What Universe Do You Want?

[1604444]

 I would lay the universe out like this

 

 

Each Race Away from each other. The thee circle’s selecting the home system(s) (5-10) of Each race.

 

All other stars (systems) i would make “free space” Capable of conquest for corporations.

 

 

I would then turn the conquest / clan war system in battles over those races sectors, and when you for example as jericho take empire space.

the stations in the universe update to display stations in that system belonging to that empire (Maybe something like long drape/flags on the side of the

stations, or even empire logo’s.

[1604444]

I would ditch concepts from eve though, Like jump gates making a “Target X,y,” Grid location on the systems map, to allow players to jump into targeted locations after a small engines build up.

 

This would stop gate camping.

 

I would also find a way to limit the game to no larger then 75vs75 (though in all my creativity, i cant really see a good way of doing this other then to limit persons per a system (and that can potentially be abused)

[4160971]

snip

Very helpful to visualize what you’re talking about. I understand now. thanks.

 

 

It its a system which is extremely close to this game, and also supports free travel concepts like Eve online, which retaining uniqueness to races, and the ability to corporately own space.

Its layout also provides possibilities for corporations to progress the system they conquer into mining, trading, or even military nodes. For the reason, Hands down i believe this system is the game.

However, It has draw backs itself. For example, It has no real system of conquest for a stay system, its a concept that was poorly put together, and is really foreign to the game. 

The universe will need to expand a lot for this to be feasible. largely because there is no trade in the game. so if corporations are allowed to own space, they essentially own whatever resources are available there. if there are resources that are only available there, it completely ruins the game for smaller corps that can’t contest or more casual players that don’t want to, or don’t have the time to commit to, join a corp. they essentially lose access to specific resources due to the monopoly of the larger corps.

If this was a corporation feature only, yes. that’s fine, especially if the resources you gain from owning that section of space are for corporation only features, such as dreadnoughts.

Essentially you’d need to segregate and have a ‘corporate only’ universe where you can own space and also a free-for-all universe for everyone.

 

 

 

that being said, it has a tier of ships (not a tier quing system) and i feel it is extremely important to differentiate against each of them, Because i am against Tier Matches,  not Tier ships.

I also believe that Tier ships should have limitation to them to some degree, and should not be more then 5-12.5% Differences between the lowest and highest tiers.

i’m not opposed to the fundamentals of this. but this change is only required if it’s an open universe.

However keeping the tiered queue is a very viable option. so at this time i don’t see a need to change it other than expecting the game to remain with a small population. this is the main advantage of the removal of the tier system, is alleviating the strain on MMing. However this doesn’t relieve the strain of making balanced matches. so it largely depends on what direction the devs want the game to go.

Keep in mind, you could make an open universe where you can access any sector at any time, but their are still tiered matches within each sector. However I’m pretty adamant about keeping the huge power difference between tiers, and that each tier should be segregated whenever possible.

 

 

 

As for The closed System  (Black prophecy)

It i a system that I am very much against, not because of the layout of the game, But because of the sectioning off. 

As it was stated by another the feeling is limited, And There is no way to fix this.

Its Destructive to the community, to the motivation of progression through the game, And it devalues in came content.

And all of that just because people wanted what? To make newbs fight newbs?

Never played this, but again, if you can’t go back to previous tiers, then you’re designing out a current feature.

newbs fighting newbs is an issue of MMing. not the open universe. depending on the population of the game, newbs fighting newbs is good. it allows them to crest the two learning curves seperately. one being game mechanics, the other being game knowledge.

 

Its a bit silly, The diversity in skill in the universe is what makes on empire / alliance powerful over another. IF everyone is equal all the time

the games content and pvp is going to be boring, progression

I agree. which is why tiers need meaningful power difference is base stats and options for tools (passive and active abilities)

However a T1 should never go against a T2.

Currently the game has a different meta for T1, T2, T3, etc. This is what makes it so interesting.

Removing this ‘levels the field’ and removes multiple metas from emerging.

 

The list go’s on like this, over and over we see degradation of the game because of  people being attached to a dead game.

The system dident work there, and nor has it worked successfully in any game.

 

There are many ways to Motivate progression, So there for this being the cause,

 

This Current Tier systems Offers nothing unique or beneficial to the game,

What it does offer is the potential to destroy the game, and to cause and prolong many many problems.

The same can be said of removing the system. there are pros and cons to each.

I’m largely in favor of the tier system for many reasons i’ve already mentioned.

1. we already have it

2. it removes strain from the MMing, as tiers are power capped (doesn’t necessarily alleviate queue times) 

3. there is a meaningful difference between T1 and T2 matches. strategies are slightly different. this keeps the game interesting and fresh.

currently, the game doesn’t need a removal of the tier system. what it needs is better MMing. Credit sink end game. core balancing within tiers.

 

I totally agree that overhauls are expensive, time-consuming and generally bad. The thing is, this is not an overhaul. As a matter of fact they took a big step towards implementing this with the upcoming patch and the Ship Roles changes. The only thing they would also need to do is make more ship roles such that each ship is unique in its role and your done (factions would have the same ships, but some factional differences should be added somehow as well). This is aside from the fact they need to add more modules, and might want to remake the ui for the tech tree since it would no longer be tiered, but again that is not an overhaul of any sort. The total final implementation might take a month, but that is it.

It is. currently almost everything touches the tier system. the shop, MMing, even ranks and reputation progression are all tied to it. you have to recode and adjust all of this. so it is a major change and overhaul. it changes core balancing mechanics as well.

it would take a minimum of a month to even get ready to start testing it internally. i would expect a change like this to take 6 months.

 

 

Sorry, I failed to explain the reason behind that It is an average. Assume that you have 5 tiers, and either A: have an average number of players or B: Have recruited such that you have players available in equal amounts in each tier. In other words, out of 150 players / 5 tiers, you can recruit 30 players per tier to accomodate the locked space such that you corp can have a presence in them all. Basically the point of it is that forcing people to only fight in a small portion of the game’s world based on their tier is silly, when as a corp and player you would like to be able to take territory in any part of the game’s world, and thus in any tier. Instead you are forced into your 20% of the world because of your current tier. As for the rewards, if we removed tiers there would be no reward difference, so it would not matter, make equal incentive to fight over the entire game’s territory, maybe give a few, equally spread, “better” sectors as a goal to fight towards (like PlanetSide2).

it’s understood in most games, you gain access to more content the more you play. That being said, what you’re saying is nonsensical. someone with access to T3 has access to T2 and T1 aswell.

While true, T2 players can’t play with T4 players in T4 matches. but T4 players can equip their T2 ships and play with the T2 players. so it’s more friendly to the newer players than you are implying.

As a corp, you have access to anything you have enough players to fill. you may be restricted because you don’t have enough players to fill the T4 zones, but i don’t see a problem with this. that should be end-game content. if we have access to everything you can’t really progress aside from power of your ship. and that’s boring. gaining access to power and new areas is fun.

As a solo merc, you have a logical progression of power and access. you’re restricted by your personal progression. i dont’ believe they should just be handed access to everything, it should be earned. under that same token, i should have to earn. on the flipside, having access to everything all at once can be overwhelming for a new player. ‘where do i start? what do i do?’

[3267291]

Agreed, but can we keep the politics a little lower key and a few less spreadsheets. I think the Star-Conflict controls will prevent this of course

well, i really like how eve works but i hate the controls so i don’t play it ^^ i just want a space-game like eve with real controls

[3313217]

3. there is a meaningful difference between T1 and T2 matches. strategies are slightly different. this keeps the game interesting and fresh. 

There… is? If you mean the difference between players not knowing what they are doing and lacking strategy to players finally learning how the game works and having strategy, then yea, there is a difference between t1 and t2 matches. And no, that doesn’t make the game fresh. And if only t1/2 are different, the tier system is failing to keep the game fresh for the next 2/3 tiers. Also the amount of time you spend in t1 is like a day or two at worst, depending on how much free time you have. I just do not think this is a valid argument to make in favor of the tier system (not to say your other points are not valid just because of this).

 

It is. currently almost everything touches the tier system. the shop, MMing, even ranks and reputation progression are all tied to it. you have to recode and adjust all of this. so it is a major change and overhaul. it changes core balancing mechanics as well.

it would take a minimum of a month to even get ready to start testing it internally. i would expect a change like this to take 6 months.

And yet, in a week and a half, they have essentially completed 1/4th (3 ship classes out of 12 ships total per type per faction) of what I propose have they not? Ship Roles are coming out in 2 days, which seperates modules based on ship role as well as tier, and have rebalanced ship stats according to their role and added many modules and new special modules. At this rate, they could be done within a month to a month and a half (assuming they continue in this direction of course).

[4134325]

We could have  this constantly ongoing battle universe like guild wars 2’s World vs World mode,

 

so we could have 1 main station for each faction on the corner of the universe and serveral substations in that faction’s area

there could me mining stations scattered thoruhgout the universe that ppl can capture to gain rescrouces for their faction and u could use those rescources to build space stations, warpgates, defence turrets etc.

and maybe to capture sector for ur faction, u have to build beacons in that sector?

 

And maybe we could also have ship factories where corp can build their dreadnaughts and other giant ships

dreadnaughts could act as a mobile spawn point for the corp’s members if it is not in battle

[3900525]

It would be cool to have some AI in space. Some economics, crafting and exclusive ressources for each sectors, which would give the fighting for sectors an important meaning.

[1604444]

The Tiering system offers no benefits to any game as of current. Progression can be done with out Tiers.

In all cases, Tiers are a dead end, Take eve for example, 1 Tier 3 ship, Ask your self why.

Take World of warcraft for example, Do you see anymore pvp tiers? Ask yourself why

Take a loot at games with out tiers, and with tiers.

 

Arguing its the best system because its current in game is not a valid point. Its more a point of laziness.

Sectioning any part of the universe off for any reason is useless, Especially the FOCUS of the game (PVP)

 

 

as for this universe

 

Trading can easily be added, As can any other concept or idea that you can imagine. its all a matter of time.

[3055753]

I’ve always thought that if anyone made a EVE like economy with a simulation style of gameplay… it would destroy my life. I fully support Option 1 and some variations of 3.

[1604444]

id like to see something close to the old space game earth and beyond

it had all of these elements, but was very similar in its engine to this game

[3338318]

The Tiering system offers no benefits to any game as of current. Progression can be done with out Tiers.

In all cases, Tiers are a dead end, Take eve for example, 1 Tier 3 ship, Ask your self why.

Take World of warcraft for example, Do you see anymore pvp tiers? Ask yourself why

Take a loot at games with out tiers, and with tiers.

 

Arguing its the best system because its current in game is not a valid point. Its more a point of laziness.

Sectioning any part of the universe off for any reason is useless, Especially the FOCUS of the game (PVP)

 

 

as for this universe

 

Trading can easily be added, As can any other concept or idea that you can imagine. its all a matter of time.

you clearly havent been keeping up with eve news have you? they are removing tiers. this summer release(june 4th) about 70% of all ships will have no more tiers but will have their own niche in which it excels. meaning BS 1 will be just as good as BS 3 but in a different aspect of modules fitted on it. kinda like what seems to be happening to star conflict with the role changes. and you could see the tier 1 - 5 as frigate - BS in comparison to eve

[1604444]

The Tiering system offers no benefits to any game as of current. ← Re-read this.

 

My whole point was the tiers in eve would not of gone beyond two, because it breaks the game.

Its a terrible system. and it offers no benefit to the game that any other system cant fill.

There for, it brings no benefit, and nothing but trouble.

 

Lastly, I Quit Eve 3-4 years ago.

[4160971]

There… is? If you mean the difference between players not knowing what they are doing and lacking strategy to players finally learning how the game works and having strategy, then yea, there is a difference between t1 and t2 matches. And no, that doesn’t make the game fresh. And if only t1/2 are different, the tier system is failing to keep the game fresh for the next 2/3 tiers. Also the amount of time you spend in t1 is like a day or two at worst, depending on how much free time you have. I just do not think this is a valid argument to make in favor of the tier system (not to say your other points are not valid just because of this).

T1 to T2 are the biggest jumps. T2 is different from T3, but not by much. but that’s largely because T3 ships are the most imbalanced. the major jumps in ‘meta’ are from T1 to T2, and from T2 to T4. T3 is a hyrbid between T2 and T4, but the differences are not as great as the other jumps. Not to say their aren’t any.

It’s largely due to access to new tools via modules. you can do thing sin T2 you can’t do in T1. same for T3 to T2 and T4 to T3.

 

 

And yet, in a week and a half, they have essentially completed 1/4th (3 ship classes out of 12 ships total per type per faction) of what I propose have they not? Ship Roles are coming out in 2 days, which seperates modules based on ship role as well as tier, and have rebalanced ship stats according to their role and added many modules and new special modules. At this rate, they could be done within a month to a month and a half (assuming they continue in this direction of course).

 

I promise you, this did not happen in a week and a half. if you look at posts, they’ve been talking about ship roles for well over a month. I’m not motivated right now to see exactly when they started, but trust me. it’s been longer than a week and a half.

I made several posts about ship roles, and they are damn near verbatim what they are doing in the next patch. I could argue that they took my idea, and i’m good at figuring out what the devs want. but i’m not that stupid. my ideas were coincidence. not enough time had passed for them to incorporate what i’d been saying. it just means what i said made sense, and was the same logic path as the devs. but that also doesn’t mean what i’m saying now makes sense to the devs. but it is my opinion.

I wouldn’t be opposed to the changes. dont’ get me wrong. I just don’t think they are the highest priority. I’d rather see meaningful changes to MMing, and core game mechanics. we need a money sink endgame. we need improvements to MMing. removal of the Tier system is something that soudl take place a year from now.

 

 

The Tiering system offers no benefits to any game as of current. Progression can be done with out Tiers.

In all cases, Tiers are a dead end, Take eve for example, 1 Tier 3 ship, Ask your self why.

Take World of warcraft for example, Do you see anymore pvp tiers? Ask yourself why

Take a loot at games with out tiers, and with tiers.

I adamantly disagree with this.

If you remove the Tier system, and remove the tiered matchmaking, you have absolutely no reason to use an old ship after you’ve upgraded.

Under the tiered system, especially if sectors/conquest zones are restricted by tier, you have a reason to use older ships. keep in mind, you do not have to but you always have that option, incentive being conquest of lower tier sectors.

I’d rather see changes to the hanger and warehouse system before we do anything with the ships. the ships are functional, there are lots of issues with the hanger and warehouse.

 

Arguing its the best system because its current in game is not a valid point. Its more a point of laziness.

No. its a matter of opportunity cost. they can overhaul a system that is functional. or they can work on more meaningful content. The tier system can be made workable quickly. time can then be sent on things that actually, and desperately, need attention. rather than an overhaul that doesnt’ fix other core issues.

 

 

Sectioning any part of the universe off for any reason is useless, Especially the FOCUS of the game (PVP)

 

 

as for this universe

 

Trading can easily be added, As can any other concept or idea that you can imagine. its all a matter of time.

They’ve stated repeatedly they do not want to add trade. I would not be opposed to trade. however the fact taht devs have said they don’t want it, means we shouldn’t push it. it also doesn’t add anything meaningful to the game.

player run economy? no thanks. those almost always have more issues than you can shake a stick at. it introduces the possibility of RMT and destabilizes the economy.

under the current system, it’s easy to track how money enters and leaves the system. you can figure out the ‘value’ of 1 credit, and adjust shop prices accordingly to control how money leaves the system.

Under a trade scheme, money is less likely to leave the system. so it’s much harder to control how money leaves the system. if you raise shop prices, people will just buy more through trading, inflating the problem. if you decrease prices, you can flood the market with items which causes a different set of issues.

Right now, we do not need trade. we shouldn’t worry about trade until other game systems are stable.

[3338318]

T1 to T2 are the biggest jumps. T2 is different from T3, but not by much. but that’s largely because T3 ships are the most imbalanced. the major jumps in ‘meta’ are from T1 to T2, and from T2 to T4. T3 is a hyrbid between T2 and T4, but the differences are not as great as the other jumps. Not to say their aren’t any.

It’s largely due to access to new tools via modules. you can do thing sin T2 you can’t do in T1. same for T3 to T2 and T4 to T3.

  

I promise you, this did not happen in a week and a half. if you look at posts, they’ve been talking about ship roles for well over a month. I’m not motivated right now to see exactly when they started, but trust me. it’s been longer than a week and a half.

I made several posts about ship roles, and they are damn near verbatim what they are doing in the next patch. I could argue that they took my idea, and i’m good at figuring out what the devs want. but i’m not that stupid. my ideas were coincidence. not enough time had passed for them to incorporate what i’d been saying. it just means what i said made sense, and was the same logic path as the devs. but that also doesn’t mean what i’m saying now makes sense to the devs. but it is my opinion.

I wouldn’t be opposed to the changes. dont’ get me wrong. I just don’t think they are the highest priority. I’d rather see meaningful changes to MMing, and core game mechanics. we need a money sink endgame. we need improvements to MMing. removal of the Tier system is something that soudl take place a year from now.

 

 

I adamantly disagree with this.

If you remove the Tier system, and remove the tiered matchmaking, you have absolutely no reason to use an old ship after you’ve upgraded.

Under the tiered system, especially if sectors/conquest zones are restricted by tier, you have a reason to use older ships. keep in mind, you do not have to but you always have that option, incentive being conquest of lower tier sectors.

I’d rather see changes to the hanger and warehouse system before we do anything with the ships. the ships are functional, there are lots of issues with the hanger and warehouse.

 

No. its a matter of opportunity cost. they can overhaul a system that is functional. or they can work on more meaningful content. The tier system can be made workable quickly. time can then be sent on things that actually, and desperately, need attention. rather than an overhaul that doesnt’ fix other core issues.

 

 

They’ve stated repeatedly they do not want to add trade. I would not be opposed to trade. however the fact taht devs have said they don’t want it, means we shouldn’t push it. it also doesn’t add anything meaningful to the game.

player run economy? no thanks. those almost always have more issues than you can shake a stick at. it introduces the possibility of RMT and destabilizes the economy.

under the current system, it’s easy to track how money enters and leaves the system. you can figure out the ‘value’ of 1 credit, and adjust shop prices accordingly to control how money leaves the system.

Under a trade scheme, money is less likely to leave the system. so it’s much harder to control how money leaves the system. if you raise shop prices, people will just buy more through trading, inflating the problem. if you decrease prices, you can flood the market with items which causes a different set of issues.

Right now, we do not need trade. we shouldn’t worry about trade until other game systems are stable.

+9000! exactly my thoughts, exept well thought out

[1604444]

I adamantly disagree with this.

If you remove the Tier system, and remove the tiered matchmaking, you have absolutely no reason to use an old ship after you’ve upgraded.

Under the tiered system, especially if sectors/conquest zones are restricted by tier, you have a reason to use older ships. keep in mind, you do not have to but you always have that option, incentive being conquest of lower tier sectors.

I’d rather see changes to the hanger and warehouse system before we do anything with the ships. the ships are functional, there are lots of issues with the hanger and warehouse.

 

 

This is not the case. There are many other options that offer progression motivation.

 

Example, The tech system i mentioned.

 

Where as you progress, so do the complexity of the modules, and weapons. Doing more then one thing at a time. Example,

Lets take a shield generator, That regenerates shields over x amount of duration, that has built in aoe resistance improvement (built in aegis).

 

The two of them Do not have to be equal in power to the originals that focus in the technology, but they could offer some diverse benefit that allow the consumption of two active modules,

to be converted to 1 active mode, thus increasing the deadlyness and versitility of the higher tech’d ships.

 

 

Another example is the skill tree system, and building in a mechanic that for example, Requires X tier and X ship Level to receive X role.

 

Example, If you make the skill points tie in to decided what tier you have, you can make it a requirement to have a tier 5 ship to gain - Assault ship- 

Which gives damage, and tank.

 

You advocating for the tier system just because you like it and your to lazy to change it is silly.

 

 

Finally,

 

Look at the vote for this thread. Do you see the support for an anti-Tier universe.

You are essentially advocating death to the game because you are to lazy to encourage the devs

to change it. 

 

IF you want to improve a game, you will fight the system, Creativity and uniqueness does not come from copying another game

and just putting a twist on it. Creativity comes from debate. its through that process you find a middle ground that enables you to

progress in a extremely creative way

[1604444]

They’ve stated repeatedly they do not want to add trade. I would not be opposed to trade. however the fact taht devs have said they don’t want it, means we shouldn’t push it. it also doesn’t add anything meaningful to the game.

player run economy? no thanks. those almost always have more issues than you can shake a stick at. it introduces the possibility of RMT and destabilizes the economy.

under the current system, it’s easy to track how money enters and leaves the system. you can figure out the ‘value’ of 1 credit, and adjust shop prices accordingly to control how money leaves the system.

Under a trade scheme, money is less likely to leave the system. so it’s much harder to control how money leaves the system. if you raise shop prices, people will just buy more through trading, inflating the problem. if you decrease prices, you can flood the market with items which causes a different set of issues.

Right now, we do not need trade. we shouldn’t worry about trade until other game systems are stable.

Again For the second time, I repeat again.

 

The Developers do not want trading between players and have never been opposed to trading from station to station. Do not confuse the two.

 

Further, Stop saying what the developers want and dont want, you frankly dont know anything in this regards.

[4160971]

This is not the case. There are many other options that offer progression motivation.

 

Example, The tech system i mentioned.

 

Where as you progress, so do the complexity of the modules, and weapons. Doing more then one thing at a time. Example,

Lets take a shield generator, That regenerates shields over x amount of duration, that has built in aoe resistance improvement (built in aegis).

 

The two of them Do not have to be equal in power to the originals that focus in the technology, but they could offer some diverse benefit that allow the consumption of two active modules,

to be converted to 1 active mode, thus increasing the deadlyness and versitility of the higher tech’d ships.

 

 

Another example is the skill tree system, and building in a mechanic that for example, Requires X tier and X ship Level to receive X role.

 

Example, If you make the skill points tie in to decided what tier you have, you can make it a requirement to have a tier 5 ship to gain - Assault ship- 

Which gives damage, and tank.

 

You advocating for the tier system just because you like it and your to lazy to change it is silly.

This has nothing to do with what i was talking about. did you even read what I wrote?

progression is only part of the reason to keep the tier system.

1. Any and all MMing data the devs have is based on Tiered matchmaking. if they remove the tiered system they must start over from square one, almost all of the data they have is useless. this would delay the final release of the game by months. given the small player base, the game will fail.

2. there are many, many, many other things that need attention. the opportunity cost of spending resources on this, over something else, is too high. it will be a major uphill battle to make the game successful, because you wasted time on something that doesn’t need fixed.

3. the core population is too small to support an open universe. see Realistic queue. See T4 matches. Segregating by Tiers allows the developers to change the universe to fit the population. IE: majority of people play T2 and T3 matches right now. the T4 population is not large. so the number of T4 sectors needed is smaller. you can make more T2 and T3 zones, because this fits the majority of the population.

Under an open universe, your small population of T4 is spread out over all of the available sectors. decreasing the chance of them being able to find matches.

 

 

 

Finally,

 

Look at the vote for this thread. Do you see the support for an anti-Tier universe.

You are essentially advocating death to the game because you are to lazy to encourage the devs to change it. 

because an “n” of 40 is so sound statistically. that’s what…maybe .5% of the population?

Developers have a difficult decision to make. do you give players what they want? or do you give them what they need?

The game needs an end game credit sink. it needs more content. it needs better MMing.

Segregated zones are used in almost every standard MMO. you have level 1-10 areas, 11-20 areas, etc. this is not a new concept. that makes it familiar. this is good for the game, not bad.

Allowing power levels to mix is bad for the game. it causes a level of frustration for new players, which will drastically decrease retention rates. that’s the last thing the game needs. get over yourself.

I’ve beta tested Diablo 3, APB, Firefall, Defiance, Sins of a Dark Age, Marvel Heroes, War Frame, Star Craft II, Final Fantasy XIV, FFXIV: ARR, The Secret World, SWTOR, Mech Warior: Online, War Z, Planet Side 2, RaiderZ, Baner Saga: Factions, WakFu, Wizardry. And this is only in the last year, and what i can remember off the top of my head.

I beta test. a lot. game fail for the same reasons over and over. it has nothing to do with being lazy. it has nothing to do with creativity. it has to do with the fact that devs try to give players what they want, not what they need.

The developers needs to make their own decisions. The only thing i’m doing is providing feedback based on my experiences. I’m not claiming to know more/better than them. I’m claiming to know more/better than you.

 

 

 

 

IF you want to improve a game, you will fight the system, Creativity and uniqueness does not come from copying another game

and just putting a twist on it. Creativity comes from debate. its through that process you find a middle ground that enables you to

progress in a extremely creative way

 

Systems exist for a reason. I agree, that society needs a Deviant. but this is because they serve as a negative example.

Mass Effect, Bio Shock, Call of Duty.

3 different AAA titles. Between Mass Effect 1 and 3, not a lot of core mechanics changed. they evolved somewhat, but if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy the third one. they added meaningful content and built off the existing platform and mechanisms.

Bioshock doesn’t play that different from Bioshock Infinite. again, they built beautiful content into infinite, but the core gameplay is pretty much the same.

Call Of Duty…i think you get the idea. this xxxx has barely changed as long as i can remember. yet its still popular. people login and play zombies all night. the mechanics of this are not difficult. but it’s fun. it was designed well. it has everything it needs.

Success doesn’t come from unique games. it doesn’t come from redefining genres or re-inventing the wheel. it comes from meeting expectations.

When I login, I expect to be able to find a match. If I can’t, then something has gone wrong.

Under a segregated universe, I can hop in a T4 ship, go to a T4 area, and find a match. If I can’t, then I know there aren’t a lot of T4 people on, so I can switch to T3 or T2 which are more populated. IE: I have a set of expectations I can follow.

 

 

Again For the second time, I repeat again.

 

The Developers do not want trading between players and have never been opposed to trading from station to station. Do not confuse the two.

This makes no sense to me. I’ll need you to explain that. trade between stations? are stations player run? If yes, then its trade between players.

Are stations NPC run? why the hell do we need NPCs to trade with eachother? do you mean unlocking materials/ships/modules/weapons by controlling a sector? that’s not trade…

Trade means transactions between players. otherwise it’s not trade.

 

Further, Stop saying what the developers want and dont want, you frankly dont know anything in this regards.

I’m not convinced you do either. all of the information I use is from the developer Q&As. are you talking to the devs? why are they going through you instead of Error or posting themselves? I need something that shows me you know wtf you’re talking about. otherwise you’re just like everyother wannabe I’ve seen on hundreds of other beta forums. you’ve got nothing. you know nothing.

Give me facts. Give me data. I can make decisions from that. until then I have to go with what I see and experience.

I’m not opposed to an open universe. I just do not believe it will be good for the game in its current state. the population is just too small. you wont’ be able to make balanced matches. or you’ll end up with what happens in realistic queue, it’s usually you and 3 bots versus some other poor xxxxxxx and 3 bots.

[3338318]

Again For the second time, I repeat again.

 

The Developers do not want trading between players and have never been opposed to trading from station to station. Do not confuse the two.

 

Further, Stop saying what the developers want and dont want, you frankly dont know anything in this regards.

tell me, what is the real difference in trading betweens players and stations? because i fail to understand what you even mean by “trading between stations”.

[4134325]

trading between player is when you trade money/item with other PLAYERS

trading to station is referring to buying stuff from the shop so the price is predeterimined and the shop haveing infinite quantity of each item (when you buy something atm, you are trading to the staion)

[3522870]

In terms of network code, any attempt to make it like “Eve” with a fps space sim are limited. The network code design of eve is a typical MMO, where actions are issued by the server after a request, and the client does not assume the command was positive, until the server says so. This allows a very high number of individuals per simulation instance, say “star system” in eve. You can always pause your instance by docking to a station. Since this technique creates time delays between the client clicking “X” and seeing its result, there is a very low amount of collision detection involved and you navigate the ship by giving issues like orbiting a specific object, or change the vector you are flying by double clicks; you dont have to aim; only to target and toggle your weapons, and many of your actions are followed by a short delay, which is often beautifully hidden in the gameplay (docking requests e.g.)

The semi-procedurally designed star systems of eve were pre-created in two major galaxies (main and wormhole space), so the eve universe is expandable only, if the devs create new systems.

Eve shines through its player driven economy. Nearly everything you use in eve or buy on the market, is produced by other players.

I studied MMO techniques in programming for over 10 years, and also developed in or around this kind of network mechanism for years. It influenced my whole career. I can also safely say, that next to Ultima Online, Eve was the game which I spent most time in, both in the engine, and in the game. Maybe because the complexity and ingenuinity of that game design was attracting me, both as a dreamer, as also a developer, and also because it felt like Elite Online, the first space sim I ever played.

So that all being said, and trust me, I am not trying to impress, just clarify, it might be a bit surprising, if I say, that Star Conflict is especially nice, because it actually lacks most of this openness. While any Eve combat I was in was highly entertaining and often very much worth the effort to join it, all the countless boring hours of sitting around in that game, or travelling, were not. I always dreamt about the perfect MMO, where everybody would be joining a huge firefight or swordfight, like I am sure, many of us do or did. But I was disillusioned later, that actually more players on a single battlefield does not really make it feel like it is a bigger battle, nor do more players on a single universe increase your fun.

Therefore I whish, that the universe part of star conflict should be more like a strategic game on its own, while the battles continue to be instance based fights, with an increasingly balanced approach for the playing units, deciding the strategic decisions behind the scene. I’d love to see some kind of dynamic change in a great conflict, and conquering plans over multiple sectors, each decided by small skirmishes, but I dont really need the game to simulate all of that in the same sandbox.

Eve often almost feels like work, and might be good in phases of your life, where you might need a game, which simulates a bit of work. But games should be about fun, as do movies not show when protagonists go to the toilet, so should a game not really be always about all details of life. I do not whish Star Conflict becoming like that. It would be tiresome, if you have to wait any longer to fly your ship and shoot, with a clear objective, who your friends are and who your enemies are.

I would give corps a free roam space, like a social hub, which is basicly unconquerable, and also for the factions themselves, which could be compared to stations in eve. I am not really sure, if we need mining, cargo ships, etc. to be player used, and I hope the outer gameplay orients itself more like browser games (which in fact are turn based games with automatic time based turns), but clearly more visually. Each conquered sector therefore holds meaning for the owner in the strategic game, while battles are still decided basicly by loyal pilots and mercenaries fighting aggressors. E.g. while you decide to move goods from station A to B, it could open a protect the convoy fight between two teams, deciding whether the convoy arrives. So also, these goods should not be player possessions, but rather strategic resources, if any.

I am not even sure, if this really would need a star map which is complete. Maybe key sectors are surrounded by sectors which have to be conquered, each key sector being driven by one of the main factions, while sectors themselves can be claimed by independent contractors, and only maps available for these “clusters”.

I heavily dislike geometrical minimaps, like triangles, and I would love to have Star Conflict some amount of diversity in its strategical battlefield, maybe also backed up by settings and backstories.

Maybe, I am also a bit sick of MMOs and that influences my whole story. Maybe I played too many rounds of StarBattle in the last couple years, and increasingly like team based play in mobas, and also enjoyed mini-sandboxes like minecraft or dayz. I can however guarantee you, anyone who really loves teamplay, will find it less and less in an MMO setting, and way more in lobby based games. This trend is backed up by numbers in the industry, tho, like LOL and WOT becoming the most popular online games in a very short amount of time, or all the hype around Star Citizen, which also takes an inbetween approach, highly targeting microcommunities and private servers at the same time.

TL;DR

So while I love the idea of a sandbox being influenced by us players, it does not need to get hyperrealistic in detail. Instead the pew pew should become faster, eager to face ppl who just owned you in another fight. But it would not hurt, if winning this or that battle might have significance for the sandbox, while most of the time people will just “not care”. The war would then be decided by groups picking specific sectors to attack in a more organized manner.