You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Search options
Jita wrote:It should matter when you lose
Islands should exist as archipelago's and not land masses. There should be a lot more stations with some being strategically important due to their links.
I like this idea of making multiple smaller islands ... which would mean that travelling through them would mean strategically important islands would emerge.
I like the idea of the npc factions making a 'push' to retake strategic points what are being contested by players to add a wild card element to battles.
All the more reason to introduce it. accountability. Its important! It also mean that the dev's have to be realistic and actually have some confidence. I know we have kind of become used to games companies moving deadlines around and basically being the gods of creation. but The gods of old did not have financial backers like us!
hell in all other areas of industry ... deadlines are set ... and if they are not met then there is hell to pay!
A contract is formed ... be it written or spoken ... and that contract as vague and loose as it might be gives confidence to all involved.
As far as things being rushed out half finished ... hmmmm well then that is about project management. Setting realisitic attainable goals ... managing your project team ... etc etc. Isn't it all part of running a successful company. The key is not to be tooooo specific!
they set an approximate time line ...
major content patch 1 - Q1 or 2 - inc 'a' 'b' and hopefully 'c''
major content patch 2 - Q3 or 4 - inc 'c' (if not already in 1) 'x' and hopefully 'y' etc
Thoughts?
Seamus (Rik)
I know that Earthrise has something like this ... it is pretty general ... in the month of april 'x' and in may 'y'
Getting some idea of when ... e.g [in the next 2 months]
Seamus (Rik)
I agree about the eve comment ... the territory ownership system in eve is the reason I stopped playing eve ..it just ground everything to a halt.
we need something that requires a huge commitment of manpower and large mechs but if you manage to do that then conquering should be fairly quick.
This will necessitate large scale engagements ... but with the new proximity interference system ... these would have to be spread out ... and utilize artillery. Maybe have multiple ways of territory conquering ... errr ... hacking ((just like the current intrusion system) ... destroying (Literally flatten everything and the rebuild [the last bit would be a long vulnerable process]) ... siege (cutting supply lines e.g. stopping the power supply to manufacturing and refining and prototype facilities until the enemy surrenders ...maybe by occupying adjacent zones? power transfer zones - easy to do but hard to defend)
Just some ideas
Seamus (Rik)
ditto
a road map to when you HOPE features will be introduced to the game would be a great thing for keeping us happy.
Would this be possible DEV ZOOM?
auster wrote:Hope you don't mind Zoom:
Developer Q&A session 1 (2010-11-14)
And in the following the answers somewhat grouped by caterogy:
JustToBoxThis wrote:
- next things to come:
The primary focus now is to add corporation built structures and plantations.
The exact nature of theses structures (destroyable, etc.) is not fixed.
Depending on how long it takes, a content expansion might come before that.
It will be possible for solo players to build their own structures.
If the primary focus is adding corp structures ... why give us AOE weapons and 'blob' interference first?
Should we assume player owned structures has been put off for an indefinite period?
Seamus (Rik)
So you mean the ability to take and hold land. and effectively have real empires.
sounds good ... how will that work do you think with the current intrusion system.
Rik
Hey
What do you consider to be 'MUST HAVE' in a Sandbox mmo when it comes to PvP.
E.g. Something worthwhile to fight over. i.e. player owned structures.
What do you think ..
DEV's please take note 
Seamus (rik)
laser target painting sounds like an excellent option.
I dont think the artillery guys themselves should see the target area. The spotter just paintes the target ... the artillery guys get to select 'target' from a squad interface drop down.
click fire .... boom.
Artillery should also hit everyone ... friendly fire!!!!
Which leaves huge options for spys to have lots of fun.
The spotter mech should also not be able to be 'cloaked' Not sure what the dev's have in mind for covert ops mechs ... but I'd suggest it is invisible on radar ... always ... and only targetable from a range of like 50m. you can still SEE the mech but your targetting computer is useless.
Also would be easy to implement I'd guess. no new graphics ... just prevent locking if the enemy is out side of 50-100m
Firing weapons would release too much energy which would give away your location etc etc
Engine speed reduced to cut down on noise and again energy used in the reactor. blah blah.
Seamus (Rik)
Posts found: 10
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.035 seconds (91% PHP - 9% DB) with 6 queries
