The Universe - How I see It working.

1604444 · April 21, 2013, 8:03pm

This should be an interesting Read, So bare with me.

Few things to know before we get started,

The universe is free travel like eve, But only after a training period (like the start of black prophecy) until they you are in a single system For a few hours (3-4) played time. After this, they should notify you on how to leave the system and to start in the universe, I think the transition should work something like go report to someone over here, and then he gives a few additional informational quests to get you situated.

There is a tier system in this design, but its not as the current system is exactly. In the current game, there is a concept that i wish to expand on. That is that as you grow you gain access to more advanced technologies (like cloaking, and heavy weapons). In my version of the game, this tier system is called “technology level” and a tech level 1 ship can fight and kill a tech level 5 ship, almost easy as he can a level 5. The only major difference is that he cant cloak, and the tech 5 ship has 2-3k more hp.

Lets get Started.

The galaxy Will Be Layed out into 3 Zones.

Home World System - The Primary System of a race, Acts as the main location for the race’s focus, and also the races major trade hub.

Racial Colonies - These systems are the primarily safety zones of the game. For players who are not interested in conquest of the universe. (Like eves high sect).

Outer Sectors - These are the conquest Zones of the game for corporations. They can be built up to being consider part of the races sectors (which takes lots of time).

Outer Sectors - Reputational levels

Allied Sector - This is when a corporation conquers a zone, and its neighboring its races main systems, or connected to it.

Independent sector - This Sector is not connected to its races zone. Its considered a free sector (see below by this matters)

Hostile Sector - This is the sector belonging to another race.

Above You can see the layout of sectors. The blue is an home-world sector, The green is colonies, And the Grey is for Conquerable Outer-sectors.

Conquest System, and the universe.

What i would like to see in time is the conquest system influencing the universe, and i designed this system to do so. what will happen is those core

sectors will always belong to that race, we can say their military is just to powerful to conquer those zones. But the Outer colonies can be conquested

by any of the 3 factions (or even others in the future)

What Will happen is we will give the universe a layout. This will be divided into zones, and those zones will fit over the systems of the universe.

A concept is as follows

Now as you take Sectors, The Start to Change Color, Just Like they will for conquest of Sectors. Thus, Players will start to shape the galaxy.

Now in time, you will cause the players of the factor wars to spread and change the galaxy through their conquest. This will give rise to corporations

That can either Fuel their race, or work independently. Further, Such relations can have benefits.

The benefits of sectors

Allied Racial Sectors will give discounts on repairs for their race, and reduction to their races module depending on the systems loyalty.

Loyalty of a system builds over time, and only represent how long its been under the control of that race (specifically that races corporation who

conquered it).

Independent sectors are under the control of those who are not declaring a support for their race. These sectors will gain a bonus for things

that can be added in the game later, Most specifically Trading. But will also offer a lower reduction to repair costs and modules, but will also

Grant it for all races.

Enemy sectors can be traded in, however the repair and module cost rates will rise (+10-+15%) above normal value.

Conquest of the systems and how this will work, can be worked upon and developed by the devs, but it should include some sort

of military based game/match/action. And these mechanics should have a cool down for the system. in other words, you cant spam

attacks at it, it has say a 4 or 12 hour cool down on it (i’d like it to vary based on the loyalty of the system, the higher, the longer the wait)

Life in the universe as we know it

I would like to see the universe have many aspects to it. Here is a list

Trading

This is a subsection that i can talk about all day, Im a pvper by nature but trading i have always found to be fun if designed right.

sadly though in eve, i found it to be a large turn off because of its complexity.

I would like the trading to be based from trade-based only stations that are located say every 2-3 systems in frequency.

The reason for this is because of the simi-compelx nature i wish to give to them.

In a system we will have planets, and based on the core planet of that system i’d like to see it produce a specific or Specific types of trade goods

based on the planets composition (atmosphere) it self.

I would like to see at least 8 different types of planets, but welcome more. Below is a list. I have listed them according to max population (Will effect the trade goods production rates, The top will produce the fastest, but cheapest, and the bottom the slowest but most expensive)

Earth like

Ocean

Water

Rock

Desert

Ice

Volcano

Gas

Each planet should offer unique things. For example Rock planets can provide Gold, one of the highest valued trade goods.

Ice planets can offer uranium, and earth planets food.

In addition to what each planet offers, they should also demand a Product.

Products should be created or made automatically by sims, and deposited automatically on stations.

this way you can log in, and search for example the sector trade list to see what each station has on it then fly there.

this will encourage traders to seek the trade goods most expensive, which will cause their demand to be very high by player

base, Increasing their value greatly. Out side of doing that trade, their normal runs will be spam low quality goods, or moderate quality.

Purpose of mining: Simply to make money, and offer PvPers something to shoot at.

Note: Trading goods will not exceed say 50 in amount say 5 goods per planet.

The Purpose of Trading: Trading will offer The planets the goods they need. A corporation focused on this

can grow the systems income rates. As the station sells goods, Either to its own members, or visitors, It gives some

of the profit to the corporations.

Now lets say the corporations member buys 100k credits in trade goods, because is a corp member, he will receive 10% off.

Further, the station will pay to the corporation 75% of what it made by selling the goods. (25% is to help stabilize the economy)

So traders by trading at your station increases the corp wallet, and your own, but others visiting provide even more benefit

by making more money because of that other 10% gained.

Mining

I would love to see mining in this game, but i would like it to work fundamentally the same as eve, but at the same time its purpose to be different.

I enjoy the concept of various types of rocks to min in eve, but i think it may be to complex So i am looking at simplifying it but also making it improve in none-racial colonies Basically i want to see three types of nodes to mine they are as follows

Small asteroids, have a limited amount of minerals in it

Large asteroids Corporations build rigs on these to automatically mine for them. They Will be managed in a corporate panel to officers.

Comets: These are unlike the other two. They are extremely rare, if there is 100 systems in the universe, they will be present in 20-30, they also Are randomly generated.

Small asteroid belts will offer 30-50 asteroids. the value of each will be 25k-50k (belt should be a few million credits, but take a few hours to mine) They are also

very common in racial colonies, and have a respawn timer of 2-3 hours.

Large asteroids Are singular per a belt. They cannot be destroyed. They will only permit one rig on it at a time. And will auto-sell its minerals

at around 125k every 2 hours.

Comets are mined by rigs, cost a lot to build, but will produce the highest income. The are destroyable and have a 12-18 hour respawn timer on it.

Generally they will make 500k For a corp in 1 hour, then die off.

Type of mining offered.

Rigs - For large asteroids, and comets. Cost Money and time to build.

Mining Ships - These vary in tiers,the higher the tier, the faster the mining rates. Mining barges have the ability to refine and sell the ore automatically.

Each race has a unique benefit to mining.

Federation: -Fed Mining ships have mini-drones that automatically refine and sell your ore from your cargo hold.

Empire: increase refining rates, gaining a bonus amount of the materials refined.

Jericho: Explosives -Fed Mining ships can equip special Mines that detonate on use of a detonation module (Active). Be careful, they can damage your ship!

Purpose of mining : Mining will grant two minerals. The first is gems, and ores that are worth lots of money (small asteroids) the second is special metals

like Uranium, and titanium to build special things like space stations, and capitals.

Travel in the universe

This is how i see the universe working. While i agree that jump-gates are amazing, I am against them in principle because

they cause gate camping. And even if you add weapons to the game, you will get some abuse. So i am looking at a travel system

that is not based on gate use, However i believe the core systems for each race should connect each other.

What i have designed is a system based on tiers, That promote the tier ships at a higher rank to be favored over the others.

As technology progress so do does its ability and performance. So i would add new mechanics to each ship.the First

is a fuel storage and a calculation to base its usage on range of the jump (and only that). Then i would add a mechanic

Max jump range (that would be something like max jump calibration 2.5ly (light years). I would design it so that any

ship can make any jump, but the lower tier ships would need to refuel after 1-2 jumps if they were say 7-10Ly (10 or 15 ly being max).

This would make travel difficult on lower tier’d ships, but easier on higher tier. The primary reason i did this

was to motivate leveling, and also to give traders a sort of advantage over pvpers. I would for example Make

a cool down of the jump/warp system (15 interceptor, 30 fighter, 60 frigate). Trade/mining ships would be around 45 Seconds.

Lastly, i would add an X,Y Mechanic to that game so that players can choose where they come out of warp, and on top of that

adding a mechanic to prevent warping to the station to be closer then 10k. (so you can warp instantly to safety you still have

to travel at least 10k to get docked up and safe. I would also add Passives to reduce this to 5km.

More to come as requested.

Edit: i want to add the followig

When being a corporate member, you can view the stock of any trade station in your corp space.

This is a benefit over visitors, to help corp members have a benefit of trading in their own space, which

encourages some increase focused as an economic empire.

I’d like to see the large asteroids used for military defenses to. Maybe the can act as footholds to prevent conquest of a system.

1604444 · April 21, 2013, 8:09pm

I see tier ships fitting into this on the following bases

All tiers have the same mod / Passive amount.

The only difference between tiers is that higher technology (tech levels) gets more modules.Like Cloaking, or heavy weapons.

The Hp from tier 1 to tier 5 is 5-7.5% Difference.

Out side of that, I see no reason to make Tier 1 Only battle zones. I feel that all players should compete for all content at all times.

4134325 · April 21, 2013, 11:25pm

I think there should be an emphasis on controlling the resources(mining area) and able to use those precious resources you collect to build a wide variety of space structures(shipyards, refuelling station, trade depot, defence satellite etc.) that is destroyable.

1604444 · April 22, 2013, 12:05am

Totally can Agree with that. One really interesting idea is the idea of resupply Depots, A special structure built in the systems to act as a sort of Fuel supply for ships, causing them

to refuel while in system (slowly) and quickly when close to the station.

This can help make tactical moving with fleets much faster, and interesting.

Other fun things for structures for clans might be Training facilities that grant synergy gain over a duration. Say something like 1000 per hour.

This could allow synergy to be increased in cost to level, but more valuable the higher rating it is… something i feel is vastly needed for the game.

There is many types of structures like this that can be made to create a serious objective for miners to build for corporations including things like

Automated Alert systems (that spawn a few npc ships on the enemy when entering the system).

Mine Fields that can be placed strategically.

Defense Weapons That act as sort of stationary defense platforms.

Building up a massive spot in the system with lots of weapons would be something fun and interesting to see.

4160971 · April 22, 2013, 5:00pm

Mining does not need to exist, especially if it is only for money.

There is no end-game credit sink. what do we need money for?
We currently do not have crafting, so there’s no need to switch this for crafting materials instead.
this is star conflict, not star miner. it makes no sense for us to have mining. if you want to add in solo content for ways to make money, say that. it’s more specific.

It would make more sense to add in ‘training exercises’ where you go against NPC ships of your faction’s military. you’re being paid to train raw recruits in a live-fire exercise. this makes sense with the game’s structure, lore, etc. mining does not.

The game should remain lobby based. IE: no travel. travel should consist of you clicking on a sector, entering the queue, and then playing a game. click => wait => play. That’s it. no travel. no warp gates, no potential for camping. we don’t really need open-world areas where we can fly around. it doesn’t really server a purpose aside to add potential trolling. time should be spent on the social aspect of the game instead.

We. Do. Not. Need. Trading. (right now)

Before trading can happen we need a crafting system, so we have things to trade.

Before trading we need an end-game credit sink. (The main purpose of trading is for wealth. there is currently no point to wealth, because we have nothing to spend money on)

Trading also adds in the potential of RMT. this takes money away from the devs and puts it on a third party.

Trading also causes an imbalance in the economy. less money leaves the system. therefore money is worth less. this causes a major impact on the lower ranks where money is ‘harder’ to obtain. so we amass tons of money end-game, where we have nothing to spend it on, and then we have no money early/mid game where we really need it.

Trading causes a lot more problems than it solves. especially since there is 0 point to have it right now. we need too many other things first.

TL;DR:

More of the same crap you’ve posted before. a few good ideas buried under a plethora of bad ideas. Overall: no. we dont need any of this right now. we still need to fix core problems.

3313217 · April 22, 2013, 7:37pm

Responses in blue, because it is easier than breaking apart the quote tags some 15 times or so…

Mining does not need to exist, especially if it is only for money.
It is not only for money, it is also for materials. These materials as stated by Uhmari will be to build bases, stations, etc.

There is no end-game credit sink. what do we need money for?
Ship repair is already in game as a credit sink, corporations buying stations would also likely cost a LARGE sum of money, another good credit sink (this was not explicitly mentioned by Uhmari, but nothing is free, especially space staions, so one can deduce it would be costly). Lots and lots of costs can be added to any game to sink credits. Buy ship fuel. By passports. You could pull lots of things out of nowhere to sink credits into just for sinking credits.

We currently do not have crafting, so there’s no need to switch this for crafting materials instead.
Crafting is something that afaik is definitely planned by the devs, so yes, switching to crafting materials makes sense.

this is star conflict, not star miner. it makes no sense for us to have mining. if you want to add in solo content for ways to make money, say that. it’s more specific.
No, this isn’t star miner, and adding mining is not to make this either star miner OR as solo content ways to make money (imo). How I see this proposal is more of a way to add value to taking systems. Why conquest besides just ownership? Add mining (~half of which is automated anyways by the rigs system), and systems now have a value and a reason to conquest. Conquest for materials, use these materials to create star bases, dreadnoughts, etc and increase your corp/faction power. It is a good system.
It would make more sense to add in ‘training exercises’ where you go against NPC ships of your faction’s military. you’re being paid to train raw recruits in a live-fire exercise. this makes sense with the game’s structure, lore, etc. mining does not.

Not a bad idea, at least as a solo content profit maker idea (though this is not exactly relevant as a replacement for mining, since mining is generally for materials for corps, not credits as explained above)

The game should remain lobby based. IE: no travel. travel should consist of you clicking on a sector, entering the queue, and then playing a game. click => wait => play. That’s it. no travel. no warp gates (already mentioned avoiding), no potential for camping (already mentioned avoiding). we don’t really need open-world areas where we can fly around. it doesn’t really server a purpose aside to add potential trolling. time should be spent on the social aspect of the game instead.

Time should be spent on the social aspect of the game? A lobby based system doesn’t really support any social interaction at all. You just play and kill people, that is not social An open world system would encourage a social aspect. Also while there is free travel, it is in fact actually quite similiar to a lobby system. The difference is that, instead of sitting in some lobby, you sit in your current system, and instead of queuing to join any system you can only join nearby systems. This adds the idea of travelling in space instead of creating an artificial travel system by your supposed click => wait => play. Interesting no? Simply, there is no reason to force a lobby system, a open travel system is almost the same thing, but you get the illusion of travel instead of having this disjointed impression that would feel like joining a server in call of duty (well, the older games when servers existed :P)

We. Do. Not. Need. Trading. (right now)
Why not? And this is plans for the future after all, not plans for the “to be implemented tomorrow”.
Before trading can happen we need a crafting system, so we have things to trade.
Planned by devs (afaik)
Before trading we need an end-game credit sink. (The main purpose of trading is for wealth. there is currently no point to wealth, because we have nothing to spend money on)
True, UNLESS you trade on a barter system, item for item, not item for credits. But if they opt for the latter, there is no reason credit sinks cannot be added (as mentioned earlier)
Trading also adds in the potential of RMT. this takes money away from the devs and puts it on a third party.
How? If I understand this correctly, you are saying people will pay each other in real money for rare modules correct? Assume they do, how does this take money from the devs? It is not as if we were going to pay the devs for the same module instead (most notably due to the fact that you can’t anyways). This is assuming they don’t implement a micro-transaction system to buy parts to make into modules or something of the like, in that case I could see this argument.
Trading also causes an imbalance in the economy. less money leaves the system. therefore money is worth less. this causes a major impact on the lower ranks where money is ‘harder’ to obtain. so we amass tons of money end-game, where we have nothing to spend it on (credit sinks, mentioned previously), and then we have no money early/mid game where we really need it.
This is incorrect.
Case 1: You are trading a module you can buy. In this case your argument is valid, the solution is to disable trading of buyable modules (namely mk1/2 and probably mk3/premium as well)

Case 2: You are trading a module that you cannot buy. In this case you cannot sink credits by buying the item anyways, so what harm is there in trading? It simply swaps who owns x credits and who owns y item. This does not add credits, or prevent removal of credits (since you cannot sink credits to buy it), thus the economy is not effected.
Trading causes a lot more problems than it solves. especially since there is 0 point to have it right now. we need too many other things first.

TL;DR:

More of the same crap you’ve posted before. a few good ideas buried under a plethora of bad ideas. Overall: no. we dont need any of this right now. we still need to fix core problems.

More of the same ideas he’s posted before, many good ideas buried under a plethora of positive votes. Overall: yes. we clearly want this in the future, this will fix core problems.

1604444 · April 22, 2013, 8:11pm

Flip Read over your post, and see how he repeats himself over and over, I think he has ADHD or something…

4160971 · April 23, 2013, 7:14pm

It is not only for money, it is also for materials. These materials as stated by Uhmari will be to build bases, stations, etc.

Again, we have other things to worry about. Again, i’m not exactly opposed to the idea, it just shouldn’t be on the table right now. other things need to happen first. you’re counting your chickens before they’ve hatched.

Ugh…

Ship repair is already in game as a credit sink, corporations buying stations would also likely cost a LARGE sum of money, another good credit sink (this was not explicitly mentioned by Uhmari, but nothing is free, especially space staions, so one can deduce it would be costly). Lots and lots of costs can be added to any game to sink credits. Buy ship fuel. By passports. You could pull lots of things out of nowhere to sink credits into just for sinking credits.

Stations are corp only. individuals can’t, and shouldn’t, own stations. the price point should reflect that. If a ship can cost 6m, i’d expect a station to cost a couple hundred mil at least.

Ship repair costs, while they are a credit sink, aren’t an end-game credit sink. doing PvE you can amass FAR more credits than you spend. IE: it’s not a good enough credit sink. so while I agree it’s good. it’s not good enough

Buying fuel, passports, etc. are also early-mid career items. we need a solid end-game credit sink. i’m hoping the crafting system will handle this. but none of us know how this will be implemented. IE: there’s not a lot of point talking about supporting systems until the main system is up.

If it was up to me, I would remove the Mk II and Mk III items from the store and have them be craft only. this would add further incentive to the premium modules. you could also add in lower cost options to speed up crafting times.

Also, there is nothing that mining can do that can’t also be accomplished with fixes to the loot system. IE: mining is not needed. it’s not a good idea or bad idea because it’s interesting or fun. its a bad idea because its not what the game needs. while I agree a way to acquire crafting materials will eventually be needed, this isn’t the only path forward, and it’s certainly not something we should be worried about until we have a reason to. IE: we can craft.

And yes, afaik a crafting system is on the way. but it’s not here yet. so lets have some faith in the devs and see what they’ve got. until then we’ve only got theory and philosophy. we can argue this all day, but neither of us is right or wrong.

What is right, is that we need something to do with credits end game. we have plenty to do early/mid game. new ships are an option, but eventually you hit a cap. a good crafting system will accomplish this, but it depends on what you are crafting. to me, it makes sense to remove the Mk II+ items from the shop and make them craftable. so MK III+ items are ‘end game’ items for a given tier.

This gives the players option also, do they want to specialize in T4 ships or T2 ships? which meta do they prefer? etc. this adds a lot of depth to the game without increasing complexity.

Time should be spent on the social aspect of the game? A lobby based system doesn’t really support any social interaction at all. You just play and kill people, that is not social An open world system would encourage a social aspect. Also while there is free travel, it is in fact actually quite similiar to a lobby system. The difference is that, instead of sitting in some lobby, you sit in your current system, and instead of queuing to join any system you can only join nearby systems. This adds the idea of travelling in space instead of creating an artificial travel system by your supposed click => wait => play. Interesting no? Simply, there is no reason to force a lobby system, a open travel system is almost the same thing, but you get the illusion of travel instead of having this disjointed impression that would feel like joining a server in call of duty (well, the older games when servers existed :P)

The MMO market is changing rapidly. preference on the social aspect is more philosophy than anything else. people will have differing opinions. I largely agree with several popular theorists. I’ll borrow from Yoshi P. I like to give credit where it is due, and a lot of what i’ll say is his philosophy. I’ll be expanding and using my own personal opinions, but the key principles are from a post he made.

1. MMO are based on the premise of party play. (Which is why there is that Massively Multiplayer in the title)

-Playing in a party should not be necessary until a certain point, while the player is on the learning curve. this allows them to get their bearings. I’d love to see early solo content. it would be great for new players so they can get used to the game. this is far more important, and far better for the game, than something like mining will ever be. but this isn’t needed for the game right now either.

Party play is a key element often focused on in the online gaming industry, and I believe it’s what makes MMOs so appealing. To effectively incorporate party play, we first eliminated the stress of needing to form a party in the beginning of the game, and by mid-game players will start to find more content that requires teamwork. By end-game, players should be fairly comfortable with group play as they take on the more challenging content. This is the primary reason the Tier system has an opportunity to work beautifully in a way that Uhmari’s system cannot. Uhmari’s system relies on a ‘tech tree’ system. you have several different tech levels for a ship. So essentially we’re replacing the tiered ships with tiered skill slots. It’s also the main reason we need better social aspects.

Player retention is often based on social pressure as well as fun. ‘I have friends in the game i want to play with. i will keep playing.’ Versus ‘I can’t find anyone to play with, and i’m getting bored playing alone. i’ll go play something else because finding a good/competent group is hard.’ If we wanted to play by ourselves we’d go play single player games. that’s what those are for. Online games are meant to be social.

2. If the game has a wide variety of exciting game elements, players will be compelled to try them.

- Regardless of the learning curve, new players should not feel overwhelmed. which is why i prefer to keep the tier system, its far more clear where the variety is, and it makes it easier to balance that variety. Under the tier system we currently see 3 distinct Meta’s. we have the potential to have one for each tier. I’d like to see this continue. I don’t feel it is necessary however. there are plenty of other ways to do this. this is also why i feel that if we move to a more open universe, we need to segregate sectors by tier. our current system works fine. and i don’t think it should be changed. however it’s been out for…like a day. so i might change my mind after more exposure.

We should be forming lasting relationships early on, that will carry over into late game. we should be able to meet people while playing in the early tiers, or have exposure to corporation that we may want to join. we need major work on the social aspect so a community can be formed. not just on a large corporation scale, but also on the small scale.

Looking at CoD, there are a large segment of PUGers that only go in solo. but there’s also a large population that play together all the time. you form a group, you learn how you play with that group, and that makes a rewarding experience. when the next CoD game comes out the group moves as a unit to the new game. the same should happen here from tier to tier.

However we have no real way of communicating. the matches are so fast that we cant’ really talk to one-another or discuss strategy. This isn’t bad, it’s just a restriction on how to develop a good social network within the game. this is something it desperately needs.

I’ve spent a fair bit of time studying other large MMORPGs currently on the market. I beta test a lot. More importantly, I’ve been looking at retention rates once betas end. The longevity of an MMO depends on retention. This was a problem with Black Prophecy. no-one wanted to keep playing. This is why it’s important to understand that game developers for online games should always make their decisions based on retention rate. However not every developer is also a gamer, especially abroad. In the United States, this is largely the case. The same is increasingly true in Japan. These are some of the Major gaming markets, and they make most of the AAA titles. IE: the best games the market has to offer are made by gamers. this is because they know what is fun. However these are also major companies. they have people on staff that study and understand the market. not just what is fun. the market shifts and moves constantly and developers big and small need to be able to adapt within the market they are targeting.

For Star Conflict, we’re looking at the ‘space battle’ genre. However we should be looking at popular aspects of other similar games. The most successful (and fun) lobby based games i’ve played are Vindictus and League of Legends. One is an action based MMORPG, the other is a MOBA. aspects of both of these games can be incorporated.

Uhmari often mentions a game called Black Prophecy. But here’s the thing about Black Prophecy: _it failed. _The servers went up in 2011. the servers came down in 2012. it did so abysmally bad that it didn’t even last a year. so…i’d be very cautious about using anything from that game, or trying to make this game that game. Emulating a game that failed and expecting it to succeed is insanity. Uhmari liked the game. GREAT! good for him! really i’m sincere about that. but he’s a minority there. That needs to be considered.

If we want the game to be considered a success and have a lot of players, we need to attract a lot of players. how do you do that? by fixing the core problems with the game and expanding AFTER those problems are fixed.

This is incorrect.

Case 1: You are trading a module you can buy. In this case your argument is valid, the solution is to disable trading of buyable modules (namely mk1/2 and probably mk3/premium as well)

Case 2: You are trading a module that you cannot buy. In this case you cannot sink credits by buying the item anyways, so what harm is there in trading? It simply swaps who owns x credits and who owns y item. This does not add credits, or prevent removal of credits (since you cannot sink credits to buy it), thus the economy is not effected.

Trading causes a lot more problems than it solves. especially since there is 0 point to have it right now. we need too many other things first.

This is where the engineering skill set really comes into play. you’re not thinking about the problem, you’re just arguing for the sake of it. your counter example is incomplete, and you’re not seeing the entire picture.

Case 2: What does the buyer of the green/purple module do with his old module? he sells it on the trade network. it will be cheaper than buying it from the shop, but more than the NPC shop sale.

What this means is, the community as a whole will not purchase things from NPCs. they will always try to purchase from the trade network, its cheaper that way. The same is true of materials. if they are available in an NPC shop, they will be cheaper on the trade market, because the players are competing with the NPCs for credits. the NPC prices do not change, so you make it cheaper because you gathered them yourself through mining/looting. So money doesn’t leave the system that way either.

When we win matches credits enter the system. when we buy things from the NPC shops credits leave the system. Credits can also leave the system by taxes on the trade network. this is the primary reason why this tax exists. its not for immersion, its an economic control of the system. otherwise credits never leave the system and this drastically affects the ‘value’ of a credit.

A Barter system is similar. however what constitutes a ‘fair’ trade? it’s not as intuitive. the point of trade is profit. so you have a purple stasis generator. what is that worth on a barter system? a purple flare? how will a new player determine that? there’s a reason you don’t see barter systems in major MMOs. it’s a convoluted system. under a barter system the only people that will really trade are friends. ‘oh, i got this module i don’t use. but it fits your playstyle. here you take it, give me something worthless and i’ll just sell it.’ however this same thing can be done by adding a ‘loot pool’ during the loot phase if you’re in a squad. this would also be a lot easier to implement. when you are looting, and you see an item, you’re given an option to throw it in the pool for your squad or keep it.

there are tons of studies on this. I dont’ want to go into detail, but that’s the nutshell version. Open trading is nice. I’m all for it in most games. but in a game like this, it can cause major major issues. so it should be avoided if possible.

If it was up to me, i’d love to redesign the entire game. Uhmari has good ideas, but they don’t fit here. that makes them bad ideas.

If We go into detail, but there are several contradicting philosophies that can go either way. which is the primary reason why good designers aren’t constantly redesigning everything. it just doesn’t make sense. Which is the primary reason i don’t make up stuff and suggest that. I always suggest on improvements to existing designs. However occasionally you run into an engine so bad it’s not possible to salvage. but even in these cases you do what you can. (See FFXIV before the servers went down and they rebuilt the engine). The contradicting philosophies for design are as follows:

- If you make a game simple, it’s easy to understand, but it can also be stale and unoriginal.

This is the primary reason why we can go back and forth on tiers or no tiers all day every day. Each one offers unique advantages and disadvantages.

The main determining factors are population and time to implement. both can accomplish what you need.

Our current system based on tiers works poorly with a small population. a larger population will alleviate a lot of its problems. However, the mixing of tiers is alienating to players because it adds an aspect that you can’t overcome certain walls due to power level differences. however i’m inclined to wait it out and see what happens. largely because it works better with a big population, and we expect the population to get bigger upon release. the downside is it makes things now, feel awkward and harmful. many of these things can be mitigated with better MMing however. which is the other big reason i am against divergering from our current system of tiers. even if we switch, our MMing algorithms will be very similar. so we’ll still have issues with MMing. so we might as well fix MMing now, rather than working on a new system. once fixes are in place, time will have passed and we will have more data to make a decision on. IE: fix what we’ll need to fix anyway first, then look at options to see if our current system is still sustainable. moving to a non-tier system masks the problem. it doesn’t fix it. Uhmari can argue this to the high-heavens and back. but it doesn’t change the fact that MMing will need to be adjusted either way. we should do it now and explore a new system later.

On the other hand, a completely open tier-free system can work with any size populations. but gameplay will be stale because it’s the same at all levels (and this is the aspect that Uhmari fails to understand or consider). the ships are brought much closer to each other in terms of stats. so essentially you can do anything with any ship. while this sounds great on paper, this doesn’t always mean its fun. gamers like being able to do unique things. counter play is fun. strategy is fun. this is why the MOBA genre has become so popular. this is much much harder to do in Uhmari’s suggestion. Uhmari can’t see that because he’s not familiar with design. he’s never studied risk analysis or failure modes. he doesn’t know how to piece everything together. so while his ideas are ‘good’ they are also ‘bad’ at the same time for a different reason.

As an example: CFL lighting. People love these. they use less energy. they last longer. they are marketed as ‘more green’ because of this. However these bulbs contain mercury. and what happens to mercury when it enters our waste system? it goes one of two places. into the ocean, or into our drinking water. and there it sits because we can’t really get rid of it.

What does this have to do with this conversation? good ideas have untended consequences. Uhmari is not addressing these consequences and dancing around the real problems. such as MMing, lack of end-game content, lack of a credit sink. things the game needs NOW. rather than make a new system, which will have new problems, many we don’t think of, we should fix our current system because we already know the problems. what looks like a good idea now can have major repercussions later. saying ‘the system will fall into place’ is a bad counter argument. why should we develop new system on a promise when its far easier, and concrete, to just fix what we have?

- If you make the game complex and action oriented, it can be exciting, but also convoluted.

This is an issue of demographics. A game’s core design should allow for leisurely play over a long period of time.

Looking at MMO demographics, for example, your average player is younger now than when the first generation of MMOs were released. However, players tend to be older due during the use of a subscription model. So when they come home from work or school and decide to play, even if it’s only for an hour or two, they should be able to enjoy themselves. In other words, the use of mundane grinding for hours on end is no longer an effective means to stay competitive in the current MMO market. Which is why Freemium models and cash markets are becoming harder and harder to use. For the space genre, this is true as well. most younger people likely aren’t as excited with space combat because they didn’t grow up watching Star Trek, Battle Star, etc. So I would expect our player base to be generally older than average.

Also, because these concepts will dictate the game’s core design, any updates or new content released will inevitably be dictated by said core. And we have a good core already. it needs some tweaks, but it can be very sustainable with some adjustments.

The thing about Uhmari is he’s not a design major. he’s a debate major. do you know why you need lobbyists and debate majors? to make bad ideas look good. a good idea can stand on its own. you can bring in data and experts to support those good ideas and philosophies. for bad ideas you need someone who can spin a web. someone who can debate and make your bad idea look like the better idea even though its not. IE: Uhmari’s ideas aren’t really good. he just makes them look good. no data. no expert opinions. and he constantly mentions a game that failed. so why would i listen to him?

Uhmari has made several good ideas. and i’ve support those ideas. but they are few and far between, and often hidden in a bunch of crap. He’s also terrible at explaining things and uses incorrect terminology. but he’s a debate major, i expect that.

He’s not putting his ideas up for discussion. he’s putting them up for support. This is the major I problem I have. As an engineer i’m part of the scientific community. we rely on our peers because often times they see problems we don’t. Uhmari doesn’t want to hear about why his ideas are bad. to him they’re good and there’s nothing you can say to convince him otherwise. I’ve proved that in every other thread i’ve posted in that belongs to him. he refuses to discuss. he presents no lasting counter arguements. he has no data. all his logic paths are subjective. and if you disagree with him he just says ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about.’ and that’s the end of it for him.

So yeah. it’s More of the same crap you’ve posted before. a few good ideas buried under a plethora of bad ideas. Overall: no. we dont need any of this right now. we still need to fix core problems.

3313217 · April 23, 2013, 10:59pm

Again, we have other things to worry about. Again, i’m not exactly opposed to the idea, it just shouldn’t be on the table right now. other things need to happen first. you’re counting your chickens before they’ve hatched.

Ugh…

We need other things to happen yes. You keep forgetting, this isn’t about the game now, it is about the game in the future, when open world comes out. That is a long ways away. Some progress can be made now surely, but most of it is ideas for how the open world should be created.

Stations are corp only. individuals can’t, and shouldn’t, own stations. the price point should reflect that. If a ship can cost 6m, i’d expect a station to cost a couple hundred mil at least.

Corps are not an entity you realize. They make money from the players by what is essentially taxation (read OP again) So players ARE paying for these stations.

Ship repair costs, while they are a credit sink, aren’t an end-game credit sink. doing PvE you can amass FAR more credits than you spend. IE: it’s not a good enough credit sink. so while I agree it’s good. it’s not good enough

You clearly haven’t played tier 4 then… Also I would like to bring up a nice controversial point. Let us start with some background though. Inflation is created in games because NPCs give money buy creating it out of thin air. They add money to the economy. So how do you counter the inherent inflation? By taking out EXACTLY the amount of money put in. Take out less, you get inflation; take out more, you get deflation. The problem is, doing this means you don’t ever gain money, you lose all your new money to what is essentially NPC tax. You cannot make progress in this system. Thus inflation is unavoidable if you want players to actually gain money… or is it? Now for the controversy: Do you know why repairing tier 4 ships costs a huge amount more than you gain back for playing? Yep. It removes money from the game in such a way as to keep the economy balanced (assuming you actually wish to play tier 4). Play T1-3 to gain some money, inherently causing inflation due to NPC vendors (an inflation you cannot avoid), and counter it by creating a mass money dump for the end game. You are not supposed to play T4 constantly, it is supposed to take all your money. That is the point. What is nice though, is that with these ships The irony is, you keep asking for a massive end-game credit dump. It exists. It is called T4.

So how would this work without tiers? Well lots of ways in theory, though I won’t go into them. It just needs somewhere for players to throw away their credits, and ship repairs are quite a good one, and somewhere else to gain them.

Buying fuel, passports, etc. are also early-mid career items. we need a solid end-game credit sink. i’m hoping the crafting system will handle this. but none of us know how this will be implemented. IE: there’s not a lot of point talking about supporting systems until the main system is up.

Why are these all early-mid career items? Do you suppose late career ships don’t run on fuel? That your passports never expire? And there is reason to talk about this. You asked for an end-game credit sink. I gave you some credit sinks. Now you are saying we shouldn’t talk about credit sinks. So, either A: This is a worthy topic of discussion or B: You are being contradictory (arguing we need credit sinks, then saying my examples of solutions is irrelevant because credit sinks aren’t a valid topic) bringing your entire argument into question.

If it was up to me, I would remove the Mk II and Mk III items from the store and have them be craft only. this would add further incentive to the premium modules. you could also add in lower cost options to speed up crafting times.

Also, there is nothing that mining can do that can’t also be accomplished with fixes to the loot system. IE: mining is not needed. it’s not a good idea or bad idea because it’s interesting or fun. its a bad idea because its not what the game needs. while I agree a way to acquire crafting materials will eventually be needed, this isn’t the only path forward, and it’s certainly not something we should be worried about until we have a reason to. IE: we can craft.

(This is based on the assumption that we will always gain loot the same way. Maybe we will, maybe we won’t. So *shrug* we will see I guess. As for the corp side of mining though, I still feel this is definitely necessary. There needs to be a reason to conquer sectors, and that one is a great one. This is assuming an automated mining approach of course, like pay credits, rig is auto-build and generates materials…)

And yes, afaik a crafting system is on the way. but it’s not here yet. so lets have some faith in the devs and see what they’ve got. until then we’ve only got theory and philosophy. we can argue this all day, but neither of us is right or wrong.

What is right, is that we need something to do with credits end game (as above, t4 is the most massive end-game credit sink I have ever seen). we have plenty to do early/mid game. new ships are an option, but eventually you hit a cap. a good crafting system will accomplish this, but it depends on what you are crafting. to me, it makes sense to remove the Mk II+ items from the shop and make them craftable. so MK III+ items are ‘end game’ items for a given tier.

<snip>

I’ve spent a fair bit of time studying other large MMORPGs currently on the market. I beta test a lot. More importantly, I’ve been looking at retention rates once betas end. The longevity of an MMO depends on retention. This was a problem with Black Prophecy. no-one wanted to keep playing.

This is also because BlackProphecy forced people into sectioned off portions of the universe based on tier. Something you also support. So you study games such as Black Prophecy, which failed in some degree due to this, yet in the past you have supported this system for Star Conflict. Questionable.

Uhmari often mentions a game called Black Prophecy. But here’s the thing about Black Prophecy: _it failed. _The servers went up in 2011. the servers came down in 2012. it did so abysmally bad that it didn’t even last a year. so…i’d be very cautious about using anything from that game, or trying to make this game that game. Emulating a game that failed and expecting it to succeed is insanity. Uhmari liked the game. GREAT! good for him! really i’m sincere about that. but he’s a minority there. That needs to be considered.

Oh we know it failed. We don’t want anything like Black Prophecy at all (do you even recall his last post about open and closed worlds? Did you even read it before just saying “NO!” because Uhmari posted it?). Eve succeeded, and quite frankly what Uhmari proposes is a hell of a lot close to Eve than Black Prophecy.

This is where the engineering skill set really comes into play. you’re not thinking about the problem, you’re just arguing for the sake of it. your counter example is incomplete, and you’re not seeing the entire picture.

Case 2: What does the buyer of the green/purple module do with his old module? he sells it on the trade network. it will be cheaper than buying it from the shop, but more than the NPC shop sale.

What this means is, the community as a whole will not purchase things from NPCs. they will always try to purchase from the trade network, its cheaper that way. The same is true of materials. if they are available in an NPC shop, they will be cheaper on the trade market, because the players are competing with the NPCs for credits. the NPC prices do not change, so you make it cheaper because you gathered them yourself through mining/looting. So money doesn’t leave the system that way either.

Apologies, I didn’t explain Case 2 correctly (I didn’t type out my full thoughts), let me try it again, highlight to show my mistake for easy viewing

Case 2: You are trading a module that you cannot buy (Still assuming the fact you cannot trade Mk1/2/3/premium as by the reasons stated in Case 1). In this case you cannot sink credits by buying the item anyways, so what harm is there in trading? It simply swaps who owns x credits and who owns y item. This does not add credits, or prevent removal of credits (since you cannot sink credits to buy it), thus the economy is not effected.

I believe this patches the hole of your concern.

When we win matches credits enter the system. when we buy things from the NPC shops credits leave the system. Credits can also leave the system by taxes on the trade network. this is the primary reason why this tax exists. its not for immersion, its an economic control of the system. otherwise credits never leave the system and this drastically affects the ‘value’ of a credit.

A Barter system is similar. however what constitutes a ‘fair’ trade? it’s not as intuitive. (How is giving someone what they want for something you want not intuitive? “I have this thing I don’t use, would anyone like to trade for it?” “Sure I will trade this for it!” “But I don’t really need/want that, do you have X or Y?” The fact is barter is VERY intuitive. You want an X module. What will I give up for an X modules? That is what you will pay, say 3 Y modules. Find someone willing to take your 3 Y modules for an X module. If you can’t, then you have to reevaluate whether you want to pay more for the X module, or if the X module isn’t really worth so much to you after all. It is not so difficult to understand, everyone can do it without any explanation at all) the point of trade is profit (I gave up a Y and Z modules that someone else wanted for an X module I was desperate to get my hands on. Profit!). so you have a purple stasis generator. what is that worth on a barter system? a purple flare? how will a new player determine that? there’s a reason you don’t see barter systems in major MMOs. it’s a convoluted system. under a barter system the only people that will really trade are friends. ‘oh, i got this module i don’t use. but it fits your playstyle. here you take it, give me something worthless and i’ll just sell it.’ however this same thing can be done by adding a ‘loot pool’ during the loot phase if you’re in a squad. this would also be a lot easier to implement. when you are looting, and you see an item, you’re given an option to throw it in the pool for your squad or keep it.

<snip>

Uhmari can argue this to the high-heavens and back. but it doesn’t change the fact that MMing will need to be adjusted either way. we should do it now and explore a new system later.

Open world does not have matchmaking though? I don’t see your point here. No point adjusting a Matchmaker when you aren’t doing any matchmaking… (I do not mean to imply they cannot improve the MMing for the current state of the game)

On the other hand, a completely open tier-free system can work with any size populations. but gameplay will be stale because it’s the same at all levels (and this is the aspect that Uhmari fails to understand or consider). the ships are brought much closer to each other in terms of stats. so essentially you can do anything with any ship. while this sounds great on paper, this doesn’t always mean its fun. gamers like being able to do unique things. counter play is fun. strategy is fun. this is why the MOBA genre has become so popular. this is much much harder to do in Uhmari’s suggestion. Uhmari can’t see that because he’s not familiar with design. he’s never studied risk analysis or failure modes. he doesn’t know how to piece everything together. so while his ideas are ‘good’ they are also ‘bad’ at the same time for a different reason.

This is where you are failing to grasp the concepts proposed. Ships won’t be able to do just anything. They will be able to do their assigned job based upon roles and limitations to what they can bring. Look at the current state of the game, it supports this idea immensely. Uhmari just wants it such that T1 ships are more in line with the number of mods they can put on with T4, since that is the main defining difference as to why T4 crushes T1. But each ship will still have a uniquely defined role. The more different roles that can be assigned, the merrier.

As an example: CFL lighting. People love these. they use less energy. they last longer. they are marketed as ‘more green’ because of this. However these bulbs contain mercury. and what happens to mercury when it enters our waste system? it goes one of two places. into the ocean, or into our drinking water. and there it sits because we can’t really get rid of it.

What does this have to do with this conversation? good ideas have untended consequences. Uhmari is not addressing these consequences and dancing around the real problems. such as MMing (open world has no such thing), lack of end-game content (This game doesn’t exactly need this so called end-game content. CoD has no such thing. Everyone still plays it. Why? Because the idea is fun. So this game is riding on the idea of corporation conquering the universe (or at least it was last I checked) and as such that is your end game. What do you want to add, raids?), lack of a credit sink (As above, T4). things the game needs NOW. rather than make a new system, which will have new problems, many we don’t think of, we should fix our current system because we already know the problems. what looks like a good idea now can have major repercussions later. saying ‘the system will fall into place’ is a bad counter argument. why should we develop new system on a promise when its far easier, and concrete, to just fix what we have?

- If you make the game complex and action oriented, it can be exciting, but also convoluted.

This is an issue of demographics. A game’s core design should allow for leisurely play over a long period of time.

Looking at MMO demographics, for example, your average player is younger now than when the first generation of MMOs were released. However, players tend to be older due during the use of a subscription model. So when they come home from work or school and decide to play, even if it’s only for an hour or two, they should be able to enjoy themselves. In other words, the use of mundane grinding for hours on end is no longer an effective means to stay competitive in the current MMO market. Which is why Freemium models and cash markets are becoming harder and harder to use. For the space genre, this is true as well. most younger people likely aren’t as excited with space combat because they didn’t grow up watching Star Trek, Battle Star, etc. So I would expect our player base to be generally older than average.

Also, because these concepts will dictate the game’s core design, any updates or new content released will inevitably be dictated by said core. And we have a good core already. it needs some tweaks, but it can be very sustainable with some adjustments.

The thing about Uhmari is he’s not a design major. he’s a debate major (who cares what he majored in, college is far from reality, and people can learn things without having a degree in it). do you know why you need lobbyists and debate majors? to make bad ideas look good. (And who defends these good ideas from looking bad because of debate majors? Oh yea, debate majors, except they are the ethical ones) a good idea can stand on its own (No, it can’t. The same people who will support a bad idea to make it look good will make a good idea look bad. Prime example: Ever seen American Politics? *cringes*). you can bring in data and experts to support those good ideas and philosophies. for bad ideas you need someone who can spin a web. someone who can debate and make your bad idea look like the better idea even though its not. IE: Uhmari’s ideas aren’t really good. he just makes them look good. no data. no expert opinions. and he constantly mentions a game that failed. so why would i listen to him?

I see data, in the form of games that work similarly to these proposition and have succeeded.

Uhmari has made several good ideas. and i’ve support those ideas. but they are few and far between, and often hidden in a bunch of crap. He’s also terrible at explaining things and uses incorrect terminology. but he’s a debate major, i expect that.

He’s not putting his ideas up for discussion. he’s putting them up for support. This is the major I problem I have. As an engineer i’m part of the scientific community. we rely on our peers because often times they see problems we don’t. Uhmari doesn’t want to hear about why his ideas are bad. to him they’re good and there’s nothing you can say to convince him otherwise. I’ve proved that in every other thread i’ve posted in that belongs to him. he refuses to discuss. he presents no lasting counter arguements. he has no data. all his logic paths are subjective. and if you disagree with him he just says ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about.’ and that’s the end of it for him.

So yeah. it’s More of the same crap you’ve posted before. a few good ideas buried under a plethora of bad ideas. Overall: no. we dont need any of this right now. we still need to fix core problems.

So yeah. it’s More of the same crap you’ve posted before. a few good ideas arguments under a plethora of bad ones. Overall: no, we dont need this right now. we simply are setting support for ideas for the future.

On a side note, why do you keep bringing up “We don’t need this right now”? What part of “How I see the universe working” doesn’t imply “How I see the universe working (when the universe exists)”?

4160971 · April 24, 2013, 8:09am

On a side note, why do you keep bringing up “We don’t need this right now”? What part of “How I see the universe working” doesn’t imply “How I see the universe working (when the universe exists)”?

the game is in open beta. if this was closed alpha, or even closed beta, i would be much more receptive to massive overhauls. However the game is in a certain stage of development. if the devs are expecting wide sweeping changes before release, and things like this are actually being considered, the game should not be in open beta.

When a game enters open beta it should be very near completion. a change like what Uhmari suggests othewise. this is why i keep bringing that up.

2)the universe already exists. how does it not exist? the game universe is everything you can see. be that sectors, MMing lobbies, etc. that is the universe.

Uhmari’s other post was not really about open world. it was about open universe. do not confuse the two. you can have an open universe in a lobby based game. I actually understand what he’s saying. that’s why i think its a bad idea. His open universe post was a ‘lets remove the tier system’ in disguise. he openly admitted this. the thread was not really about what the title said. Again, i’m capable of actually understanding what he’s saying. he was trying to garner support for a sweeping overhaul to the tier system by saying ‘hey, lets have an open world! (and also change this other thing, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain)’ Peopel see open world and they get excited.

The current system we have is sectioned off. i’m actually rather fond of it so far. it’s not segregated by tier, but MMing can take care of that for us. a lot of people think we should be able to contest any sector at any given time. this is what Uhmari was kind of implying in his other thread. we remain lobby based, but we can access any sector at any time.

I think the current system is a good compromise between our two extremes.

I apologize, when it comes to discussions its hard to tell what page other people are on. especially since we cannot discuss in real time. I also can’t say how much i appreicate your posts. you’re actually discussing. as opposed to what Uhmari does. Thanks for that.

Anyway, as far as a credit sink goes, I agreed that the ship costs was good. it’s not good enough not because of the value. but because of its underlying mechanism. I don’t die a lot when I fly. so I’m always gaining money. IE: this doesn’t sink any credits for me. It’s a negative feedback loop. the worse you do, the more it costs. The better you do, the less it costs. IE: it’s not a credit sink for better players.

What we should have is a positive feedback credit sink.

I can give two examples. In FFXIV they had the materia system. for certain gear you could gain synergy. once it was maxed out you could convert it into materia. you could then attach materia to gear to increase your stats. It’s a credit sink because you have to constantly buy gear to get materia, thus fueling the economy and validating crafters. and it was a positive feedback because you gained power and did it by choice. rather than a negative feedback where you do it because you have to, and if you dont’ do it something bad happens.

Warframe uses a similar system. as you complete missions you gain mods. you can then fuse mods together to increase their power. this costs money. and again, this is better because it increases your power level, making the game more fun.

The ship repair credit sink isnt’ fun because it’s just taking your money. it also makes you feel bad by reinforcing the fact you died a lot. It’s also bad because it affects players differently based on skill level. I know several peopel who are sitting on 15m+ with nothign to spend credits on. they dont’ die a lot in T4 matches, there’s no crafting, and they have Mk III or better mods already.

so we need a better credit sink. what we have isnt’ good enough.

i didn’t consider passports expiring. this could be better. however i still think we can do better. namely because the costs have to be affordable to everyone. otherwise it doesn’t support Uhmari’s ‘everything needs to be accessible by everyone at every time’ this doesn’t solve the end-game credit sink problem.
The game is not open world. The devs have said they do not want an open world, they want a lobby based game. it should remain a lobby based game. IE: match making. Making the game open world completely changes everything, and we have a different game. we’re in open beta…so not going to happen. and if it does happen, then this game isnt’ worth my time. the developers clearly have no idea wtf they’re doing, because they put an incomplete game into open beta. I’m beta tsting 4 other games right now, so i can go either way about how many xxxx I give about star conflict.
lets agree to disagree on economy and trading. we can argue this until the end of time. I’m happy to wait and see what the devs come up with. but they’ve stated they do not want player to player trading. until i see a dev post otherwise i’m sticking to my guns and supporting their decision. no trading.
I think we’re goign to have to agree to disagree on the tier system as well. I’ve made my points. Occasionally I want a more ‘run-and-gun’ match. so I play T1 or T2 matches. other times i’d rather rely more on my modules and strategic advantage, so I play T3/T4. can’t do this under Uhmari’s system. you guys seem to think this is a good thing. so w/e. The people making the decisions have seen both points, so there’s no real point in beating the dead horse more. Although I imagine Uhmari will keep posting his crap in disguise for months to come.
Uhmari’s major is relavent because he is using it as an excuse as to why his ideas are better than anyone elses. This is completely illogical. he made it relevant. so i’m making it relevant. It’s really just a distraction from the real issues at hand, and me ranting because I hate ignorant people pretending they know things. I should drop it, but it makes him mad. That means i’m in his head, and I like that. The first post of his I posted in, he royally fucked up. I saw him ninja edit a couple of posts before I could respond. From What I did see, he was acting like a child, and he had no real arguments. he did however have the brains to realize he had no arguments and he looked like a child and removed the posts. So I do have to give him that.

TL;DR: we’re too late in the development cycle for large sweeping changes like Uhmari suggests. in Open beta we should be focusing on how things are now. The devs have given no guidance on what they want looked at, so you have to follow the ‘general rules’ of beta. Uhmari is clearly new to this, and i’m guessing you’ve beta tested under 10 games. (I’ve beta tested 14+ games in the last 10 months, over 100 games since I started beta testing as a hobby). there are expectations from the devs. it varies from company to company. but in general large sweeping changes like this are ignored outside of closed alpha/beta. open beta is mainly changes to balance (IE: ship roles fit into this). we should be focusing on MMing, Ship roles, etc. not making a completely different game. the time for that has passed.