Forums » Suggestions
Shameless bump.
I think this suggestion could use some developer feedback.
I think this suggestion could use some developer feedback.
So, I've actually talked about some aspects of this, on here, although not in a few years.
Anyway, I think some interesting points are raised in this thread. At the moment, there are two points that come to mind:
1) We're on the verge of building a real player economy, by expanding and improving on the Latos N-2 model. We also have other plans for enhancing the ability of players to sell manufactured content. To me, it seems like Capital Ships (and their components) are a practically ideal set of items to be traded in a streamlined player economy, and making the entire ships purchasable would basically deflate that concept. People have already been selling various Trident Kits and the like for ages, and when these kinds of behaviors emerge in-game.. my preference is to try and find ways of enabling them, rather than negating them. A player-driven economy, with player-made content moving around to player-owned stations, sounds way more chaotic and interesting than me just coming up with some "difficult" price and defining it artificially.
2) I'm also not against the idea of selling one-off Goliath, without insurance, for actual money. There was discussion about this going back at least to 2013. In that thread I personally only mentioned IAPs for addons for Lite subs (which we did, for awhile, before adding Crystal), but you can read the additional discussion that followed, and there was at least one other thread where I openly kicked around the idea of selling non-insured capships, primarily targeted at Lite/Mobile, but available even to Premium players, and received entirely positive feedback at that time (my price target was more like $5-$10). So, ironically, I'm not against Greenwall's Suggestion about real-money purchasable capships, but I would also be amenable to finding ways to keep it from feeling too "pay to win" (purchased capships could degrade over time? there could be other substantial tradeoffs). This whole option is not necessarily eliminated by having a pay-with-credits type of sale, as it still ends up as a "Money vs Time" type comparison, but it would likely have an impact.
So, anyway, even if #2 doesn't happen, I'm still pretty into the idea of #1, which I don't think would benefit from making capships generically purchasable by the "system". I would rather create a system where players can fill that need, and let them define the "price" in credits. Then that price can fluctuate by actual competition, supply and demand.
To be clear, I'm not saying "No" to credit-purchasable capships, or officially ruling anything out. I still think there are some good discussion points here. I'm mostly illustrating some general thoughts.
Anyway, I think some interesting points are raised in this thread. At the moment, there are two points that come to mind:
1) We're on the verge of building a real player economy, by expanding and improving on the Latos N-2 model. We also have other plans for enhancing the ability of players to sell manufactured content. To me, it seems like Capital Ships (and their components) are a practically ideal set of items to be traded in a streamlined player economy, and making the entire ships purchasable would basically deflate that concept. People have already been selling various Trident Kits and the like for ages, and when these kinds of behaviors emerge in-game.. my preference is to try and find ways of enabling them, rather than negating them. A player-driven economy, with player-made content moving around to player-owned stations, sounds way more chaotic and interesting than me just coming up with some "difficult" price and defining it artificially.
2) I'm also not against the idea of selling one-off Goliath, without insurance, for actual money. There was discussion about this going back at least to 2013. In that thread I personally only mentioned IAPs for addons for Lite subs (which we did, for awhile, before adding Crystal), but you can read the additional discussion that followed, and there was at least one other thread where I openly kicked around the idea of selling non-insured capships, primarily targeted at Lite/Mobile, but available even to Premium players, and received entirely positive feedback at that time (my price target was more like $5-$10). So, ironically, I'm not against Greenwall's Suggestion about real-money purchasable capships, but I would also be amenable to finding ways to keep it from feeling too "pay to win" (purchased capships could degrade over time? there could be other substantial tradeoffs). This whole option is not necessarily eliminated by having a pay-with-credits type of sale, as it still ends up as a "Money vs Time" type comparison, but it would likely have an impact.
So, anyway, even if #2 doesn't happen, I'm still pretty into the idea of #1, which I don't think would benefit from making capships generically purchasable by the "system". I would rather create a system where players can fill that need, and let them define the "price" in credits. Then that price can fluctuate by actual competition, supply and demand.
To be clear, I'm not saying "No" to credit-purchasable capships, or officially ruling anything out. I still think there are some good discussion points here. I'm mostly illustrating some general thoughts.
What's so ironic about not being against my ideas? lol.
Because you and others on that thread (and this one) speculated that I would be against the concept.
10-4
From my LTS experience flying the Goliath around the actual universe during the 10Mc testing phase: these things are plenty vulnerable to regular fighter craft without making them degrade over time. A Goliath purchased for real money would still need to be protected by a fighter wing in most cases.
Fuck #2. It's like paying to promote a pawn to a rook. Sure, you could get a queen if you walked a pawn across the board, but that takes skill and time, and depending on the layout of the board, it might not even be possible. Similarly, letting people buy ships with microtransactions lets them pay to ignore the effects of blockades, supply shortages, lack of credits, and the like. They could be completely out of resources and backed into a corner, but if that corner has a capship dock, then they can drop $50 and suddenly they have a capship.
That is not okay.
That is not okay.
+1
And incarnate, I believe that only grespace stations should have player economy.
And incarnate, I believe that only grespace stations should have player economy.
I think incarnate already has something of an extended idea, as seen when he was interviewed by space game junkies back in 2016. I think that idea is still his target, and it sounds good to me.
+500 to what Rin said.
Purchasable capships not only avoid the grind for the purchasing player, they remove many other game-play aspects that impact others, such as requiring station access (a common point of conflict and contention), evading blockades and pirates, players selling ores and other components etc.
Real money should NEVER get you anything that directly affects game-play. I would personally be very disappointed should RL cash purchasable capships become a thing.
Purchasable capships not only avoid the grind for the purchasing player, they remove many other game-play aspects that impact others, such as requiring station access (a common point of conflict and contention), evading blockades and pirates, players selling ores and other components etc.
Real money should NEVER get you anything that directly affects game-play. I would personally be very disappointed should RL cash purchasable capships become a thing.
+1 about microtransaction goliath I think its a wonderous idea and Id get behind it :D, and its a small shielded, uninsured ship, I don't see why it could be unfair.
-1to buy capship for rl , but +1 to incarnate idea about escrow system :P
@Tripod:
Because the buyer invests zero work and zero risk to obtain it, as well as robbing other players of potential game-play preventing the construction of said ship. It's pay to win, pure and simple, regardless of whether its insured or not.
Using in-game credits to buy a ship from another player is different, as the credits must be earned in-game, and someone still has to invest the work and risk involved in its construction.
Because the buyer invests zero work and zero risk to obtain it, as well as robbing other players of potential game-play preventing the construction of said ship. It's pay to win, pure and simple, regardless of whether its insured or not.
Using in-game credits to buy a ship from another player is different, as the credits must be earned in-game, and someone still has to invest the work and risk involved in its construction.
The way I see it, making any form of capships available through micro transactions would be highly appealing to newer players, while the older players who manufactured them would be in opposition to it. Making the capships purchasable could increase player retention while also risk losing the support of the older players. All dependent on the devs to decide whom they want to cater to.
"pay to win" lol its a Goliath not a Trident type M, also who wouldn't buy this? and its not necessarily pay to win because people pay to have the ability to build one anyway so technically if buying the Goli via microtransaction is P2W then the whole game game is P2W. The Goliath being purchaseable would provide VO with a substantial playerbase full of capships and capship wars. Also I don't think this will stop Goliaths being produced by other players since some would still crave that sweet insurance, this could work for all :). So I repeat I do not see a problem.
So, for starters.. as the vets on here all know, I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Free-To-Play world, and all I really want to do is make the best premium game that I can and charge people a fair price for it. But the reality is that people won't pay that price anymore, and the premium model is screwed, so that challenging and unavoidable reality (across both PC and mobile) is the major reason why we're having this conversation.
The entire concept of "Pay To Win" can be a pretty gray area. I get blasted on mobile for the game already being P2W from the perspective of free players, who (justifiably) consider premium subscribers to have an equipment advantage.
Aside from that, there's the inherent Pay To Win that comes with buying the best hardware to run the game, the best latency/connection, compared to the guy playing for free on an old phone from the rural Philippines.
There will always be differences in people's ability to invest, either time or money. I don't think VO should require people to spend 40 hours a week to get the best experience, nor should it require spending a zillion dollars, but there should be some middle ground of time-vs-money options that still retains what's most important about the game.
I also have no interest in de-valuing the time and investment of people who have already "ground" their way to top-level content (if anything, I'd like to highlight / reward their efforts even more). But I do think there are probably set of tradeoffs that don't have to be black-and-white or have-vs-"nothing". Particularly as capships gain more relevance in the game than they do now.
There's a lot of mitigation in the implementation details. Like, the notion of purchasing one-shot Goliaths does not have to circumvent all other game mechanics. Especially if there's a supply/demand based economy, and certain stations accumulate capship components, and their ability to carry inventory of Goliaths is based on their availability of those component objects.. If the station runs low, they could stop selling capships.. either to "insured" players.. or to those via IAP.
Granted, this would be highly unusual for a game to refuse to accept people's money, due to a gameplay state that created a "virtual shortage", but I'm not against being the wacky game who's willing to do that (and thus, to allow player activity and unpredictable interactions to potentially impact our monthly revenue and bottom line.. which is a meaningful risk. Ie, some guild does a huge blockade and as a result I can't make payroll.. scary). But I am willing to do that if there's some middle ground that still provides a reasonable balance of maintaining the mechanics of the universe.
Similarly, I don't consider selling a one-shot Goliath for $10 in the same vein as selling any other capital ship. We'll continue to evolve manufactured capital ship availability. Trident variants, Constellations, Capella, whatever. I envision these as bigger "endgame" goals, intended to be rewards only for great investment of time. These are in contrast to a Goliath, which is limited enough that it might be reasonable as a non-insured purchasable item? It was actually part of the thinking back when we created the ship.
Continued feedback is welcome on all of the above. None of our direction on this is cast in stone, at the moment.
The entire concept of "Pay To Win" can be a pretty gray area. I get blasted on mobile for the game already being P2W from the perspective of free players, who (justifiably) consider premium subscribers to have an equipment advantage.
Aside from that, there's the inherent Pay To Win that comes with buying the best hardware to run the game, the best latency/connection, compared to the guy playing for free on an old phone from the rural Philippines.
There will always be differences in people's ability to invest, either time or money. I don't think VO should require people to spend 40 hours a week to get the best experience, nor should it require spending a zillion dollars, but there should be some middle ground of time-vs-money options that still retains what's most important about the game.
I also have no interest in de-valuing the time and investment of people who have already "ground" their way to top-level content (if anything, I'd like to highlight / reward their efforts even more). But I do think there are probably set of tradeoffs that don't have to be black-and-white or have-vs-"nothing". Particularly as capships gain more relevance in the game than they do now.
There's a lot of mitigation in the implementation details. Like, the notion of purchasing one-shot Goliaths does not have to circumvent all other game mechanics. Especially if there's a supply/demand based economy, and certain stations accumulate capship components, and their ability to carry inventory of Goliaths is based on their availability of those component objects.. If the station runs low, they could stop selling capships.. either to "insured" players.. or to those via IAP.
Granted, this would be highly unusual for a game to refuse to accept people's money, due to a gameplay state that created a "virtual shortage", but I'm not against being the wacky game who's willing to do that (and thus, to allow player activity and unpredictable interactions to potentially impact our monthly revenue and bottom line.. which is a meaningful risk. Ie, some guild does a huge blockade and as a result I can't make payroll.. scary). But I am willing to do that if there's some middle ground that still provides a reasonable balance of maintaining the mechanics of the universe.
Similarly, I don't consider selling a one-shot Goliath for $10 in the same vein as selling any other capital ship. We'll continue to evolve manufactured capital ship availability. Trident variants, Constellations, Capella, whatever. I envision these as bigger "endgame" goals, intended to be rewards only for great investment of time. These are in contrast to a Goliath, which is limited enough that it might be reasonable as a non-insured purchasable item? It was actually part of the thinking back when we created the ship.
Continued feedback is welcome on all of the above. None of our direction on this is cast in stone, at the moment.
I'm going to go right back to capship vs capship combat with this. I am not opposed to a cash purchase Goliath as long as the player manued capships have an advantage which currently they really don't. Yes the Trident has better shields and an extra turret but that isn't really enough against a ship that can out run it and has the same grid/energy.
Obviously there are plans for more capships in the works and hopefully they bring an advantage back to the bigger ships. The NPC Pirates are a great addition to keep capship travel dangerous and fun. So that $10 capship without insurance is going to be even more of a risk/motivation to actually manu one with insurance, which is a good thing.
Maybe the answer is a scaled back Goli that is purchasable. Maybe lower grid and engine and only requires combat 4 to pilot. That may get some of the "we won't pay" mobile players to invest a bit more into the game and sub so they can manu an insured better version.
Motivating the lazy no commitment players is going to be hard but this may be a way of doing that.
Obviously there are plans for more capships in the works and hopefully they bring an advantage back to the bigger ships. The NPC Pirates are a great addition to keep capship travel dangerous and fun. So that $10 capship without insurance is going to be even more of a risk/motivation to actually manu one with insurance, which is a good thing.
Maybe the answer is a scaled back Goli that is purchasable. Maybe lower grid and engine and only requires combat 4 to pilot. That may get some of the "we won't pay" mobile players to invest a bit more into the game and sub so they can manu an insured better version.
Motivating the lazy no commitment players is going to be hard but this may be a way of doing that.
+1 to Washy, I didn't mean to call the game Pay to Win cuz anyone can really win. But I totally agree with something in the middle ground where both veterans in the game who Manu stuff and newer players that find manu hard can agree on somethin good.
Goliath B(buyers)- Less turrets, scaled back shield, -100 or somethin cargo cap, perhaps take away a port or two whatever the Goli has.
this way people who grind and build the original Goli can feel happy of their creation they built and buyers can feel glad they don't have to grind for a smaller shielded, less effective, but nonetheless really cool capship.
Goliath B(buyers)- Less turrets, scaled back shield, -100 or somethin cargo cap, perhaps take away a port or two whatever the Goli has.
this way people who grind and build the original Goli can feel happy of their creation they built and buyers can feel glad they don't have to grind for a smaller shielded, less effective, but nonetheless really cool capship.
While I make no secret that I am opposed to RL cash buying a player an instant in-game advantage, I do understand that GS may need to go this route, as more and more people look at the subscription model with disdain. It's not a deal-breaker for me, however much I dislike the idea.
Should this route be required, I would at least want said ship to be uninsured and less effective than as painstakingly manufactured one, and more importantly, be identifiable as an IAP vessel. Rather than eliminate the risks involved in manufacturing, identifying these ships as IAP vessels would instead simply move the risk from the manufacturing stage to the piloting stage (as you can bet your donkey I would go out of my way to hunt and destroy these IAP vessels). That's a compromise I could get behind.
Not sure if IAP ships (or gear/whatever) should be tied to in-game availability. As Inc said, player actions in-game affecting Guild Softwares revenue stream is a scary thought.
Side note: Assuming these IAP capships would be uninsured, I suggest that the uninsured nature of these vessels be justified by describing the IAP as a rental, rather than a purchase. Destroying these "rentals" in monitored space could even affect the killers standing with the faction that rented out the vessel, rather than (or in addition too) the standing loss caused by the victims own standings.
Should this route be required, I would at least want said ship to be uninsured and less effective than as painstakingly manufactured one, and more importantly, be identifiable as an IAP vessel. Rather than eliminate the risks involved in manufacturing, identifying these ships as IAP vessels would instead simply move the risk from the manufacturing stage to the piloting stage (as you can bet your donkey I would go out of my way to hunt and destroy these IAP vessels). That's a compromise I could get behind.
Not sure if IAP ships (or gear/whatever) should be tied to in-game availability. As Inc said, player actions in-game affecting Guild Softwares revenue stream is a scary thought.
Side note: Assuming these IAP capships would be uninsured, I suggest that the uninsured nature of these vessels be justified by describing the IAP as a rental, rather than a purchase. Destroying these "rentals" in monitored space could even affect the killers standing with the faction that rented out the vessel, rather than (or in addition too) the standing loss caused by the victims own standings.
Any micro transaction you do that doesn't offer a real advantage will ignored or will get you bad reviews.
"I payed $10 for a cool ship and this player called Faille Corvelle blew it up easily, I've already wasted too much money on this game."
Any micro transaction you do that offers a real advantage will lose you long-term supporters.
"I can't believe incarnate made VO p2w. All people do is pay $10 and fly around invincible"
Making Goliath purchasable with credits + the suggestions below would make a rather sexy combination.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/34891
This is the hope forums after all.
"I payed $10 for a cool ship and this player called Faille Corvelle blew it up easily, I've already wasted too much money on this game."
Any micro transaction you do that offers a real advantage will lose you long-term supporters.
"I can't believe incarnate made VO p2w. All people do is pay $10 and fly around invincible"
Making Goliath purchasable with credits + the suggestions below would make a rather sexy combination.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/34891
This is the hope forums after all.