Xenoform101

That all may be true, but last i checked a subscription fee plus the potential DACs bought by those user is worth more than some fictional currency to a real business. Not to mention, sure suicide ganking may reduce supply, but if it causes enough people to leave it also reduces demand, which leaves us back to square 1. That's quite a bit of false assumptions you have there. i agree. I've seen games dumbed down to oblivion, but at the same time if the learning curve is too steep, it won't bring in more people either. This may be true, but i bet you that they aren't a group of people with less than a month combat experience in the game while completing these feats. So when you are fighting a force that has at least equal or more often times greater skill, numbers most definitely matter especially if in their favor. I have no problem with freedom of choice but i think game mechanics should influence that choice else it can be pure anarchy. I think that if you are a villain, there should be a very good reason for another player to be the police, which often times the reward is mediocre at best. Is it though? You may think it's bullshit but I at least have proof that it is a valid argument in the form of the original post on this thread. Eve has such a negative stigma that some people will completely disregard any differences and key features that separate this game from it, including the non-combat aspects. That is the biggest hurdle i've been trying to get people to overcome when trying to get them to consider this game.

Don't get me wrong i have nothing against pvp in general. I just think there should be more incentives for equal or harder fights. Maybe if a ship is completely out-gunned it has more chance of having its salvageable parts completely destroyed. I understand killing for bounty, loot or territory but acts that exist just for the sake of misery like suicide ganking should be heavily discouraged somehow.

For the builders, unfortunately the building aspect between this game and Empyrion and Space Engineers is as comparable as it is to Minecraft, which it really isn't. So far the most unique aspects of this game is the building and the single massive persistent universe. Those who come for those parts of the game have no other options. They will most likely put up with parts of the game they don't like than those who come for the EVE-like sandbox since if EVE-players don't like other aspects of the game they can just go back to EVE. What annoys me the most is the attitude of players that say "if you don't like it then leave". What is ironic is that in EVE greater numbers matter in wars. Why would it be any different in sales of this game? That basically tells me that those players don't care for the well-being of the game.

It is and it is also free to play now and more of the game will be free to play in december. And still if you consider it a success, doesn't mean anything that copies it will be. Look at Perpetuum.

i say its a bit of both, and sure it may draw people's attention but honestly it hasn't been about the wars but the scams. Still, a train wreck also attracts attention, doesn't mean you want to be in the train.

Regardless, if the game sticks too closely to the EVE formula, it will get the same reputation or worse, that of being an EVE clone with a gimmick. The only people that would be interested in it will be EVE players, which already have EVE. When looking at WOW and its clones, the clones almost always fail.

I never said we did nothing about it, we did on several occasions did try to fight back, we did join an alliance. But when they seem to always seem to have 4 well fitted ships to every one of your ships, not to mention their neutral logistics waiting in the back, its hard enough to leave a station let alone win a fight. By the end i barely even had enough isk to buy a frigate, at that point its no longer pvp, its griefing.

Well, isn't this far from the truth. I personally found more grief when socializing than when i was solo. The first time i joined a nice little corp of about 20-30 members. The first week in the corp was fine. We did some mining and even had a little pvp frigate tournament, but it was a little corp aka an easy target, so we got war-decced for at least 2 months straight from multiple other corps. Its pretty bad when trying to make friends completely prevents you from playing the game. So yea, i think eve is full of griefers. It even has corps full of them.

I'm a little old school, everything should be measured in cubits.

i figure this since this thread has popped up several times before i'll throw in my idea from those threads. To sum it up, if i were a copier why would i put in 100% work for 100% profit, when i can put in 50% work for 50% profit without fear of reprisal, while giving the original creator their cut plus advertising and also giving dual a new profession.

I personally would love to see this concept art of a city scene realized

So far I've only heard about the hovercraft you've mentioned. But i do agree that wheeled/tracked vehicle would be cool to have as well.

Would be cool if a blueprint kept a log of builders, and when it is sold the profit is split according to how much work was done to the blueprint. So if someone buys a blueprint and changes 1% then resells it, they only get 1% of the profit while the original blueprint "inventor" gets the other 99%. There can also be a cap, like maybe the split stops at 1/2 profit for the first "innovator", to keep someone from just trying to edit out the "inventor" entirely. If another "innovator" wants to edit the edited blueprint then the max that person can get is 1/3 profit and so on and so forth. That way the "inventor" always has an equal or larger slice plus some free marketing and distribution. If cap is there, then, most likely, in the case of the re-sellers, the blueprints closest to the original would probably have more value. At that point, the "inventor" can build to its heart's content since it has a constant influx of currency with little effort, beyond making new blueprints that have to be popular to continue the cycle. The only downside i can see to this i when another can of worms is added to the mix. Like you make a whole ship from scratch but use a blueprint of ,say for example, a small painting to decorate it. Maybe the the cap would be applied to the sum of the material to make the blueprint. So if the painting, unedited, was 100 voxels and the ship is 10000 the inventor of the painting only gets 1% of the profit since it only accounts for 1% of the total build. And i don't even want to think about frankenstein-ing a ship together from the pieces of several other ship blueprints. Best i can come up with is determining the percentage of each blueprint is part of the whole then adjusting for the innovator cap. So if someone used 6 blueprints, ownership of the 6 would be split accordingly and the innovator's share could go up to 1/7th of the total profit.

Yep, Landmark builder here. In fact, that is me (or atleast my avatar) on that "Goodbye Landmark" video you posted. Here are some of the things i worked on.

Another mechanic could be it would have to affect energy reserves. I figure to use automated processes there would have to be a main computer controlling those processes and the more you tax that computer the more power it requires. Now if you had a crew to manually operate some of these systems, you could eliminate some of those power drains, which would greatly decrease the chance of your ship running on empty mid-fight. Another advantage a manned crew can have in terms of the weapon systems is that manned weapons are immune to target-disrupting electronic counter measures. With this you can indeed fly a large ship solo, but you have to pray that any fights you have are quick. Personally, I think a space version of a big rig/lorry shouldn't need to be as crew intensive as the space version of a tank.

The problem is that elements and voxels rely on different tech. To rotate a cube of voxels would require that the grid the cube is on would have to distort quite a bit to keep its shape.

My priorities lie with discovering new planets/systems/asteroids and building. Everything else is just a means to an end.

Another tool feature i would like is the ability to rotate something other than 90 degrees. It would greatly help with builds that are not quite rectangular.

I'm personally very anti-cash shop, even if the cash shop isn't selling anything pay to win. The problem is, I've seen, eventually the business side of the game company takes over and the priority becomes less about making a better game and more about making the next shiny to put on the store.

What if FTL speed isn't the limiting factor, but fuel. Let's say a ship has a tank large enough to get to two stars. Well with that you can't go very far in one go. So as you go you have to set up fuel collectors which require materials you need to find. In theory this should still keep warpgates as the main form of interstellar transportation,while promoting colonization and exploration is still a possibility, especially if you setup warpgates to help create these collectors quicker. And if that is still too quick, maybe collector has to collect fuel over time.

They could also have a larger power requirement since its not only the internals that are actively functional but the armor as well which definitely lends them to better be suited to being smaller agile ships since the power requirement increases dramatically compared to their size. Another thing of note, what if you could make biological drones. They could make sense when paired with your traditional metal and plating ship. Think of them not as part of the ship but as large hunting dogs that need to be cared for when not active.

So i was wondering how the flight controls for the game are going to be. Will it be like space engineers where you have to keep your mouse moving in the direction you wish to go like in Space Engineers, will there be a tethered-reticle style in which the ship moves in the direction the cursor is from the center of the screen like in Elite Dangerous, or will there be some other form of control. As of right now, i personally prefer the elite dangerous version, but whatever it is, i really hope the axis of movement is customizable unlike in Planetside 2. i know some like the mouse controlling pitch and roll, but i like it controlling pitch and yaw. I don't see why there can't be both options. What is everyone elses opinion on the matter.

Sounds like i good idea but probably have it a little offset from the center to mess with pilots that like to aim at center mass.

So I was looking at the awesome cannon and laser turret models that was shared recently then i started wondering, what kind of weaponry will we be messing with. Luckily in the realm of sci-fi there are many types to choose from. There is traditional bullets,lasers (which have been confirmed), rail guns, missiles and rockets, plasma launchers, charged particle cannons, lightning cannons, drones, and much much more, but the question i have is, will we have access to many of these different weapon types or will we only have a select few to choose from. Now if we do have access to a bunch of weapon types, the question is how will they be different from each other? Will traditional bullet based weaponry have a higher rate of fire than rail-guns, and will rail-guns have higher damage per round than traditional bullet based weaponry. Will a laser be a long range low-yet constant damage the doesn't require ammo but drains the user's power. Will a lightning cannon be similar but is short range and can arc to other nearby targets. Does being in atmosphere have an effect on these weapons, like a guided missile with fins would do much better on a planet than in space because of aerodynamics, or a plasma launcher would hurl faster projectiles in space due to lack of drag. Will some be better at precisely penetrating several layers of armor with little collateral damage, and will some leave large gashes on the surface. Will there be weapons that don't shoot at all but instead you mount to the front of your ship or buggy that would be perfect for ramming.

Luckily, early in the thread they stated man-made voxels are planned to be around 25cm. Comparing that to the average sized person's height is about 7-8 voxels. At that size you can create quite a bit of detail.