Jump to content


Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Archonious

  1. Why and for? I think % of role-players will be very small in release dates. It could looks popular on forum while waiting game, but overal player base will never care about something like that, they will play the game. Ofc everyone may go anywhere, may do anything and may believe any religion or something else, but if to speak about "Is it need to be global?" - No. Thanks, Archonious
  2. I believe that game need require skills for main direction. Like a building, piloting and other (for DU), because game is about this. But imagine if one of the key sides of the game require some skills (which is not about game at all). I know some people in real life who have no idea how to sort with sudokus. For them it is the same as this: Imagine that some "quantum physics scientist" come here and say: "Let's use the quantum physics formulas, it is not hard and everyone can learn it or use internet". Yes, it sound silly, but who knows, maybe for somebody these sudokus tasks looks similarly =) Once again, personally I am fine with that. P.S: It would be absolutelly fine, if there would be some "ingame skills" to help or auto unlock. Maybe some consumables to open some numbers. I meain, if player can get skill or pay extra money, he/she can avoid that. Thanks, Archonious
  3. I see the title only. So opinion based on that. Personally I like idea, but this could set different players in unfair possition. Some people very easy solve these tasks, some have no idea how to do it. If to create them easy as NoManSky's one, this is pointless. So there are two sides of the coin in this idea. Thanks, Archonious
  4. Ok. It looks easier to argue with a wall =))) Words, many empty words only. Nothing about the facts. Just everyone MUST do that because I WANT! All I see egoistic/selfish position. Nothing to talk about! Bye! P.S: Twerk is in ignore list for ages, don't care about this dirty troll
  5. Yeah, if to read with closed eyes or while flying in silly dreams =) Most of the times I wrote examples when everyone will get profits - as low time players, as average players, as nolife players. If you will open eyes and read again, you will see the idea is not about "Solo player on big ship", but about very flexible system, when player can control few system if he/she has enough multitask skills and ingame skills. I would mark "IF HE/SHE HAS ENOUGH SKILLS". So if job very easy for me, I can do something else as well, at the same time. I don't tell that EVERYONE need to do that, as you do. If I can do 5 tasks at time, I do not force everyone do 5 tasks at time. You say, EVERYONE need to do 1 task, because somebody want to be engineer (from your example). I say everyone can do engineering and something else, if player can do that (once again, IF PLAYER CAN DO). Comprendo? Thanks, Archonious
  6. I bet nobody cares about ALL players here. Everyone pull on own side only. That's the problem of this community.
  7. Stop! You say "...because everyone can do that". I give example which fit "everyone can do that". Now you tell his example is better. His example does not fit "everyone can do that" at all. And there was no insult, there was a question.
  8. Are you dumb or don't want to see analogy with your "Everyone can do that, so this need to be separated" to make this boring as shit? =))) With your example "submarines" crew need to be about 200-300 people then! YES, Let's create virtual world same as real. OMG!
  9. I didn't write it need to be easy that every single player can do that. And if it is so easy (that everyone can do that), why SHOULD I do this primitive/easy job ONLY? If you want game for dumbs, we will never agree, because this is real trash and I don't want see DU as DUMB game. It is like in real life to create rule that car need 3 people in (easy multitask that everyone can do that, from your message). One for drive, one for transmission and one for pedals. You can do all 3 things? No, YOU NEED 3 PEOPLE! It is VERY STUPID! Why? Because there are some players who want to control transmision. I hope you can see analogy. P.S: And you say, I should not schedule. Example. My ship (and 5 members who NEED to be on ship to make everything work) goes somewhere away (few hours or even days trip, as we know there would be long distances between planets and other objects). So nobody else will have chance to respawn (respawn in closest resp only). If 1 or more of crew Leave (long DC/AFK or something else) I can't replace person, it is impossible, we far away. Ship can't be controled, so all others need to wait for unknown time or wait another ship with some people who can replace DC crew member. Woooow, so much fun! I can say, I understand your dreams about "How it could be fantastic!", but it would be pain in the ass in many many situations, if it would be not flexible system. Thanks, Archonious
  10. It is not only about flying. And why flying ship is flexible, but weapon/turret control (or other systems) need to be very necessary controled by separate player? Why I can fly and control shields or something else? If I have enough skill and multitasking to do that, why I CAN'T do that? Why should I play by schedule and always organise time with somebody else? It is STUPID! It is fine if I don't have multitasking and enough skills to do that. If some dumbs can't fly and control shields at the same time (as example), it does not mean everybody else MUST NOT do it. If I have enough skills and multitasking to control, aim and shoot well from 10 turrets, game must not limit this (because some retards can't do that). Yes, it will be less effective that if all turrets will be controled by different players, but IT MUST BE AVAILABLE. I am very against Hard Requirements to have Crew. I don't want have another job, I have one, it is enough for me. Thanks, Archonious
  11. There is little problem with that. It could be fine if there are many players who happy to cover and org have just a few ships and people absolutelly fine to do any other thing (and I'm not saying about player location. Imagine your ship miles away from base and nobody can just respawn on it, bacause it is not the closest one). Now imagine you have 20 ppl and 5 ships with 4ppl crew (in original). So there are 5 good *special role* in org, nobody else can do it well (or do it t all). If to make these roles SO NECESSARY, than it means org NEED to have at least 4 these guys online. If not, others will stuck and can't do what they want to do (even with less efficency). If all these guys are friends in real life and go to party somewhere. This mean all the org stuck, because this role so necessary. And this is only sample with 4ppl ship. Imagine 10, 25, 40 or 50 ppl ships? You always will face situation described before "Sorry, we don't need you anymore, main player come back" or "Sorry, this guy raplaced you, because life was more important for you yesterday". Game without flexibility = dead game. I remember days of classic WoW. When 40 ppl wait 1-2 guys, because their roles were very important. When everyone lived and played by schedule. This is CRAP! Game must not be suitable for small group of players and disabled for another, because they has less time to play and can't plan their time in game, as NoLifers do. Thanks, Archonious
  12. If they said that and going this way, then I say that, they are. This kind of limitation won't work good for game. If game allow me to fly small ship only (and I need to find 100500 players who will play when I play), I won't stay in this hame for long and it will be huge disappointment in all this project. This is my opinion. And I don't like when somebody say "You need to play this way, because I am fine with that". And no matter that many can't do that, not just they don't like it, they CAN'T! Very simple.
  13. Apetite growing is human nature. If somebody say "I wanna small ship only", does not mean this person won't say "I want something bigger. So what in your opinion is good? That everyone need to play game same as they work? I need to login to game and wait others of my team? Or search somebody else and kick those who helped me to build ship? If game is not flexible, it could make negative attitude very fast. What the point to play if you can not do "that" or "that", before you start hardly play your time for game? It is very childish attitude, not many have a lot of time to spend it in games (not saying about hard planning of this time). As I said, if you have chance to spend you life in game, do it. You get more profits for that. But if somebody has real life and don't want sit here day and night, it does not mean that some parts of game must be limited (because they become limited by the fact). Thanks, Archonious
  14. You get it bit wrong. If you need to have 10 people crew on ship, it will be real problem for busy people. Because they can't play by schedule. Team work require schedule system. Swaping people everytime won't be enjoyable to anyone - "Today they need you, tomorrow they say ship is packed" or "You missed yesterday, so we don't need you anymore". In both situations there is unhappy person (we speak about unique role, not just for being on the ship). Fully automated (equal as manual) will make game as EVE (I think the most boring fights I ever seen). As somebody wrote/quoted "Go AFK, whule ship fighting". Don't want to see this game become as this AFK trash. Yes lazy players (few hours a week) will need much more time to build, to get used to ship and role. Busy players (who play few hours a day max) will spend less time than lazy players to rich same targets. NoLifers will achieve targets faster. So actually they will be most experienced (real exoerience) anyway. They would have schedules to work/play, they will have constand duties and other. They will do everything very well, because they professionals. They have time for that. If you say, Lazy players must not Build/Control big ships (they have no time to set teams), these players lose motivation to play in one moment. Same with busy players. Less motivation, more players will leave - more players leave, less chances game will survive in long term. I am strongly against to make game for NoLifers only. And no need to say "They can fly little solo fighters". 99% of players want and will play to build something bigger. Then bigger, ten bigger, then bigger". If I have opportunity to play on solo fighter only, because I can't spend 6+ hours a day and live by the schedule, I won't be interested to pkay long, I won't be interested to invest in game. How many players will do the same? If I can build somethibg big and control it, even with less efficency (than full crew), then I have motivation, then I will invest in game. Because there is potential to go forward. Thanks, Archonious
  15. I still don't understand why this thread in "Idea Box" forum. Basic "General Discussion" thread. BTW, automatic/nonautomatic (crew control only), both systems has own PROs and CONs. Argue what is better is waste of time, both systems will be bad. Hybrid system will fit in this game, IMO. Possible auto, which is very weak (maybe except stationary objects), crew control of all systems (as most effective and easiest) and one man control (when player swap every turret, shoot from it, control movement of the ship and other. Lot of duties, more risk, less effectiveness). So the most laziest players will have automatic systems - less effectiveness. Solo players or small groups will have opportunities to try bigger ships and put lot of effort to control them - average effectiveness. The big groups of players who wanna live in game (actually spend in game more than 6 hours a day), can cooperate with others and play game as others go to work (most effective). In the end: -lazy players can play -busy players (2-3 hrs) can play -nolifers can play -there is skill progress/improvement Thanks, Archonious
  16. Maybe I miss understand something. What is this thread about? AI need to be balanced and most richest organisation wins. Ok. Is there somebody who didn't kniw that? Where is idea? I am bit confused Thanks, Archonious
  17. That if to say from "Material Side". Alpha/Beta will create members relations based on early game mechanics, not just of vision, dreams or promises. That what make crew/members foundation of org/clan/guild/corp, real situations and problems. I mean foundation of Orgs as teams or member cooperations. Of course, there are some teams right now (real teams), but I'm sure they are minority. Anyway, we will see... Thanks, Archonious
  18. Theoretically, every single organisation is fake. There is no any single organisation which has something with the game. Every single organisation is dream, plan or vision of any POSSIBLE structure/model in future. Didn't read all thread, so commenting MainPost. I don't understand what the point to worry about this at all? I am nearly sure, 75% of members and organisations will never be in game. Majority already forget and absolutely don't care about orgs they in. The main Organisation structurisation will happens in Alpha, based on real opportunities, experience and relations. But massive growth of Organisations would be in Beta, when the game will open the door for thousands of backers. All of that is only my opinion. I could be wrong, so don't pretend on pure fact/truth. So the question is, Why do you worry about that? Thanks, Archonious
  19. That was a question! And I never play EVE, so I have no idea what system is there. If it same in idea (when I pay for insurance to secure cargo), I am absolutelly fine with that. I don't care how idea looks, most important what result in the end. That what I care.
  20. So, no systemnis better? When anyone can freely take your cargo and do not take responsibility? Lol, forget then about deliveries. It will be very minor in inside-organisations. No any PMQ possible. Or what do you suggest? All I see, that is bad, that is bad, eve is good, that is bad, oh this is like eve so it is bad =))) I find these two models (without deep designing) fair and open to community (especially simple insurance cover). When player take delivery job, and in the end player focused to do the job. Not decide steal good or not.
  21. Written. If customer is greedy and set requirements less than price of cargo (to save money), there is nearly 100% chance cargo will be stolen. Quote: "You may set 5000$-cargo contract with no requirements for 10$ delivery cost. But you need realise risk of cargo lose. It is nearly 100%, IMO." What is hard to understand? If I want secure cargo, I set requirements and pay for that. My risk going down. If I don't set or set not enough, to save money, my risk going up. Math for 10 years kids, seriously. Where I got "nearly 100% number". If I can take cargo 5000$ on any of my ships, I can do it on 100$ one. And destroy ship to get cargo. This give me 4900$ (if do not count delivery success price I wont get). You need to be idiot, not to steal it (if we speak about average player attitude).
  22. Ask friend to destroy your ship. Friend take cargo and open it. Lose = ships price. Income = Cargo price. Simple, lol If I know the average price of cargo and now average price of my ship, you need to have primary school math knowledge to count how to get more xD What a silly question
  23. I don't know how you get this conclusions, maybe I explain not well. My bad then... 1. I want to send Gold Ingots (1000$ value) from point A to point B (These locations need to be designed well. Auto-Load and Auto-Unload). I set requirement for deliverer. 3000$ ship, 2000 blocks, 500 omi firepower (this firepower system used in other game, so just take example). Also I want include "Insurance" to my contract (which would be about 125% from cargo price at least). This will cost me (example average market price): 3000$ ship cost - 100$ 2000 blocks - 50$ 500 omi - 50$ I am ready to pay for requirements about 250$. Every potential deliverer can see this order. If deliverer want to take it, it agree order and collect order on point A. Or I can change requirements to: 1250$ ship cost only - which will cost me 50$. So I pay small amount, but lower level player (by ship quality) will have chance to do the job. Or I can do not set anything except insurance: Insurance (30% from contract, it could be higher, just example) - 300$ with 2 days delivery limit (real travel time 2 hours as example) This mean everyone can see order. If deliverer agree to put insurance 1250$ to guarantee delivery and deliverer has this amount of money on his account, there is option to take this order. As soon order is in progress, deliverer temporary lose 1250$ to cover insurance. If he deliver cargo in 2 days he receive 1250$ + 300$. So in both examples deliverer interested to deliver cargo to the point B. Situation A. Deliverer can not open cargo, but cargo can be opened if ship will be destroyed (core of the ship). But there is no time limits, so if deliverer decide to delay your order, that is fine. Want cheaper delivery, be ready to take higher risk. Situation B. I try to save more money, because my cargo is not very important and not immidiately needed, or I have problems with money. My cargo value still lower, so deliverer do not interesting to destroy ship to get it. But deliverer ship could be (COULD BE, because this order can be accepted by 1'000'000$ ship) easy target for pirates, much easier than 3000$ one. I choose range of risk and pay for that. Deliverer accept or not. Demand create market. Situation C. I don't care what ship will be used, I don't care who will do it. All I care is time. If I won't get cargo, I will get money for that (compensation could be higher, or even customer settable). Deliverer accept to cover my cargo insurance and focus on my order because limited time. But in the end deliverer get more money (situation could be changed, market dictate prices). But if follow logic, less risk to customer = more expensive order. Deliverer do not decide how will looks delivery order, deliverer accept or do not accept offers. Customer decide what minimum requirement delivere ship need to have. Simple rule, as more you want, as more you will need to pay (healthy economy rule). Game System allow to sign contract in game, so both sides take risks and responsibilities. That create foundation for economy relationships. There could be many options like: -Blacklist (players from ignore list can't take your delivery order -Organisation only (all members from chosen organisations (tick in your organisation list) -Known deliverers only (deliverers who already complete orders for you) -Maybe any others settings, don't know. Main idea, If you are deliverer, you interested to deliver cargo, not steal it (if customer not mega-greedy). System do not hurt pirating or any other groups. P.S: How system which open market for everyone (not focus to close it inside Organisations) make these negative effects? Or you think when nobody trust anyone because your cargo freely can be looted by deliverer (and nobody will take responsibility for that) will increase everything from the list? If yes, we have nothing to talk with you. As I said before, if customer so greedy to pay for requirement (market price for better service), that is his own risk. You may set 5000$-cargo contract with no requirements for 10$ delivery cost. But you need realise risk of cargo lose. It is nearly 100%, IMO. So That is 100% decision of "Price and Risk". If price too low with low risk (to customer), nobody will accept delivery order. If requirement too high and price is too low, nobody will take delivery order. If you pay a lot for acceptable risk, your order will be completed quickly. Trade rules, healthy economy. Thanks, Archonious
  24. If I want my cargo (with 2000$ value) would be transported by ship 5000$ value minimum, why it won't work? It will work even with 2k to 10k, or 2k to 20k. If market price 200$ for 5000$ ship delivery, It will be 300$ for 10000$ ship (as example). I can send even 100$ cargo for these prices. It is my customer choice, I pay for that. Deliverer DON'T CARE what he deliver (as value). All he care - time and price. Delivery (in game) = A-to-B distance and price for that. How does price of cargo affect on your choice? It is not deliverer business actually, all he cares time/distance and money for success. If I'm wrong, correct me. Thanks, Archonious
  25. This is question what you want to get. Player-Made Quest or any unknown spy systems and other. Thread is about PMQ, I gave example (never said it is perfect) to make PMQ-Delivery system to make it open for players, not only in-Org. Yes, you can annoy somebody. There could be black list (as Orgs, as nicknames). Another addition. Two points A and B, A-load and B-unload (again, need to be technical automatisation via system). There is distance between them. There is time to success. There is penalty for fail. Deliverer take risk (automatic transaction if fail). As you understand, this penalty will cover price of goods. Requirements: -Deliverer need to have ***$ and can't downgrade this amount. -If deliverer fail, this amount automatically transfered to customer Make this insurance optional. Want insurance, pay for that. For deliverer, want more money, take risk and do your job well. As I said, I didn't designed system well, I was at work when wfote it. Just first ideas which come in head. If design well, then you can design or upgrade this idea better. Most important, customer have no need to worry, that deliverer will steal good. This make OMQ more popular. This open range of roles (many dream about them here). You said, if it would be easy abusable (deliverer easy can steal), players will use in-Org deliveries only (mostly). This mean: -Less contract for protection -Less activity in game (delivery range) -Less targets for pirates -Less communication -Less other activities connected with deliveries Community become more closed in organisation range. What you focused on? I prefer system, which will allow market open to majority of players with healthy risks. With this (or simikar system) I see that every single player win. Every player in-contract have range of risk to accept. Many other roles has more opportunities, because deliveries are popular. P.S: I don't understand "All systdms abusable". First, not all systems abusable. Second, even if system can be abused, it does not mean it is bad. Thanks, Archonious
  • Create New...