Forums » Suggestions
Can you, just one time say something new instead of phrasing your same BS differently? If you even once brought up an opinion that you haven't expressed a dozen ways, a dozen times... while saying the same damned thing that you have been saying since you got here, you might make a little headway. But you constantly regurgitate the same rubbish, hell... lately you aren't even bothering to rephrase things.
If other games impress you so much...
If other games impress you so much...
@ryan
[[[Can you, just one time say something new instead of phrasing your same BS differently? If you even once brought up an opinion that you haven't expressed a dozen ways, a dozen times... while saying the same damned thing that you have been saying since you got here, you might make a little headway. But you constantly regurgitate the same rubbish, hell... lately you aren't even bothering to rephrase things.]]]
Why would I say something new if you haven't really adressed the things i already said ?
[[[If other games impress you so much...]]]
...then I play them too.
Is everyone in your world is limited to one game only ?
The thing that hurts me is that there aren't many spaceflight-based simulation MMO's, and Vendetta, while being definately the best of them, still lacks so much while having so amazing potential.
[[[Can you, just one time say something new instead of phrasing your same BS differently? If you even once brought up an opinion that you haven't expressed a dozen ways, a dozen times... while saying the same damned thing that you have been saying since you got here, you might make a little headway. But you constantly regurgitate the same rubbish, hell... lately you aren't even bothering to rephrase things.]]]
Why would I say something new if you haven't really adressed the things i already said ?
[[[If other games impress you so much...]]]
...then I play them too.
Is everyone in your world is limited to one game only ?
The thing that hurts me is that there aren't many spaceflight-based simulation MMO's, and Vendetta, while being definately the best of them, still lacks so much while having so amazing potential.
you mean I haven't realized you're right and everyone else is wrong yet.
@ryan
[[[you mean I haven't realized you're right and everyone else is wrong yet.]]]
That depends what exactly are we discussing, because the current discussion is so wide that it could be dozen of different topics.
You are right in many things, while I am right in other things. There are also topics where we are both completely right or partially right.
So which one are exactly you adressing ?
[[[you mean I haven't realized you're right and everyone else is wrong yet.]]]
That depends what exactly are we discussing, because the current discussion is so wide that it could be dozen of different topics.
You are right in many things, while I am right in other things. There are also topics where we are both completely right or partially right.
So which one are exactly you adressing ?
Look, as much as they'd like to implement some of your ideas, they had to give Android priority - in their opinions Android would have a better long term boost to the game than any idea you came up with. I don't like making assumptions about other people's thoughts, but if they did not think this, they would not have pursued the Android port over adding, for example, tractor beams. I trust their opinions regarding the game more than yours, because they have a better view of the business side of the game than you do. When they haven't been working on Android they have been trying to finally get capships done, which is something that people have been whining about for something like six years, and is something that would work toward several of your suggestions (ways to spend money, a range of activities unrelated to pvp, new types of combat, commanding fleets of ships (they do want to do that eventually), etc.)
They can't do everything at once. And no, taking time out to implement some of your simpler ideas would not result in an order of magnitude increase in subscriptions allowing them to better address other needs. Some of the ideas would help, yes, but not as much as their Android-gambit will, and not even as much as finally getting player owned capships will. A lot of people show up, find out they can't get a capship, and leave. I happen to think that some of your ideas could very possibly be more fun to me than capships, however their lack does not turn off newbies as quickly as lack of capships. Getting these things in game will finally allow a large percentage of newbies to consider VO to be serious.
Once this is done, I fully expect the devs to turn their attention toward a number of smaller easier issues for a while before they start on the next big set of changes (my guess as to what the next big thing will be is the faction redux). During this stage maybe some of your ideas will make it in, or maybe instead a bunch of other ideas the devs already had years ago will make it in instead.
.
As for my point about audience size, it is based purely on logic. If a game targets me and only me, it can be precisely what I desire. If it targets both me and you, there will be some aspects that at least one of us will not fully like. The more people targeted, the more compromises have to be made. The wider the differences between members of the audience, the larger the compromises have to be. A game targeting a wide audience can still be great, but a game targeting a narrower audience can potentially be greater.
.
Anyway, enough of this nonsense. Back to trains!
.
Yes, you could use tractor beams to provide the linkage between cars. I don't like the idea of tractor beams in general (too magic) but we already have force fields, gravitic drives, and mining beams, so I don't think they'd be completely unprecedented in the VO universe. Personally, I was envisioning the linkages being incredibly strong electromagnets, with some technobabble involving superconductors to make them efficient. But tractor beams would be more visually appealing, if relying on mushier science.
(My willingness to accept very short powerful tractor beams for the purpose of linking a train is not to be considered an indication that I approve of tractor beams as equipable items to be used for pulling ships and cargo, which is in any event off topic.)
They can't do everything at once. And no, taking time out to implement some of your simpler ideas would not result in an order of magnitude increase in subscriptions allowing them to better address other needs. Some of the ideas would help, yes, but not as much as their Android-gambit will, and not even as much as finally getting player owned capships will. A lot of people show up, find out they can't get a capship, and leave. I happen to think that some of your ideas could very possibly be more fun to me than capships, however their lack does not turn off newbies as quickly as lack of capships. Getting these things in game will finally allow a large percentage of newbies to consider VO to be serious.
Once this is done, I fully expect the devs to turn their attention toward a number of smaller easier issues for a while before they start on the next big set of changes (my guess as to what the next big thing will be is the faction redux). During this stage maybe some of your ideas will make it in, or maybe instead a bunch of other ideas the devs already had years ago will make it in instead.
.
As for my point about audience size, it is based purely on logic. If a game targets me and only me, it can be precisely what I desire. If it targets both me and you, there will be some aspects that at least one of us will not fully like. The more people targeted, the more compromises have to be made. The wider the differences between members of the audience, the larger the compromises have to be. A game targeting a wide audience can still be great, but a game targeting a narrower audience can potentially be greater.
.
Anyway, enough of this nonsense. Back to trains!
.
Yes, you could use tractor beams to provide the linkage between cars. I don't like the idea of tractor beams in general (too magic) but we already have force fields, gravitic drives, and mining beams, so I don't think they'd be completely unprecedented in the VO universe. Personally, I was envisioning the linkages being incredibly strong electromagnets, with some technobabble involving superconductors to make them efficient. But tractor beams would be more visually appealing, if relying on mushier science.
(My willingness to accept very short powerful tractor beams for the purpose of linking a train is not to be considered an indication that I approve of tractor beams as equipable items to be used for pulling ships and cargo, which is in any event off topic.)
"Why would I say something new if you haven't really adressed the things i already said ?"
I am really sick of you saying how you're constantly trolled, how no one states their cases against your ideas and your general whining that people dismiss your ideas out of hand because they do not realize your brilliance,bitching about VO/the community/the Devs and just generally having a poor attitude.
OK, this is way more effort than I wanted to go through... but maybe if we run through several of your threads, the replies they get and your subsequent responces... you may realize how full of shit you are...
YOUR IDEA: Ship flag transponders
*1. "There are dozens of other ways in which this can be used that You can't even imagine now because of Your local, closed-box thinking."
"Also, You just don't give any serious arguments. The arguments You have given are not satisfactory or logical enough to convince me."
"No, it happens when people do not give enough arguments and just want the other person to believe they are right because they said so.
(immediately followed by)
"A logical argument. But let me explain why You are wrong."
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
"The only way this is a good idea is if other players have the option of turning off the ability to see the flags. Personally, I don't want to be forced to see every flag of every player who choses to have one."
"already accomplished by targetless."
"... has absolutely no benefit what so ever and does absolutely nothing to improve the game"
*1. "Good list them all. By the way, why is it that when ever some one disagrees with you... they are closed minded afraid of change, unable to think outside the box... blah blah, blah?"
(You have yet to list the dozens of ways.)
"draws time away from the developers. Time that could be used for, the economy, fixing the faction system, improving conquerable stations, player owned cappies... etc... etc.
Not to mention that your idea does nothing to improve game play.draws time away from the developers. Time that could be used for, the economy, fixing the faction system, improving conquerable stations, player owned cappies... etc... etc. Not to mention that your idea does nothing to improve game play."
"I see everyone within range as well as their affiliations, I therefore know who/how dangerous they are and I target the biggest threat. Hence, this adds nothing top the game that doesn't exist already." (using targetless)
And finally...
"1. I do not like your idea.
2. I do not believe it will add anything to game play.
3. I am not required to explain myself (though I have) and no amount of you re-explaining your idea is going to make me (or any one else that does not like it, suddenly like it.).
4. People would respond better to you if you didn't read that they do not like your ideas and then try to explain why they are wrong and or troll based on the fact they do not like your idea."
YOUR IDEA: Wholesale pricing
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
In this case I agreed with you, as did Lecter and Nahin... (kinda destroys your statements about how all people ever do is troll you.)
YOUR IDEA: Ship's Identity jammer / Pirate flag ship
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
In this case I agreed with you again destroying your statements about how all people ever do is troll you.
YOUR IDEA: Stacking up radars & scanners
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
Once again, I have brutally tolled you by agreeing.
YOUR IDEA: New job : ship builder / engineer - conception & game mechanics
*2. First, I disagree. It does not contain any reasonal/logical thinking.
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
*2. "it's simply not necessary." Is as valid an argument as any.
(Brutal trolling here, a simple to understand coherent and valid argument)
(You and Toshiro, same thread)
"Toshiro: And you can get pretty good stuff (albeit for higher prices) without leveling at all, in VO. You just have to know how to. And that you can learn by asking. See? No grind required.
PoL: Yeah, but only if some players are WILLING to tell You about the "mystic ways", or give You the stuff. So essentially, If You're a n00b and You don't know that, You still WILL grind to get it.
YOUR IDEA: Ideas that would improve "manufacturing driven gameplay"
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
PoL: That's because You only love changes which are cosmetic or evolutionary. I have reviewed all the changes Vendetta had through the last 3 years, and guess what - they were ALL evolutionary or cosmetic.
You (hardcore players) simply want Vendetta to be space Quake like it is now forever. I see Vendetta for its potential, because it could be much more.
The EVOLUTION is not enough. The world is moving forward, things that don't move are relatively moving backwards.
Ryan Reign: You realize that you're talking to the guy who runs the ONLY two RP guilds in the whole game, right?
"You (hardcore players) simply want Vendetta to be space Quake like it is now forever."
Kinda kills that argument when you think about it. In the future think, then type.
PoL: I am sorry Sir, i have accidentally mistaken You with some hardcore i-do-not-want-to-change-type Vendetta troll.Now, as we have been properly introduced already, let's talk seriously and make this discussion CONSTRUCTIVE, shall we ? Now, as we have been properly introduced already, let's talk seriously and make this discussion CONSTRUCTIVE, shall we ?
Ryan Reign:Against, the reason being that having classes/occupations could be limiting. As it stands now, we can all do basically what ever we want. If I want to fight, mine, make things or trade I can. A strict occupational system would limit that as it would logically speaking have to place limitations on what who could buy or do, and if it didn't then there is no reason to have the system because there would be no discernible differences in the classes. Better to keep occupations RP based.
(You are so right! not only do I never do anything but troll you, I also never state why I disagree!)
YOUR IDEA: "More weather systems" v 1.7 beta
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
In this thread... Toshiro, Nahin, Pirren and I brutally troll you once again by agreeing with you.
YOUR IDEA:Ion storm random thrust engine interference
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
Another shining example of my trolling you and not providing coherent arguments...
"I like the idea of random malfunctions in general... gives "Firefly" kinda feel to things. However, as I understand it, ion storms may be being phased out, if that is the case this would all be pointless."
Wow... complete and total lack of me explaining my positions against your ideas, unprovoked trolling and shooting down every idea you have just because I enjoy trolling you.
Then there's some of your gems...
"Can somebody show me any MAJOR change in the gameplay proposed on forums and already implemented ? I seriously doubt there is one.
IMHO this game is in no way community-driven (as for example Open Source games are). The devs have their views on everything, and they only do their vision of the game. The only suggestions that have a chance of approval are the very easy to implement and minor ones."
"You're absolutely, completely wrong"
"And if you would sometimes stop and think instead of just kicking every newbie's ass on the forums, You would also see that my ideas would make this game 10 X as interesting as it is now."
"You are (mostly) not getting the general conception which stands behind my ideas to improve the game, thus You rate some of them negatively"
"instead of trolling every one of my threads, its You who should shut up, LISTEN, and THINK. A little imagination is all it takes."
"Because its completely overrun by CONCRETE Pirates & trolls, which do not want ANY CHANGES, and they destroy anybody who proposes to make changes."
"i think my ideas are great and i will not stop posting them because this forum is completely, totally overrun by trolls."
"i think my ideas are great and i will not stop posting them because this forum is completely, totally overrun by trolls.
"You ARE closed-box thinker man. I wonder this game has even survived for this long if people on this forums are always so NEGATIVE to new ideas."
You are just so reasonable, respectful and mature. Your arguments and statements are completely on point, explain your ideas coherently and in no way derogatory towards anyone who disagrees.
Getting back to the OP (which is a good idea) I like it but... I still think that the Marauder living up to its original vision of having removable modular storage sections is the best way to do it. It might need some tweaking or new variants, mainly in the thrust so hauling multiple modules of heavy cargo would not be completely unbearable.
The whole removable modules even opes the Marauder up to military applications and trade in dangerous areas... ie, there could be modules that have player operated or AI turrets, it could be used to lay mine fields and it doesn't seem like it would be unbalanced as it has fairly low armor and the added mass would make it fairly slow and kill the maneuverability.
I am really sick of you saying how you're constantly trolled, how no one states their cases against your ideas and your general whining that people dismiss your ideas out of hand because they do not realize your brilliance,bitching about VO/the community/the Devs and just generally having a poor attitude.
OK, this is way more effort than I wanted to go through... but maybe if we run through several of your threads, the replies they get and your subsequent responces... you may realize how full of shit you are...
YOUR IDEA: Ship flag transponders
*1. "There are dozens of other ways in which this can be used that You can't even imagine now because of Your local, closed-box thinking."
"Also, You just don't give any serious arguments. The arguments You have given are not satisfactory or logical enough to convince me."
"No, it happens when people do not give enough arguments and just want the other person to believe they are right because they said so.
(immediately followed by)
"A logical argument. But let me explain why You are wrong."
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
"The only way this is a good idea is if other players have the option of turning off the ability to see the flags. Personally, I don't want to be forced to see every flag of every player who choses to have one."
"already accomplished by targetless."
"... has absolutely no benefit what so ever and does absolutely nothing to improve the game"
*1. "Good list them all. By the way, why is it that when ever some one disagrees with you... they are closed minded afraid of change, unable to think outside the box... blah blah, blah?"
(You have yet to list the dozens of ways.)
"draws time away from the developers. Time that could be used for, the economy, fixing the faction system, improving conquerable stations, player owned cappies... etc... etc.
Not to mention that your idea does nothing to improve game play.draws time away from the developers. Time that could be used for, the economy, fixing the faction system, improving conquerable stations, player owned cappies... etc... etc. Not to mention that your idea does nothing to improve game play."
"I see everyone within range as well as their affiliations, I therefore know who/how dangerous they are and I target the biggest threat. Hence, this adds nothing top the game that doesn't exist already." (using targetless)
And finally...
"1. I do not like your idea.
2. I do not believe it will add anything to game play.
3. I am not required to explain myself (though I have) and no amount of you re-explaining your idea is going to make me (or any one else that does not like it, suddenly like it.).
4. People would respond better to you if you didn't read that they do not like your ideas and then try to explain why they are wrong and or troll based on the fact they do not like your idea."
YOUR IDEA: Wholesale pricing
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
In this case I agreed with you, as did Lecter and Nahin... (kinda destroys your statements about how all people ever do is troll you.)
YOUR IDEA: Ship's Identity jammer / Pirate flag ship
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
In this case I agreed with you again destroying your statements about how all people ever do is troll you.
YOUR IDEA: Stacking up radars & scanners
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
Once again, I have brutally tolled you by agreeing.
YOUR IDEA: New job : ship builder / engineer - conception & game mechanics
*2. First, I disagree. It does not contain any reasonal/logical thinking.
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
*2. "it's simply not necessary." Is as valid an argument as any.
(Brutal trolling here, a simple to understand coherent and valid argument)
(You and Toshiro, same thread)
"Toshiro: And you can get pretty good stuff (albeit for higher prices) without leveling at all, in VO. You just have to know how to. And that you can learn by asking. See? No grind required.
PoL: Yeah, but only if some players are WILLING to tell You about the "mystic ways", or give You the stuff. So essentially, If You're a n00b and You don't know that, You still WILL grind to get it.
YOUR IDEA: Ideas that would improve "manufacturing driven gameplay"
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
PoL: That's because You only love changes which are cosmetic or evolutionary. I have reviewed all the changes Vendetta had through the last 3 years, and guess what - they were ALL evolutionary or cosmetic.
You (hardcore players) simply want Vendetta to be space Quake like it is now forever. I see Vendetta for its potential, because it could be much more.
The EVOLUTION is not enough. The world is moving forward, things that don't move are relatively moving backwards.
Ryan Reign: You realize that you're talking to the guy who runs the ONLY two RP guilds in the whole game, right?
"You (hardcore players) simply want Vendetta to be space Quake like it is now forever."
Kinda kills that argument when you think about it. In the future think, then type.
PoL: I am sorry Sir, i have accidentally mistaken You with some hardcore i-do-not-want-to-change-type Vendetta troll.Now, as we have been properly introduced already, let's talk seriously and make this discussion CONSTRUCTIVE, shall we ? Now, as we have been properly introduced already, let's talk seriously and make this discussion CONSTRUCTIVE, shall we ?
Ryan Reign:Against, the reason being that having classes/occupations could be limiting. As it stands now, we can all do basically what ever we want. If I want to fight, mine, make things or trade I can. A strict occupational system would limit that as it would logically speaking have to place limitations on what who could buy or do, and if it didn't then there is no reason to have the system because there would be no discernible differences in the classes. Better to keep occupations RP based.
(You are so right! not only do I never do anything but troll you, I also never state why I disagree!)
YOUR IDEA: "More weather systems" v 1.7 beta
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
In this thread... Toshiro, Nahin, Pirren and I brutally troll you once again by agreeing with you.
YOUR IDEA:Ion storm random thrust engine interference
ME: NOT ADDRESSING THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID
Another shining example of my trolling you and not providing coherent arguments...
"I like the idea of random malfunctions in general... gives "Firefly" kinda feel to things. However, as I understand it, ion storms may be being phased out, if that is the case this would all be pointless."
Wow... complete and total lack of me explaining my positions against your ideas, unprovoked trolling and shooting down every idea you have just because I enjoy trolling you.
Then there's some of your gems...
"Can somebody show me any MAJOR change in the gameplay proposed on forums and already implemented ? I seriously doubt there is one.
IMHO this game is in no way community-driven (as for example Open Source games are). The devs have their views on everything, and they only do their vision of the game. The only suggestions that have a chance of approval are the very easy to implement and minor ones."
"You're absolutely, completely wrong"
"And if you would sometimes stop and think instead of just kicking every newbie's ass on the forums, You would also see that my ideas would make this game 10 X as interesting as it is now."
"You are (mostly) not getting the general conception which stands behind my ideas to improve the game, thus You rate some of them negatively"
"instead of trolling every one of my threads, its You who should shut up, LISTEN, and THINK. A little imagination is all it takes."
"Because its completely overrun by CONCRETE Pirates & trolls, which do not want ANY CHANGES, and they destroy anybody who proposes to make changes."
"i think my ideas are great and i will not stop posting them because this forum is completely, totally overrun by trolls."
"i think my ideas are great and i will not stop posting them because this forum is completely, totally overrun by trolls.
"You ARE closed-box thinker man. I wonder this game has even survived for this long if people on this forums are always so NEGATIVE to new ideas."
You are just so reasonable, respectful and mature. Your arguments and statements are completely on point, explain your ideas coherently and in no way derogatory towards anyone who disagrees.
Getting back to the OP (which is a good idea) I like it but... I still think that the Marauder living up to its original vision of having removable modular storage sections is the best way to do it. It might need some tweaking or new variants, mainly in the thrust so hauling multiple modules of heavy cargo would not be completely unbearable.
The whole removable modules even opes the Marauder up to military applications and trade in dangerous areas... ie, there could be modules that have player operated or AI turrets, it could be used to lay mine fields and it doesn't seem like it would be unbalanced as it has fairly low armor and the added mass would make it fairly slow and kill the maneuverability.
Yeah, Marauder Mini-trains would be neat.
@ryan
OK....
I do not have time currently to precisely address all of the examples you pointed out, but quick look tells me that on the topic of [you addressing the things I already said] it seems that you are at least 85% right.
So you are right this time, I admit I am wrong. Satisfied ?
One more thing:
[[[You are just so reasonable, respectful and mature. Your arguments and statements are completely on point, explain your ideas coherently and in no way derogatory towards anyone who disagrees.]]]
OK, i agree and I am sorry. I definately went agressive. But that was because i got sick of constant trolling by Lecter, Waffles etc.
.
.
---------------
---------------
Going back to OP:
+1
(Of course) This is excellent idea. With tractor beams or not.
I just proposed a logical extension of the tractor beam suggestion - we could kill 2 ducks with one shot here (again back to poultry).
[[[The whole removable modules even opes the Marauder ]]]
It is a very good idea to let marauder-like units pull cars. It already looks "trainy".
But additionally, I think that the magnetic locks/tractor beams/whatever holds the train together should get disconnected when encountering an ion storm, so the driver/locomotive would have to collect (tractor beam could come in handy for collecting) & reconnect the cars again, and then jump (or, if he is being attacked, he can leave the cars and run - JUST IMAGINE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PIRATES !).
OK....
I do not have time currently to precisely address all of the examples you pointed out, but quick look tells me that on the topic of [you addressing the things I already said] it seems that you are at least 85% right.
So you are right this time, I admit I am wrong. Satisfied ?
One more thing:
[[[You are just so reasonable, respectful and mature. Your arguments and statements are completely on point, explain your ideas coherently and in no way derogatory towards anyone who disagrees.]]]
OK, i agree and I am sorry. I definately went agressive. But that was because i got sick of constant trolling by Lecter, Waffles etc.
.
.
---------------
---------------
Going back to OP:
+1
(Of course) This is excellent idea. With tractor beams or not.
I just proposed a logical extension of the tractor beam suggestion - we could kill 2 ducks with one shot here (again back to poultry).
[[[The whole removable modules even opes the Marauder ]]]
It is a very good idea to let marauder-like units pull cars. It already looks "trainy".
But additionally, I think that the magnetic locks/tractor beams/whatever holds the train together should get disconnected when encountering an ion storm, so the driver/locomotive would have to collect (tractor beam could come in handy for collecting) & reconnect the cars again, and then jump (or, if he is being attacked, he can leave the cars and run - JUST IMAGINE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PIRATES !).
@Pizzasgood
I will answer you later, busy now.
I will answer you later, busy now.
{OT}
I think that Ryan and PoL are in LOVE... do you two want us to leave and turn the lights off?
{/ot}
OP:
Surely, if such thing gets implemented, it should start with the Maud only. If it works fine with the Maud, adding cargo modules as versions, i.e:
-Engine remains the same. Increase mass, reduce acceleration just as now.
-Each module holds Xcu. (1st idea: 44cu)
-One Maud version for 1, 2 or 3 modules - mk.1 = Xcu, mk.2 = 2Xcu, mk.3 = 3Xcu; (44,88,132cu)
-No visual changes. All models use same 3D model.
The tradeoff is reduced acceleration due cargo mass. When empty, those 3 models should perform (almost) the same.
And forget tractor beams, wagons, breaking the train, etc., in initial implementation.
I think that Ryan and PoL are in LOVE... do you two want us to leave and turn the lights off?
{/ot}
OP:
Surely, if such thing gets implemented, it should start with the Maud only. If it works fine with the Maud, adding cargo modules as versions, i.e:
-Engine remains the same. Increase mass, reduce acceleration just as now.
-Each module holds Xcu. (1st idea: 44cu)
-One Maud version for 1, 2 or 3 modules - mk.1 = Xcu, mk.2 = 2Xcu, mk.3 = 3Xcu; (44,88,132cu)
-No visual changes. All models use same 3D model.
The tradeoff is reduced acceleration due cargo mass. When empty, those 3 models should perform (almost) the same.
And forget tractor beams, wagons, breaking the train, etc., in initial implementation.
Alloh, yer just jealous that his bad ideas get more negative attention than yours do these days. Sadly, you won't get the customary negative attention this time because...
"One Maud version for 1, 2 or 3 modules - mk.1 = Xcu, mk.2 = 2Xcu, mk.3 = 3Xcu; (44,88,132cu)
-No visual changes. All models use same 3D model."
That is actually a good idea.
+1
Besides, everyone knows PoL is in love/lust with BT.
"One Maud version for 1, 2 or 3 modules - mk.1 = Xcu, mk.2 = 2Xcu, mk.3 = 3Xcu; (44,88,132cu)
-No visual changes. All models use same 3D model."
That is actually a good idea.
+1
Besides, everyone knows PoL is in love/lust with BT.
Oh. long term Nice idea. Really I haven't a clue whether it can be done , but really I do like trains. Well, I would. I left school at 16 and joined what was then known as British Failways. They put me through night school and then university, long time ago. Big growling 2750 HP sulzers, barking 16 cylinder EEs with 4 balanced turbos , nippy wee valentas on HST units , sharp Napier deltics with that high East coat whine......
Ok , fair enough nurse , I'll take my medication ...
Honestly , when you have driven a HST test set at 150 mph , or handled a 2000 tonne unfiitted freight you would understand.
Aye , trains in space .........
Ok , fair enough nurse , I'll take my medication ...
Honestly , when you have driven a HST test set at 150 mph , or handled a 2000 tonne unfiitted freight you would understand.
Aye , trains in space .........
@Pizzasgood
[[[Look, as much as they'd like to implement some of your ideas, they had to give Android priority - in their opinions Android would have a better long term boost to the game than any idea you came up with.]]]
Well i agree completely, but it's still little annoying.
[[[I don't like making assumptions about other people's thoughts, but if they did not think this, they would not have pursued the Android port over adding, for example, tractor beams. I trust their opinions regarding the game more than yours, because they have a better view of the business side of the game than you do. When they haven't been working on Android they have been trying to finally get capships done, which is something that people have been whining about for something like six years, and is something that would work toward several of your suggestions (ways to spend money, a range of activities unrelated to pvp, new types of combat, commanding fleets of ships (they do want to do that eventually), etc.) They can't do everything at once. And no, taking time out to implement some of your simpler ideas would not result in an order of magnitude increase in subscriptions allowing them to better address other needs. Some of the ideas would help, yes, but not as much as their Android-gambit will, and not even as much as finally getting player owned capships will. A lot of people show up, find out they can't get a capship, and leave. ]]]
Again, agreed.
I also think that android was more important for now.
.
.
[[[I happen to think that some of your ideas could very possibly be more fun to me than capships, however their lack does not turn off newbies as quickly as lack of capships. Getting these things in game will finally allow a large percentage of newbies to consider VO to be serious.]]]
Agreed. Capships are more inportant because they have been forecasted for a very long time.
.
.
[[[Once this is done, I fully expect the devs to turn their attention toward a number of smaller easier issues for a while before they start on the next big set of changes (my guess as to what the next big thing will be is the faction redux). During this stage maybe some of your ideas will make it in, or maybe instead a bunch of other ideas the devs already had years ago will make it in instead.]]]
Well, i hope this doesn't take too long, because you know - 2012 is close, so I may be dead before the devs release the so-much-expected new version ;P
.
.
[[[As for my point about audience size, it is based purely on logic. If a game targets me and only me, it can be precisely what I desire. If it targets both me and you, there will be some aspects that at least one of us will not fully like. The more people targeted, the more compromises have to be made. The wider the differences between members of the audience, the larger the compromises have to be. A game targeting a wide audience can still be great, but a game targeting a narrower audience can potentially be greater.]]]
Well, that depends how you calculate the "greatness factor" of the game.
I think that if Vendetta gains new audience using new features, WHILE simultaneously keeping all the old audience on similiar level of satisfaction as before, then we should call that a complete success, shouldn't we ?
I think actually that there doesn't have to be a conflict between different types of people in terms of what they want from the game. You just add new features, while balancing & keeping the old features intact. This creates multiple sub-worlds in the game world, allowing different types of people to coexist in their own personal way.
So i think that it is possible for VO to satisfy most fans of Space-Flight Simulation games. Of course, you cannot satisfy somebody who doesn't like this genre of games at all.
.
.
[[[Yes, you could use tractor beams to provide the linkage between cars. I don't like the idea of tractor beams in general (too magic) but we already have force fields, gravitic drives, and mining beams, so I don't think they'd be completely unprecedented in the VO universe.]]]
Well, you said it. Current Vendetta world is very "magic" already, so tractor beams don't break that.
Also it is quite reasonable to believe that after thousands years of technological development people could start to control gravity in a way that they could create a beam of gravitons.
The only unrealistic thing is perhaps the color of the beam, but that is a minor unimportant detail.
.
.
[[[Personally, I was envisioning the linkages being incredibly strong electromagnets, with some technobabble involving superconductors to make them efficient. But tractor beams would be more visually appealing, if relying on mushier science.]]]
Tractor beams do have greater "coolness" factor. They also are already known to SciFi geeks vide Star Trek & Star Wars, so i would say they will have a better overall reception in the game audience.
[[[Look, as much as they'd like to implement some of your ideas, they had to give Android priority - in their opinions Android would have a better long term boost to the game than any idea you came up with.]]]
Well i agree completely, but it's still little annoying.
[[[I don't like making assumptions about other people's thoughts, but if they did not think this, they would not have pursued the Android port over adding, for example, tractor beams. I trust their opinions regarding the game more than yours, because they have a better view of the business side of the game than you do. When they haven't been working on Android they have been trying to finally get capships done, which is something that people have been whining about for something like six years, and is something that would work toward several of your suggestions (ways to spend money, a range of activities unrelated to pvp, new types of combat, commanding fleets of ships (they do want to do that eventually), etc.) They can't do everything at once. And no, taking time out to implement some of your simpler ideas would not result in an order of magnitude increase in subscriptions allowing them to better address other needs. Some of the ideas would help, yes, but not as much as their Android-gambit will, and not even as much as finally getting player owned capships will. A lot of people show up, find out they can't get a capship, and leave. ]]]
Again, agreed.
I also think that android was more important for now.
.
.
[[[I happen to think that some of your ideas could very possibly be more fun to me than capships, however their lack does not turn off newbies as quickly as lack of capships. Getting these things in game will finally allow a large percentage of newbies to consider VO to be serious.]]]
Agreed. Capships are more inportant because they have been forecasted for a very long time.
.
.
[[[Once this is done, I fully expect the devs to turn their attention toward a number of smaller easier issues for a while before they start on the next big set of changes (my guess as to what the next big thing will be is the faction redux). During this stage maybe some of your ideas will make it in, or maybe instead a bunch of other ideas the devs already had years ago will make it in instead.]]]
Well, i hope this doesn't take too long, because you know - 2012 is close, so I may be dead before the devs release the so-much-expected new version ;P
.
.
[[[As for my point about audience size, it is based purely on logic. If a game targets me and only me, it can be precisely what I desire. If it targets both me and you, there will be some aspects that at least one of us will not fully like. The more people targeted, the more compromises have to be made. The wider the differences between members of the audience, the larger the compromises have to be. A game targeting a wide audience can still be great, but a game targeting a narrower audience can potentially be greater.]]]
Well, that depends how you calculate the "greatness factor" of the game.
I think that if Vendetta gains new audience using new features, WHILE simultaneously keeping all the old audience on similiar level of satisfaction as before, then we should call that a complete success, shouldn't we ?
I think actually that there doesn't have to be a conflict between different types of people in terms of what they want from the game. You just add new features, while balancing & keeping the old features intact. This creates multiple sub-worlds in the game world, allowing different types of people to coexist in their own personal way.
So i think that it is possible for VO to satisfy most fans of Space-Flight Simulation games. Of course, you cannot satisfy somebody who doesn't like this genre of games at all.
.
.
[[[Yes, you could use tractor beams to provide the linkage between cars. I don't like the idea of tractor beams in general (too magic) but we already have force fields, gravitic drives, and mining beams, so I don't think they'd be completely unprecedented in the VO universe.]]]
Well, you said it. Current Vendetta world is very "magic" already, so tractor beams don't break that.
Also it is quite reasonable to believe that after thousands years of technological development people could start to control gravity in a way that they could create a beam of gravitons.
The only unrealistic thing is perhaps the color of the beam, but that is a minor unimportant detail.
.
.
[[[Personally, I was envisioning the linkages being incredibly strong electromagnets, with some technobabble involving superconductors to make them efficient. But tractor beams would be more visually appealing, if relying on mushier science.]]]
Tractor beams do have greater "coolness" factor. They also are already known to SciFi geeks vide Star Trek & Star Wars, so i would say they will have a better overall reception in the game audience.
@Alloh
[[[
{OT}
I think that Ryan and PoL are in LOVE... do you two want us to leave and turn the lights off?
{/ot}]]]
No, sorry. Unfortunately I am a heterosexual man, and ryan is not a woman (or is he ?). This wouldn't work.
.
.
[[[OP:
Surely, if such thing gets implemented, it should start with the Maud only. If it works fine with the Maud, adding cargo modules as versions, i.e:
(...)
The tradeoff is reduced acceleration due cargo mass. When empty, those 3 models should perform (almost) the same.]]]
+ 1
[[[And forget tractor beams, wagons, breaking the train, etc., in initial implementation.]]]
Well, this breaks almost all of the fun but i guess it's better than nothing for start.
[[[
{OT}
I think that Ryan and PoL are in LOVE... do you two want us to leave and turn the lights off?
{/ot}]]]
No, sorry. Unfortunately I am a heterosexual man, and ryan is not a woman (or is he ?). This wouldn't work.
.
.
[[[OP:
Surely, if such thing gets implemented, it should start with the Maud only. If it works fine with the Maud, adding cargo modules as versions, i.e:
(...)
The tradeoff is reduced acceleration due cargo mass. When empty, those 3 models should perform (almost) the same.]]]
+ 1
[[[And forget tractor beams, wagons, breaking the train, etc., in initial implementation.]]]
Well, this breaks almost all of the fun but i guess it's better than nothing for start.