Forums » Suggestions
I would like to point out that ALL ships with ANY battery has infiniboost. It is just a matter of how fast you want to go. Therefore the gripe is with speed, not infiniboost.
Not really Othmaar. Unless you mean turbo-tapping, which is entirely useless now so doesn't count.
ok thats it, you guys are nut jobs,
recap on this argument.
yes
No
yes!
No!
YES
NO
YES!
NO!
YES!!
NO!!
wow got a lot done here.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/8809
read this, this should solve you Infinibust War.
those that want infinibust get it and those that want PvP get it.
no stop this stupid argument NOW!!
FM Please lock this thread!
recap on this argument.
yes
No
yes!
No!
YES
NO
YES!
NO!
YES!!
NO!!
wow got a lot done here.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/8809
read this, this should solve you Infinibust War.
those that want infinibust get it and those that want PvP get it.
no stop this stupid argument NOW!!
FM Please lock this thread!
I would like to see the Corvus vult and Serco vult more like the Rev c in terms of boosting. The vults would still have more mass and more armor then the cents but it would be add new falvour as more people would use different ships.
Or y'all could always make the lighter ships move faster at turbo. (i.e. Rev C/IBG 250 max Serco/Corvus vult 240 max.)
Just my $.02.
Or y'all could always make the lighter ships move faster at turbo. (i.e. Rev C/IBG 250 max Serco/Corvus vult 240 max.)
Just my $.02.
@Furious:
> @john
> [content deleted]
>
> If they focus
> all their attention on getting bigger things for the fighter jockeys to blow up,
> they run the risk of losing people interested in trading. I am sure they
> understand that.
Sorry, but I must take issue with your opinion on what will lose "people interested in trading."
I just happen to be one of those you mentioned as "people interested in trading." And one of the reasons that I chose trading in the first place is that I'm plainly not terribly interested in PvP. I *do* thrive on cooperative teamwork, but just not on PvP (especially not on non-consensual PvP).
As such, I prefer infiniboost just the way it is now.
As a trader, I thrive on a variety of interesting missions with many different kinds of goals to accomplish, not just plain danger.
Trust me, I'm not going to stop trading just because it's not dangerous enough. There may be some traders like that, but definitely not me.
There are already many ways for a determined group of pirates to kill a trader--one of the most straightforward is just to set up a few blocks of Orion Centurion Rev. C's at the wormholes along the route. If you think pirating is so difficult that you can't kill traders, then it's probably because you aren't teaming up with fellow pirates enough.
In fact, as a trader who prefers the current system, I'll probably quit if the devs take your advice and then over-balance and then make it *too* dangerous.
Making trading more dangerous won't necessarily make it more interesting. I agree that trading is somewhat boring, but it's not because it's too safe--it's because trading normally requires more bartering and searching, and there's not enough financial negotiation in the current trading system.
Something that would make trading more interesting, IMHO, is more effective use of better trading routes. For example, trading guilds should offer more incentive for saving them credits during trading missions. They could, for example, offer trading experience bonuses proportional to the number of credits saved for discovering discount trading routes during procurement missions.
Trading should not be just about carrying cargo; it should also be about discovering more profitable trading routes and saving the trading guilds credits.
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
> @john
> [content deleted]
>
> If they focus
> all their attention on getting bigger things for the fighter jockeys to blow up,
> they run the risk of losing people interested in trading. I am sure they
> understand that.
Sorry, but I must take issue with your opinion on what will lose "people interested in trading."
I just happen to be one of those you mentioned as "people interested in trading." And one of the reasons that I chose trading in the first place is that I'm plainly not terribly interested in PvP. I *do* thrive on cooperative teamwork, but just not on PvP (especially not on non-consensual PvP).
As such, I prefer infiniboost just the way it is now.
As a trader, I thrive on a variety of interesting missions with many different kinds of goals to accomplish, not just plain danger.
Trust me, I'm not going to stop trading just because it's not dangerous enough. There may be some traders like that, but definitely not me.
There are already many ways for a determined group of pirates to kill a trader--one of the most straightforward is just to set up a few blocks of Orion Centurion Rev. C's at the wormholes along the route. If you think pirating is so difficult that you can't kill traders, then it's probably because you aren't teaming up with fellow pirates enough.
In fact, as a trader who prefers the current system, I'll probably quit if the devs take your advice and then over-balance and then make it *too* dangerous.
Making trading more dangerous won't necessarily make it more interesting. I agree that trading is somewhat boring, but it's not because it's too safe--it's because trading normally requires more bartering and searching, and there's not enough financial negotiation in the current trading system.
Something that would make trading more interesting, IMHO, is more effective use of better trading routes. For example, trading guilds should offer more incentive for saving them credits during trading missions. They could, for example, offer trading experience bonuses proportional to the number of credits saved for discovering discount trading routes during procurement missions.
Trading should not be just about carrying cargo; it should also be about discovering more profitable trading routes and saving the trading guilds credits.
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
> Solra, how do you propose to make bots in ionstorms anything more
> than a nuisanace? With your approach, the only people who will
> get caught in them would be people in fast boosting fighters.
The people in the light fighters have the maneuvering capacity to avoid the bots in cruise between boosts. Heavier ships don't.
-:sigma.SB
> than a nuisanace? With your approach, the only people who will
> get caught in them would be people in fast boosting fighters.
The people in the light fighters have the maneuvering capacity to avoid the bots in cruise between boosts. Heavier ships don't.
-:sigma.SB
@Furious:
> [content deleted]
>
> My point being that if trading isn't going to be at least a bit risky at all times,
> why bother having it at all. If you want this to just be a PvP game, then kill the
> trading.
"Why bother having it [(trading)] ... if trading isn't going to be at least a bit risky at all times?" Because some people like to risk having their ships blown up some of the time, but not all of the time.
You said "at all times," meaning that trading should be risky all of the time, even when not in gray space. But some people who stick to their own nation space do that precisely because they don't want to have to worry about getting their ships blown up on every single trading mission. That's what gray space is for.
There are other ways of taking risks besides risking having your ship blown up. Traders can risk losing faction standing or losing many credits, for example, while participating in non-trading missions. I recently lost 167 Ineubris faction standing when I shot down too close to the station somebody whom I thought had destroyed a transport. That was definitely risky.
> The number one priority of any game should be to make sure the players have
> fun.
Ah, finally we agree on something. It's just that you seem to have a different sense of fun than I do.
>So the real question you guys need to be asking is:
>Do I want it to stay the way it is because it is convenient for me and the way I
> play right now, or because it is the best for the overall gameplay? I don't think
> it is good for overall gameplay, I think that some of you veterans have adapted
> to the current system and don't want to see it change because it alters the way
> you would have to play the game.
Ah, but "best for the overall gameplay" for whom? That probably depends on your definition of "fun." You seem to think that risking having your ship blown up everywhere in the universe is the only way to have real fun. Sorry, but I disagree. There are many ways of taking risks besides risking having your ship blown up everywhere. You could risk losing credits, faction standing, secret mining locations, etc.
While combat is a main aspect, I occasionally prefer to concentrate on some aspect of the game that doesn't involve combat. There should be a greater variety of risks, not just more of a single kind.
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
> [content deleted]
>
> My point being that if trading isn't going to be at least a bit risky at all times,
> why bother having it at all. If you want this to just be a PvP game, then kill the
> trading.
"Why bother having it [(trading)] ... if trading isn't going to be at least a bit risky at all times?" Because some people like to risk having their ships blown up some of the time, but not all of the time.
You said "at all times," meaning that trading should be risky all of the time, even when not in gray space. But some people who stick to their own nation space do that precisely because they don't want to have to worry about getting their ships blown up on every single trading mission. That's what gray space is for.
There are other ways of taking risks besides risking having your ship blown up. Traders can risk losing faction standing or losing many credits, for example, while participating in non-trading missions. I recently lost 167 Ineubris faction standing when I shot down too close to the station somebody whom I thought had destroyed a transport. That was definitely risky.
> The number one priority of any game should be to make sure the players have
> fun.
Ah, finally we agree on something. It's just that you seem to have a different sense of fun than I do.
>So the real question you guys need to be asking is:
>Do I want it to stay the way it is because it is convenient for me and the way I
> play right now, or because it is the best for the overall gameplay? I don't think
> it is good for overall gameplay, I think that some of you veterans have adapted
> to the current system and don't want to see it change because it alters the way
> you would have to play the game.
Ah, but "best for the overall gameplay" for whom? That probably depends on your definition of "fun." You seem to think that risking having your ship blown up everywhere in the universe is the only way to have real fun. Sorry, but I disagree. There are many ways of taking risks besides risking having your ship blown up everywhere. You could risk losing credits, faction standing, secret mining locations, etc.
While combat is a main aspect, I occasionally prefer to concentrate on some aspect of the game that doesn't involve combat. There should be a greater variety of risks, not just more of a single kind.
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
I'm perfectly happy to have vary degrees and types of risk in different areas of the galaxy. If you want to trade in monitored space because it's safe.. that's fine. Just don't expect to make a lot of money at it. You are correct in stating that there are other forms of risk. I may have implied it, but I certainly didn't mean that to include getting blown up outside your nation capital.
What I don't think should happen is for traders to be able to grind away in nation space without any chance of losing anything except some money.
In a different thread I suggested that trade XP could be linked to profitability by the following method. You lose 1/10 of a point for every credit worth of cargo you buy. You gain 1/10 for every credit you sell it for. Net profit = net xp gain. o lose money, you lose trade xp. (I wouldn't take licenses away tho).
From your previous post I see that you are probably one of those people who have adapted to the current system and will resist any change in it. All I have to say is if they do change it, try it out for a while and then decide. Ultimately this game is little more than an opportunity to pay to beta test. So you might as well test. If it doesn't work out, it can always be changed back.
Ultimately the final decider of "fun for who" will be the Devs. I admit, I prefer my games hard and challenging and I realize that not everyone feels the same way. In fact, some days I just want to kick back a bit too.
My major complaint was that it feels to me like the galaxy is 95% safe and the other 5% danger comes from other players. That leaves PvP or CtC to be the only real challenges around, and even that gets old quick.
Well this thread is officially off topic. If you want to debate fundamental things like the amount of danger in the game, I suggest you start a new thread.
What I don't think should happen is for traders to be able to grind away in nation space without any chance of losing anything except some money.
In a different thread I suggested that trade XP could be linked to profitability by the following method. You lose 1/10 of a point for every credit worth of cargo you buy. You gain 1/10 for every credit you sell it for. Net profit = net xp gain. o lose money, you lose trade xp. (I wouldn't take licenses away tho).
From your previous post I see that you are probably one of those people who have adapted to the current system and will resist any change in it. All I have to say is if they do change it, try it out for a while and then decide. Ultimately this game is little more than an opportunity to pay to beta test. So you might as well test. If it doesn't work out, it can always be changed back.
Ultimately the final decider of "fun for who" will be the Devs. I admit, I prefer my games hard and challenging and I realize that not everyone feels the same way. In fact, some days I just want to kick back a bit too.
My major complaint was that it feels to me like the galaxy is 95% safe and the other 5% danger comes from other players. That leaves PvP or CtC to be the only real challenges around, and even that gets old quick.
Well this thread is officially off topic. If you want to debate fundamental things like the amount of danger in the game, I suggest you start a new thread.