Forums » Suggestions
I have idea which could potentially greatly increase player-to-player interaction and make Vendetta's economy thrive.
It's the thing that most of WOW-like MMORPGs have - stalls.
So basically i propose to implement automated space "trade buoys", which allow direct player-to-player trade, when the owner of the buoy is offline / in another location. The "space trade buoy" works like automated trading bot, which sells products/items from the owner of the buoy, to any player for fixed prixes.
Another player can approach the buoy, press <ACTIVATE> and see list of items for sale.
Initial, simple implementation details [LEVEL 0]:
- The buoy resides in a fixed point in space, where the player has left it. The player can spawn the buoy in any place he wants, but:
- You cannot place a buoy closer than 75 meters from a station (to fix a possible bug which would allow using buoys as docking bay entrance blockers)
- (For simplicity) Buoys cannot be moved, using any force (like roids)
- Every player is limited to have MAX 10 buoys total
- Every buoy is limited to 3 days residing in single point of space without player interaction. After the time is up, owner has to interact with the buoy and "renew" it. Otherwise, buoy disappears automatically.
- To make things simple, buoy would be indestructible, and the items bought would appear out of thin air, and be automatically loaded into buyer's cargo hold.
- Buoys are small floating ships in the shape of cube, sphere, octahedron or tetrahedron
Check out how octahedron & tetrahedron look here:
.
.
----
Later, more complex & realistic implementation [LEVEL 1]:
- Buoys are small floating ships, have its own power source, and strong shielding
- Buoys can be destroyed using a lot of firepower, but:
- Buoys do not store items or credits themselves, because it would be too easy to steal from them. Instead:
- Buoys have a "jump callback" device, which summons items from another place in the same system (preferably station or some storage of the owner of the buoy). So when another player buys something from a buoy, the buoy warps in items close to the buoy's location, and buyer has to collect it manually (which creates opportunities for pirates to steal the item while it's floating in space). Otherwise there is no way to steal items or credits from buoy.
.
.
------
Even more complex implementation details [LEVEL 2]:
- Buoys could display player-supplied static holographic billboards displaying ads around the buoy, just as the stations do it now.
It's the thing that most of WOW-like MMORPGs have - stalls.
So basically i propose to implement automated space "trade buoys", which allow direct player-to-player trade, when the owner of the buoy is offline / in another location. The "space trade buoy" works like automated trading bot, which sells products/items from the owner of the buoy, to any player for fixed prixes.
Another player can approach the buoy, press <ACTIVATE> and see list of items for sale.
Initial, simple implementation details [LEVEL 0]:
- The buoy resides in a fixed point in space, where the player has left it. The player can spawn the buoy in any place he wants, but:
- You cannot place a buoy closer than 75 meters from a station (to fix a possible bug which would allow using buoys as docking bay entrance blockers)
- (For simplicity) Buoys cannot be moved, using any force (like roids)
- Every player is limited to have MAX 10 buoys total
- Every buoy is limited to 3 days residing in single point of space without player interaction. After the time is up, owner has to interact with the buoy and "renew" it. Otherwise, buoy disappears automatically.
- To make things simple, buoy would be indestructible, and the items bought would appear out of thin air, and be automatically loaded into buyer's cargo hold.
- Buoys are small floating ships in the shape of cube, sphere, octahedron or tetrahedron
Check out how octahedron & tetrahedron look here:
.
.
----
Later, more complex & realistic implementation [LEVEL 1]:
- Buoys are small floating ships, have its own power source, and strong shielding
- Buoys can be destroyed using a lot of firepower, but:
- Buoys do not store items or credits themselves, because it would be too easy to steal from them. Instead:
- Buoys have a "jump callback" device, which summons items from another place in the same system (preferably station or some storage of the owner of the buoy). So when another player buys something from a buoy, the buoy warps in items close to the buoy's location, and buyer has to collect it manually (which creates opportunities for pirates to steal the item while it's floating in space). Otherwise there is no way to steal items or credits from buoy.
.
.
------
Even more complex implementation details [LEVEL 2]:
- Buoys could display player-supplied static holographic billboards displaying ads around the buoy, just as the stations do it now.
I like the idea but think that buoys should have to operate the same way as do stations: unless the player who owns the buy actually deposits cargo for sale inside it, it can't do a WoW or Everquest *magic poof* and make the cargo instantly appear from any other location in the universe. I also think that buoys should be confined to clearly demarcated trading areas outside commercial stations (which might be a great way to liven up the disappointing and woefully understocked UIT Verasi Crossroads commercial station.) This could also be a great way for players to secretly pass messages between themselves and add another cloak-and-dagger element to the game. Player buoys would be like large ships and should be able to be destroyed; buoys in monitored nation-space would have the protection of additional (or even dedicated) station guards, but buoys in grey space, in unmonitored space by worm holes, and outside Corvus stations would have far fewer protections.
@jamesbuhls
[[[I like the idea but think that buoys should have to operate the same way as do stations: unless the player who owns the buy actually deposits cargo for sale inside it, it can't do a WoW or Everquest *magic poof* and make the cargo instantly appear from any other location in the universe]]]
Of course it can't, but I simplified the initial implementation so that the devs won't have too much work to do.
Haven't you noticed yet that any average-to-major changes in Vendetta usually require years for devs to implement them ? This is why i separated the idea into 3 separate levels of implementation difficulty.
Let's get something small first, we really don't need everything here and right now.
.
.
[[[This could also be a great way for players to secretly pass messages between themselves and add another cloak-and-dagger element to the game. Player buoys would be like large ships and should be able to be destroyed;]]]
I do not like that. If i wanted a buoy to be large container ship, i would have stated so.
I would like the buoy to be simply a buoy, which communicates with some external portal/device/ship which then sends bought items to buyer.
With the way you are proposing, popular areas in the game would quickly become crowded with huge ships, and that is not good. Buoys should be simple, useful and not take too much place - just like the stalls are in other MMOs.
Perhaps it is possible to merge our points of view:
----
[LEVEL 3] Implementation details [Difficult to implement]:
- The buoy is linked with a large container ship ("hidden stash") which actually has the items.
- The ship has to be in the same system the buoy is.
- When buyer buys something, the buoy comunicates to the other ship and it creates a wormhole/jumps/warps the desired item to the buoy location.
- If a pirate finds where the ship is located, he can destroy it and steal its items.
I am not sure if this is a good idea though.
[[[I like the idea but think that buoys should have to operate the same way as do stations: unless the player who owns the buy actually deposits cargo for sale inside it, it can't do a WoW or Everquest *magic poof* and make the cargo instantly appear from any other location in the universe]]]
Of course it can't, but I simplified the initial implementation so that the devs won't have too much work to do.
Haven't you noticed yet that any average-to-major changes in Vendetta usually require years for devs to implement them ? This is why i separated the idea into 3 separate levels of implementation difficulty.
Let's get something small first, we really don't need everything here and right now.
.
.
[[[This could also be a great way for players to secretly pass messages between themselves and add another cloak-and-dagger element to the game. Player buoys would be like large ships and should be able to be destroyed;]]]
I do not like that. If i wanted a buoy to be large container ship, i would have stated so.
I would like the buoy to be simply a buoy, which communicates with some external portal/device/ship which then sends bought items to buyer.
With the way you are proposing, popular areas in the game would quickly become crowded with huge ships, and that is not good. Buoys should be simple, useful and not take too much place - just like the stalls are in other MMOs.
Perhaps it is possible to merge our points of view:
----
[LEVEL 3] Implementation details [Difficult to implement]:
- The buoy is linked with a large container ship ("hidden stash") which actually has the items.
- The ship has to be in the same system the buoy is.
- When buyer buys something, the buoy comunicates to the other ship and it creates a wormhole/jumps/warps the desired item to the buoy location.
- If a pirate finds where the ship is located, he can destroy it and steal its items.
I am not sure if this is a good idea though.
+1 to the general ideas potential.
- a whole lot on PoL's vision of the idea.
- a whole lot on PoL's vision of the idea.
Hey, PoL - the suggestion board isn't a "post your idea, campaign to have it implemented, and attack anybody who says anything different board," it's a "post your suggestion and let other people comment on it board." I know what you said, and my response was my opinion on that idea. So take a pill.
@jamesbuhls
[[[the suggestion board isn't a "post your idea, campaign to have it implemented]]]
Oh, isn't it ?
Then why have a suggestion forum at all ?
Why encourage players to post suggestions, if not to give them hope that they will be implemented some day ?
.
.
[[[attack anybody who says anything different board,]]]
I am not "attacking" you, simply pointing out that your arguments are inaccurate, and your sugessted implementation would be impractical...
Wait, i thought that the point of a discussion was to convince the other side that you are right, right ?
Since when discussions are just about making discussions ? Can a discussion be called successful if nobody convinced anybody to anything ?
.
.
@ryan
[[[- a whole lot on PoL's vision of the idea.]]]
Oh, and that is probably based on your previous conclusions that most of my ideas is generally stupid ?
Because "-1 to lot of PoL's vision on the idea" is not any argument at all.
Hey, here's a thought - let's get constructive here for a while, OK ? So:
I can easily name at least 10 advantages of implementing this idea EXACTLY the way i proposed. Can you point out the same number of disadvantages, or at least half of that number ?
Contrary to what you may think, my thinking is really simple: If there are significantly more advantages than disadvantages, logically thinking the idea should be implemented.
[[[the suggestion board isn't a "post your idea, campaign to have it implemented]]]
Oh, isn't it ?
Then why have a suggestion forum at all ?
Why encourage players to post suggestions, if not to give them hope that they will be implemented some day ?
.
.
[[[attack anybody who says anything different board,]]]
I am not "attacking" you, simply pointing out that your arguments are inaccurate, and your sugessted implementation would be impractical...
Wait, i thought that the point of a discussion was to convince the other side that you are right, right ?
Since when discussions are just about making discussions ? Can a discussion be called successful if nobody convinced anybody to anything ?
.
.
@ryan
[[[- a whole lot on PoL's vision of the idea.]]]
Oh, and that is probably based on your previous conclusions that most of my ideas is generally stupid ?
Because "-1 to lot of PoL's vision on the idea" is not any argument at all.
Hey, here's a thought - let's get constructive here for a while, OK ? So:
I can easily name at least 10 advantages of implementing this idea EXACTLY the way i proposed. Can you point out the same number of disadvantages, or at least half of that number ?
Contrary to what you may think, my thinking is really simple: If there are significantly more advantages than disadvantages, logically thinking the idea should be implemented.
Yeah, stalls are as annoying as fuck in other MMO's.
Again with the intentional disregard for truth, eh? If you read on past the point you latched onto, you will see that he said "it's a "post your suggestion and let other people comment on it board.". By trying to make it look as though he is saying it is not a place to make suggestions simply demonstrates your lack of concern with honest discussions. You are simply concerned with "winning" some honorless contest. Which leads into the next point:
"Wait, i thought that the point of a discussion was to convince the other side that you are right, right ?"
No, you are thinking of "debate", not "discussion". Discussions are not necessarily battles to convince the other side of your point of view regardless of that point of view's validity. A discussion can have any number of different purposes, including negotiating compromises, constructing new ideas, and exploring the consequences of concepts.
"Contrary to what you may think, my thinking is really simple: If there are significantly more advantages than disadvantages, logically thinking the idea should be implemented."
Quantity alone is insufficient. One must consider magnitude as well. Ergo all your "I can think of 10 reasons blah blah" nonsense is empty posturing. Habitual empty posturing at that...
"Because "-1 to lot of PoL's vision on the idea" is not any argument at all."
There is nothing wrong with a person stating their opinion without justification. Perhaps it is not the most helpful thing in the world to do, but it is nevertheless a right. Not liking an idea, for whatever reason, is a valid reason to say that you don't like it. He never said it was a decisive argument against you.
As for my own thoughts:
Littering space with a bunch of dumb geometric shapes? -1. I'd rather wait a little bit longer and have simple models of some variety that actually make some kind of twisted sense.
-2 to an initial implementation that is invincible, I'd rather wait longer for a destructible implementation than have indestructible crap strewn about. Especially if they're dumb shapes.
Magic spawning of items? -2. (In the level 0 implementation, you don't explain where the item comes from, making it sound as though you place a magic buoy that has an infinite inventory. Perhaps I misunderstand. No I don't care that it's just the simple-version, that part is unacceptable to me. Player sold items must exist first.)
Magically warping in the items from elsewhere ala levels 1-3? -1. You wanna leave a store floating free in space unattended, you gotta deal with the consequences.
I would prefer to see this concept implemented as an extension of capships instead of this buoy nonsense - allow people to buy from and sell into the cargo hold of a capship (obviously it would need to be an opt-in deal so people don't buy your random cargo). This wouldn't allow you to leave the store unmanned unless you leave your computer logged in afk, at least for now. Maybe eventually capships could be left adrift, once they have progressed beyond the current "just an extra big normal ship" control and ownership system. That would of course be dangerous, as it should be.
Yes, that would all take time to implement. I would rather the devs spent their time actually working toward that than farting around with some other version before doing this one.
"Wait, i thought that the point of a discussion was to convince the other side that you are right, right ?"
No, you are thinking of "debate", not "discussion". Discussions are not necessarily battles to convince the other side of your point of view regardless of that point of view's validity. A discussion can have any number of different purposes, including negotiating compromises, constructing new ideas, and exploring the consequences of concepts.
"Contrary to what you may think, my thinking is really simple: If there are significantly more advantages than disadvantages, logically thinking the idea should be implemented."
Quantity alone is insufficient. One must consider magnitude as well. Ergo all your "I can think of 10 reasons blah blah" nonsense is empty posturing. Habitual empty posturing at that...
"Because "-1 to lot of PoL's vision on the idea" is not any argument at all."
There is nothing wrong with a person stating their opinion without justification. Perhaps it is not the most helpful thing in the world to do, but it is nevertheless a right. Not liking an idea, for whatever reason, is a valid reason to say that you don't like it. He never said it was a decisive argument against you.
As for my own thoughts:
Littering space with a bunch of dumb geometric shapes? -1. I'd rather wait a little bit longer and have simple models of some variety that actually make some kind of twisted sense.
-2 to an initial implementation that is invincible, I'd rather wait longer for a destructible implementation than have indestructible crap strewn about. Especially if they're dumb shapes.
Magic spawning of items? -2. (In the level 0 implementation, you don't explain where the item comes from, making it sound as though you place a magic buoy that has an infinite inventory. Perhaps I misunderstand. No I don't care that it's just the simple-version, that part is unacceptable to me. Player sold items must exist first.)
Magically warping in the items from elsewhere ala levels 1-3? -1. You wanna leave a store floating free in space unattended, you gotta deal with the consequences.
I would prefer to see this concept implemented as an extension of capships instead of this buoy nonsense - allow people to buy from and sell into the cargo hold of a capship (obviously it would need to be an opt-in deal so people don't buy your random cargo). This wouldn't allow you to leave the store unmanned unless you leave your computer logged in afk, at least for now. Maybe eventually capships could be left adrift, once they have progressed beyond the current "just an extra big normal ship" control and ownership system. That would of course be dangerous, as it should be.
Yes, that would all take time to implement. I would rather the devs spent their time actually working toward that than farting around with some other version before doing this one.
1: "- To make things simple, buoy would be indestructible,"
Ridiculous.
2:" and the items bought would appear out of thin air, and be automatically loaded into buyer's cargo hold."
Ridiculous.
3:"- Buoys are small floating ships in the shape of cube, sphere, octahedron or tetrahedron"
Ugly. VO needs more polish not less.
4:- "Buoys are small floating ships, have its own power source, and strong shielding"
If they're small, they don't get shields.
5:"- Buoys can be destroyed using a lot of firepower, but:"
They're small, why do they need so much to take them out?
6:"- Buoys do not store items or credits themselves, because it would be too easy to steal from them."
VO has no room for magic
7:"- Buoys have a "jump callback" device, which summons items from another place in the same system"
See above.
8:"Otherwise there is no way to steal items or credits from buoy."
Ridiculous.
9: It's been suggested many times before, in better and easier ways.
10: "- Every player is limited to have MAX 10 buoys total"
Limiting.
11:"- Every buoy is limited to 3 days residing in single point of space without player interaction."
No logical reason.
12:"After the time is up, owner has to interact with the buoy and "renew" it. Otherwise, buoy disappears automatically."
Limiting and no logical reason.
13: Although P2P trade is important and need to be fixed, this seems like it would distract the devs from things that are more important.
There ya go. 10 reasons against and three extras. There is a reason absolutely none of your ideas have ever or will ever make it in game. They are over complicated and under useful.
Ridiculous.
2:" and the items bought would appear out of thin air, and be automatically loaded into buyer's cargo hold."
Ridiculous.
3:"- Buoys are small floating ships in the shape of cube, sphere, octahedron or tetrahedron"
Ugly. VO needs more polish not less.
4:- "Buoys are small floating ships, have its own power source, and strong shielding"
If they're small, they don't get shields.
5:"- Buoys can be destroyed using a lot of firepower, but:"
They're small, why do they need so much to take them out?
6:"- Buoys do not store items or credits themselves, because it would be too easy to steal from them."
VO has no room for magic
7:"- Buoys have a "jump callback" device, which summons items from another place in the same system"
See above.
8:"Otherwise there is no way to steal items or credits from buoy."
Ridiculous.
9: It's been suggested many times before, in better and easier ways.
10: "- Every player is limited to have MAX 10 buoys total"
Limiting.
11:"- Every buoy is limited to 3 days residing in single point of space without player interaction."
No logical reason.
12:"After the time is up, owner has to interact with the buoy and "renew" it. Otherwise, buoy disappears automatically."
Limiting and no logical reason.
13: Although P2P trade is important and need to be fixed, this seems like it would distract the devs from things that are more important.
There ya go. 10 reasons against and three extras. There is a reason absolutely none of your ideas have ever or will ever make it in game. They are over complicated and under useful.
@Pizzasgood
[[[Again with the intentional disregard for truth, eh? If you read on past the point you latched onto, you will see that he said "it's a "post your suggestion and let other people comment on it board.". ]]]
[[[By trying to make it look as though he is saying it is not a place to make suggestions simply demonstrates your lack of concern with honest discussions.]]]
No, that is not true. However i have often hard time remembering all the details of previous discussions, i usually remember the "general image" of them.
So it is not a matter of dishonesty or disregard for truth, this are simply memory holes.
However, another point is that jamesbuhls said that "it's a "post your suggestion and let other people comment on it board", but it is not official board policy as jamesbuhls is not owner of the forum, so my point in this thread may be still valid and no dishonesty / disregard happened at all, intentionally or unintentionally.
.
.
[[[You are simply concerned with "winning" some honorless contest. Which leads into the next point:]]]
No. I seek the most optimal & extremely efficient solution, exactly as i do in my job - programming.
Haven't you noticed yet that i sometimes merge ideas of others into my own ideas and EVEN sometimes admit that somebody else is right ?
That would not happen if winning was the most important. I simply see lack of logical arguments and point it out.
.
.
[[[No, you are thinking of "debate", not "discussion". Discussions are not necessarily battles to convince the other side of your point of view regardless of that point of view's validity. A discussion can have any number of different purposes, including negotiating compromises, constructing new ideas, and exploring the consequences of concepts.]]]
Well, perhaps you are right here. So yeah, i was actually debating, not discussing.
Anyway, i still like it better when the discussion actually creates something useful, rather than being just pointless word exchange.
.
.
[[[Quantity alone is insufficient. One must consider magnitude as well. Ergo all your "I can think of 10 reasons blah blah" nonsense is empty posturing. Habitual empty posturing at that...]]]
Magnitude can also be classified as advantage or disadvantage, so this argument is invalid.
It is possible to place almost anything in the "advantage box" or "disadvantage box". So, if the disadvantage box is practically empty, even taking all factors into consideration, why shouldn't such idea be implemented ?
.
.
[[[There is nothing wrong with a person stating their opinion without justification. Perhaps it is not the most helpful thing in the world to do, but it is nevertheless a right. Not liking an idea, for whatever reason, is a valid reason to say that you don't like it.]]]
OK, but I also have right to state whatever i think about such actions, which i did.
.
.
[[[He never said it was a decisive argument against you.]]]
Still, i suspect so & sense a lot of pessimism / bad will on this forum when it comes to evaluating my ideas.
.
.
[[[Littering space with a bunch of dumb geometric shapes? -1. I'd rather wait a little bit longer and have simple models of some variety that actually make some kind of twisted sense.]]]
Correct, however nobody said they cannot have textures & bump maps.
A buoy is not rocket science, a simple geometric shape + some funky texture & bump map should be more than enough to make it look COOL. It will be a very small object anyway.
.
.
[[[-2 to an initial implementation that is invincible, I'd rather wait longer for a destructible implementation than have indestructible crap strewn about. Especially if they're dumb shapes.]]]
Well, this may be right or not, but in my opinion it is critical to improve this game quickly implementing critical features that all MMOs already have, and then polish them more later.
There is a good reason for why this game has such a small audience. It simply lacks certain very basic features that can hold a large audience.
And I think that player stalls is one of them.
.
.
[[[Magic spawning of items? -2. Perhaps I misunderstand. No I don't care that it's just the simple-version, that part is unacceptable to me. Player sold items must exist first.]]]
Yes, you probably misunderstood.
The items sold must actually exist and belong to the owner of the buoy, and must exist in a station in the same system, so they can be "warped" to the buoy.
A simple "sold item must be held on a station in the same sector" should be explanation enough for the initial implementation.
.
.
[[[Magically warping in the items from elsewhere ala levels 1-3? -1. You wanna leave a store floating free in space unattended, you gotta deal with the consequences.]]]
Again, this is not magic. A simple variation of jump engine, that jumps stuff instead of ship.
In times when wormhole travel & over-light-speed travel has been mastered, this has nothing to do with magic.
.
.
[[[I would prefer to see this concept implemented as an extension of capships instead of this buoy nonsense - allow people to buy from and sell into the cargo hold of a capship ]]]
This is a very bad concept you are proposing. Let me explain.
Capships are expensive, hard to obtain and problematic. On the other hand, stalls/trade buoy is something that every player can have instantly and can be setup quickly for trade convenience.
Moreover, I think it is a very critical element for the player-run economy to function properly & effectiently.
Economically speaking: using capships as trade buoys, you would create completely unnecessary market entrance barrier for everybody that wants to participate in Vendetta's economy. That is a market killer. This cannot be on any healthy market. It's like killing buisness using super-high taxes.
.
.
[[[Yes, that would all take time to implement. I would rather the devs spent their time actually working toward that than farting around with some other version before doing this one.]]]
"Initial solutions" i proposed are simple, but not oversimplified. [LEVEL 1] Should be already realistic enough to support everybody's needs.
But i think it is critical to quickly upgrade this game with all missing critical features, or it will fail to hold players for longer, which i certainly do not want because Vendetta is a game with incredible potential (what a waste that would be).
[[[Again with the intentional disregard for truth, eh? If you read on past the point you latched onto, you will see that he said "it's a "post your suggestion and let other people comment on it board.". ]]]
[[[By trying to make it look as though he is saying it is not a place to make suggestions simply demonstrates your lack of concern with honest discussions.]]]
No, that is not true. However i have often hard time remembering all the details of previous discussions, i usually remember the "general image" of them.
So it is not a matter of dishonesty or disregard for truth, this are simply memory holes.
However, another point is that jamesbuhls said that "it's a "post your suggestion and let other people comment on it board", but it is not official board policy as jamesbuhls is not owner of the forum, so my point in this thread may be still valid and no dishonesty / disregard happened at all, intentionally or unintentionally.
.
.
[[[You are simply concerned with "winning" some honorless contest. Which leads into the next point:]]]
No. I seek the most optimal & extremely efficient solution, exactly as i do in my job - programming.
Haven't you noticed yet that i sometimes merge ideas of others into my own ideas and EVEN sometimes admit that somebody else is right ?
That would not happen if winning was the most important. I simply see lack of logical arguments and point it out.
.
.
[[[No, you are thinking of "debate", not "discussion". Discussions are not necessarily battles to convince the other side of your point of view regardless of that point of view's validity. A discussion can have any number of different purposes, including negotiating compromises, constructing new ideas, and exploring the consequences of concepts.]]]
Well, perhaps you are right here. So yeah, i was actually debating, not discussing.
Anyway, i still like it better when the discussion actually creates something useful, rather than being just pointless word exchange.
.
.
[[[Quantity alone is insufficient. One must consider magnitude as well. Ergo all your "I can think of 10 reasons blah blah" nonsense is empty posturing. Habitual empty posturing at that...]]]
Magnitude can also be classified as advantage or disadvantage, so this argument is invalid.
It is possible to place almost anything in the "advantage box" or "disadvantage box". So, if the disadvantage box is practically empty, even taking all factors into consideration, why shouldn't such idea be implemented ?
.
.
[[[There is nothing wrong with a person stating their opinion without justification. Perhaps it is not the most helpful thing in the world to do, but it is nevertheless a right. Not liking an idea, for whatever reason, is a valid reason to say that you don't like it.]]]
OK, but I also have right to state whatever i think about such actions, which i did.
.
.
[[[He never said it was a decisive argument against you.]]]
Still, i suspect so & sense a lot of pessimism / bad will on this forum when it comes to evaluating my ideas.
.
.
[[[Littering space with a bunch of dumb geometric shapes? -1. I'd rather wait a little bit longer and have simple models of some variety that actually make some kind of twisted sense.]]]
Correct, however nobody said they cannot have textures & bump maps.
A buoy is not rocket science, a simple geometric shape + some funky texture & bump map should be more than enough to make it look COOL. It will be a very small object anyway.
.
.
[[[-2 to an initial implementation that is invincible, I'd rather wait longer for a destructible implementation than have indestructible crap strewn about. Especially if they're dumb shapes.]]]
Well, this may be right or not, but in my opinion it is critical to improve this game quickly implementing critical features that all MMOs already have, and then polish them more later.
There is a good reason for why this game has such a small audience. It simply lacks certain very basic features that can hold a large audience.
And I think that player stalls is one of them.
.
.
[[[Magic spawning of items? -2. Perhaps I misunderstand. No I don't care that it's just the simple-version, that part is unacceptable to me. Player sold items must exist first.]]]
Yes, you probably misunderstood.
The items sold must actually exist and belong to the owner of the buoy, and must exist in a station in the same system, so they can be "warped" to the buoy.
A simple "sold item must be held on a station in the same sector" should be explanation enough for the initial implementation.
.
.
[[[Magically warping in the items from elsewhere ala levels 1-3? -1. You wanna leave a store floating free in space unattended, you gotta deal with the consequences.]]]
Again, this is not magic. A simple variation of jump engine, that jumps stuff instead of ship.
In times when wormhole travel & over-light-speed travel has been mastered, this has nothing to do with magic.
.
.
[[[I would prefer to see this concept implemented as an extension of capships instead of this buoy nonsense - allow people to buy from and sell into the cargo hold of a capship ]]]
This is a very bad concept you are proposing. Let me explain.
Capships are expensive, hard to obtain and problematic. On the other hand, stalls/trade buoy is something that every player can have instantly and can be setup quickly for trade convenience.
Moreover, I think it is a very critical element for the player-run economy to function properly & effectiently.
Economically speaking: using capships as trade buoys, you would create completely unnecessary market entrance barrier for everybody that wants to participate in Vendetta's economy. That is a market killer. This cannot be on any healthy market. It's like killing buisness using super-high taxes.
.
.
[[[Yes, that would all take time to implement. I would rather the devs spent their time actually working toward that than farting around with some other version before doing this one.]]]
"Initial solutions" i proposed are simple, but not oversimplified. [LEVEL 1] Should be already realistic enough to support everybody's needs.
But i think it is critical to quickly upgrade this game with all missing critical features, or it will fail to hold players for longer, which i certainly do not want because Vendetta is a game with incredible potential (what a waste that would be).
"ryan said that "it's a "post your suggestion and let other people comment on it board""
I never said that.
Also..."Magnitude can also be classified as advantage or disadvantage, so this argument is invalid."
This statement is inaccurate, thus the argument about the prior argument being invalid has no validity.
Definition of MAGNITUDE
1
a : great size or extent b (1) : spatial quality : size (2) : quantity, number
2
: the importance, quality, or caliber of something
3
: a number representing the intrinsic or apparent brightness of a celestial body on a logarithmic scale in which an increase of one unit corresponds to a reduction in the brightness of light by a factor of 2.512
4
: a numerical quantitative measure expressed usually as a multiple of a standard unit
5
: the intensity of an earthquake represented by a number on an arbitrary scale <a magnitude six earthquake>
I never said that.
Also..."Magnitude can also be classified as advantage or disadvantage, so this argument is invalid."
This statement is inaccurate, thus the argument about the prior argument being invalid has no validity.
Definition of MAGNITUDE
1
a : great size or extent b (1) : spatial quality : size (2) : quantity, number
2
: the importance, quality, or caliber of something
3
: a number representing the intrinsic or apparent brightness of a celestial body on a logarithmic scale in which an increase of one unit corresponds to a reduction in the brightness of light by a factor of 2.512
4
: a numerical quantitative measure expressed usually as a multiple of a standard unit
5
: the intensity of an earthquake represented by a number on an arbitrary scale <a magnitude six earthquake>
@ryan
[[[I never said that.]]]
Oh, sorry, my mistake.
It was supposed to be about jamesbuhls, not you. I'm correcting that post now.
.
.
[[[This statement is inaccurate, thus the argument about the prior argument being invalid has no validity.]]]
Adding something having certain magnitude - small or big can be viewed/classified as an advantage or disadvantage. You can put it in "good things box" or "bad things box", the same as you can do with almost everything.
So you see, your argument is completely flawed.
----
I will answer the rest of your posts later, no time now.
[[[I never said that.]]]
Oh, sorry, my mistake.
It was supposed to be about jamesbuhls, not you. I'm correcting that post now.
.
.
[[[This statement is inaccurate, thus the argument about the prior argument being invalid has no validity.]]]
Adding something having certain magnitude - small or big can be viewed/classified as an advantage or disadvantage. You can put it in "good things box" or "bad things box", the same as you can do with almost everything.
So you see, your argument is completely flawed.
----
I will answer the rest of your posts later, no time now.
Is all this arguing really necessary?
It isn't all spelled out somewhere for us, but IMHO the Suggestions forum is a place for people to make suggestions and then for others to comment on them - otherwise we'd just have a blind suggestion submitting form. My hope has always been that comments would be somewhat constructive and would help hone the OP's ideas into something that might actually work within the VO universe. Unnecessarily negative comments and/or over-adherence to the details of the original suggestion generally results in a useless shouting match.
It isn't all spelled out somewhere for us, but IMHO the Suggestions forum is a place for people to make suggestions and then for others to comment on them - otherwise we'd just have a blind suggestion submitting form. My hope has always been that comments would be somewhat constructive and would help hone the OP's ideas into something that might actually work within the VO universe. Unnecessarily negative comments and/or over-adherence to the details of the original suggestion generally results in a useless shouting match.
You're something of an optimist aren't you Whistler? If it makes you feel any better... I'd say about 90% -98% of this forum, is actually is step with your humble opinion of what it should be.
-1
Any "shop" should be inside stations. And a "Station's Mall" or "Players Bazaar" inside ConqStations or Commercial ones have been requested before, and it is much more simple and logic. No visuals but another tab in station's UI.
Any "shop" should be inside stations. And a "Station's Mall" or "Players Bazaar" inside ConqStations or Commercial ones have been requested before, and it is much more simple and logic. No visuals but another tab in station's UI.
"No, that is not true. However i have often hard time remembering all the details of previous discussions, i usually remember the "general image" of them.
So it is not a matter of dishonesty or disregard for truth, this are simply memory holes."
Yes, I can see how it might be terribly difficult to remember the contents of a three sentence post, especially when the very obvious point is made in a single sentence.
As for capships being too expensive, yes that is currently the case. I had meant to say that a new class of capship could be introduced featuring abysmal flight characteristics and little to no firepower, which would be significantly easier for lone civilians to acquire. It would be essentially useless for transport and combat, just serving as a "mobile" storefront.
I also of course like the idea of stores in conquerable stations as a second option implemented alongside (and probably before) this one. Using a mobile store ship doesn't require conquering a station and doesn't risk having your station conquered back, but instead risks the store itself being popped. In turn it provides the flexibility to move the store around to more advantageous positions as needed.
So it is not a matter of dishonesty or disregard for truth, this are simply memory holes."
Yes, I can see how it might be terribly difficult to remember the contents of a three sentence post, especially when the very obvious point is made in a single sentence.
As for capships being too expensive, yes that is currently the case. I had meant to say that a new class of capship could be introduced featuring abysmal flight characteristics and little to no firepower, which would be significantly easier for lone civilians to acquire. It would be essentially useless for transport and combat, just serving as a "mobile" storefront.
I also of course like the idea of stores in conquerable stations as a second option implemented alongside (and probably before) this one. Using a mobile store ship doesn't require conquering a station and doesn't risk having your station conquered back, but instead risks the store itself being popped. In turn it provides the flexibility to move the store around to more advantageous positions as needed.
@Pizzasgood
[[[Yes, I can see how it might be terribly difficult to remember the contents of a three sentence post, especially when the very obvious point is made in a single sentence.]]]
No, wait a moment.... So you were talking about jamesbuhls's post all the time, not about ryan's, right ?
OK, I think misunderstood/misread what you were talking about from the start so i was talking about completely different things.
However, I still don't understand what is the connection between jamesbuhls's & mine posts and "dishonesty & disregard for truth".
You know, let's better switch the topic before it turns into total mess.
.
.
@Whistler
[[[Is all this arguing really necessary?
It isn't all spelled out somewhere for us, but IMHO the Suggestions forum is a place for people to make suggestions and then for others to comment on them - otherwise we'd just have a blind suggestion submitting form. ]]]
Indeed, this discussion currently doesn't seem to be leading to much of constructive stuff.
.
.
[[[My hope has always been that comments would be somewhat constructive and would help hone the OP's ideas into something that might actually work within the VO universe. Unnecessarily negative comments and/or over-adherence to the details of the original suggestion generally results in a useless shouting match.]]]
What you said works, but only when it's not PoL's idea.
If it's PoL's idea, it usually turns into trolling & shouting contest.
And BTW, IMHO we are wasting time here. This "stall feature" is actually critical for a MMO's economy to thrive - this is why so many MMOs out there have it.
Stalls allow few important things that wouldn't be possible without them:
- Trade with other player even when he is offline / in another location
- Creates physical "marketplaces" in space - where players can come to trade with many players / group of players simultaneously
- Heavily increases interactions between players - because players don't have to be online to interact
- Creates opportunities for players to influence the game world by placing their own static objects in it
- Allows players to run actual businesses (running shops)
- Allows players to advertise their services using billboards (which is not possible if player-to-player trade is conducted in stations only)
[[[Yes, I can see how it might be terribly difficult to remember the contents of a three sentence post, especially when the very obvious point is made in a single sentence.]]]
No, wait a moment.... So you were talking about jamesbuhls's post all the time, not about ryan's, right ?
OK, I think misunderstood/misread what you were talking about from the start so i was talking about completely different things.
However, I still don't understand what is the connection between jamesbuhls's & mine posts and "dishonesty & disregard for truth".
You know, let's better switch the topic before it turns into total mess.
.
.
@Whistler
[[[Is all this arguing really necessary?
It isn't all spelled out somewhere for us, but IMHO the Suggestions forum is a place for people to make suggestions and then for others to comment on them - otherwise we'd just have a blind suggestion submitting form. ]]]
Indeed, this discussion currently doesn't seem to be leading to much of constructive stuff.
.
.
[[[My hope has always been that comments would be somewhat constructive and would help hone the OP's ideas into something that might actually work within the VO universe. Unnecessarily negative comments and/or over-adherence to the details of the original suggestion generally results in a useless shouting match.]]]
What you said works, but only when it's not PoL's idea.
If it's PoL's idea, it usually turns into trolling & shouting contest.
And BTW, IMHO we are wasting time here. This "stall feature" is actually critical for a MMO's economy to thrive - this is why so many MMOs out there have it.
Stalls allow few important things that wouldn't be possible without them:
- Trade with other player even when he is offline / in another location
- Creates physical "marketplaces" in space - where players can come to trade with many players / group of players simultaneously
- Heavily increases interactions between players - because players don't have to be online to interact
- Creates opportunities for players to influence the game world by placing their own static objects in it
- Allows players to run actual businesses (running shops)
- Allows players to advertise their services using billboards (which is not possible if player-to-player trade is conducted in stations only)
"If it's PoL's idea, it usually turns into trolling & shouting contest."
Remember the last few times you pulled this card? Remember how I posted examples of how when your ideas were not awful people agreed with you? Including but not limited to... myself, Nahin, Lecter and many others. Is someone goingto have to do that every time someone disagrees with you?
"This "stall feature" is actually critical for a MMO's economy to thrive - this is why so many MMOs out there have it."
And yet VO has lasted so long without indestructible magical floating space cubes. Nahin, myself, SKAR, PA, ONE, ITAN, EMS, TGFT and others do a brisk trade in P2P dealings, with no significant issues. Whats important isn't indestructible magical floating space cubes, its fixing the economy.
Remember the last few times you pulled this card? Remember how I posted examples of how when your ideas were not awful people agreed with you? Including but not limited to... myself, Nahin, Lecter and many others. Is someone goingto have to do that every time someone disagrees with you?
"This "stall feature" is actually critical for a MMO's economy to thrive - this is why so many MMOs out there have it."
And yet VO has lasted so long without indestructible magical floating space cubes. Nahin, myself, SKAR, PA, ONE, ITAN, EMS, TGFT and others do a brisk trade in P2P dealings, with no significant issues. Whats important isn't indestructible magical floating space cubes, its fixing the economy.
@ryan
[[[Remember the last few times you pulled this card? Remember how I posted examples of how when your ideas were not awful people agreed with you? Including but not limited to... myself, Nahin, Lecter and many others. Is someone goingto have to do that every time someone disagrees with you?]]]
What the hell are you talking about man ?
You have proof that what I am saying is right before your eyes. This discussion.
And its Whistler who said it not me. This discussion has already turned into a shouting contest, long before i pulled out the "card".
.
.
[[[And yet VO has lasted so long without indestructible magical floating space cubes. ]]]
Sure it "lasted", but it almost died in the process. This game lacks critical features. That is a fact.
Deal with it man and stop attacking me unnecessarily.
You are attacking somebody who wants to help you and knows exactly how to help you.
[[[Remember the last few times you pulled this card? Remember how I posted examples of how when your ideas were not awful people agreed with you? Including but not limited to... myself, Nahin, Lecter and many others. Is someone goingto have to do that every time someone disagrees with you?]]]
What the hell are you talking about man ?
You have proof that what I am saying is right before your eyes. This discussion.
And its Whistler who said it not me. This discussion has already turned into a shouting contest, long before i pulled out the "card".
.
.
[[[And yet VO has lasted so long without indestructible magical floating space cubes. ]]]
Sure it "lasted", but it almost died in the process. This game lacks critical features. That is a fact.
Deal with it man and stop attacking me unnecessarily.
You are attacking somebody who wants to help you and knows exactly how to help you.
I'm talking about how whenever some one disagrees with you (in your opinion) they are trolling you.) and how I gave you examples several times of people you claim constantly troll you in point of fact agreed with you on many things.
Whistler, in his seemingly infinite patience asked... "Is all this arguing really necessary?"
You, are the one who tried to once again position yourself as the sainted savior of VO/victim of infinite bashing and trolling (as you do ANYTIME ANYONE DOESN'T LIKE YOUR IDEAS).
Whistler, in his seemingly infinite patience asked... "Is all this arguing really necessary?"
You, are the one who tried to once again position yourself as the sainted savior of VO/victim of infinite bashing and trolling (as you do ANYTIME ANYONE DOESN'T LIKE YOUR IDEAS).