the computers inside with all backups as well as destroys the generator.
4. station upgrades will not modify the model of the station. however, defense upgrades will increase number and quality of turrets and bots defending station. manufacturing upgrades will enable you to create widgets from other resources. weapon foundries will be able to create new weapons and so on.
5. commanding faction of station should be able to create missions for other pilots. that is my most expected and valued feature :)
The problem is that this could fragment the game too much. The driving force in the storyline is the conflict between Itani and Serco, not petty territory squabbles between corporations.
So long as there is a major incentive to keep an over-riding tie to either Itani, Serco, or Neutral, its fine.
So long as there is a major incentive to keep an over-riding tie to either Itani, Serco, or Neutral, its fine.
Petty? Today's wars have mostly been about fighting over territory. It's been that way since the beginning of time for us stupid humans. And It's probably going to remain that way in the future.
I realize that it may stray away from the game's original concept, but let me tell you it'll make the game a lot more fun than it is now. As I stated before, the player will still have the option to become a freelance trader, miner, mercenary, etc. while these wars are breaking out. Those other portions will be affected only minimally--as long as you don't show any affiliation towards any warring factions.
In other words stick to your gov't and you'll be fine. I just thought it would be cool to give the wars some purpose. Right now you're sort of just tossed in the middle of it all and as far as you're concerned everyone who is red on your radar is an enemy. I don't know about you but I want to see some real progress over what I'm fighting for.
I realize that it may stray away from the game's original concept, but let me tell you it'll make the game a lot more fun than it is now. As I stated before, the player will still have the option to become a freelance trader, miner, mercenary, etc. while these wars are breaking out. Those other portions will be affected only minimally--as long as you don't show any affiliation towards any warring factions.
In other words stick to your gov't and you'll be fine. I just thought it would be cool to give the wars some purpose. Right now you're sort of just tossed in the middle of it all and as far as you're concerned everyone who is red on your radar is an enemy. I don't know about you but I want to see some real progress over what I'm fighting for.
I don't disagree with that. But with too many factions, it splits the game up too much.
I think the current number is enough. At the very least three can be player joinable. There can be other factions that are only controlled by NPCs only. The game is aiming towards having hundreds of players on at any given time. When it gets to that point I think three nations will start to get a tad too crowded (and the concept of war will be overly simplified). I dunno... either way territory wars = cool!
Well maybe like a couple new Fractions but not any that can fight. They should add things like Smuggling or stuff like that. Where u can do things illigally but at a VERY high risk. THe concept of a constant war shouldn't be placed apon new nations. They should be to the Itani and Secro. Where like in 1 Sector, u will see like 500 frigates blasting away and like 1000 fights blowing the living crap out of each other ( THis is just a sarcastic number) But like something like that would be cool. And for the Killers that only wanna kill noobs they could go there and REALLY kill some people. Plus there would be group missions that would be like Aid the Front, and set a number of bots or frigates to kill. That would make the game SOOO much kooler.