max2veg
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by max2veg
-
-
On 2/17/2022 at 9:08 PM, MajorSpacer said:
I bought six versions after Steam Holiday Sale and a few friends purchased copies. All of us are post-2.0 buyers and we enjoy the game. Some minor issues and bugs so far, but nothing making the game unplayable or unenjoyable.
You (and friends) should play the pre-2.0 update, then you'll see what all was removed in 2.x - a lot was added in 2.x, but most that was removed, and even some that was changed in 2.x, was unnecessary and made the game a lot less management and a lot more micro-management heavy, which some might like, but most pre-2.0 players, such as myself, do not. Again, you don't know what you miss out on, until you have experienced the functionality of the previous version.
-
On 2/10/2022 at 7:14 AM, Mesirez said:
It's certainly true that they probably have to find out how to generate enough cash flow to keep the lights on and people paid but I don't really agree with most of the rest.
Well, it shouldn't take 2 months to figure out how to generate more cash. It's actually straightforward:
1. Fix the issues most players are having with, increasing its minor version (2.x); also and continuing doing so, keep fixing bugs.
2. Create new DLC.
It will have to be in that order, but only initially, once the core issues the community is upset about are taken care of, then the other issues and bugs can be fixed while working on a new DLC. Even just making the community happy(ier) will bring more money in, because Avorion is a great PvE group game, though still is badly lacking in PvP.
On 2/10/2022 at 7:14 AM, Mesirez said:First of all, I don't think you can call any single player game (and that's what Avorion mostly is) "dead" - as long as it is a finished product. I really hate how service games have somehow lead people to believe that any game you buy once should indefinetly receive updates. Avorion is a complete game. Yes, there might be still some bugs and It would be cool if many of its aspects were more fleshed out. But still, it's a complete game.
Yes, you can call a SP game "dead" - and Avorion is not "mostly" a SP game, it's SP and MP to equal parts, although as I mentioned, PvP is pretty much dead, even though there are a lot of PvP servers out there, but most of them are being played PvE, for a number of reasons (and has very much to do with some of the major issues of 2.x, which have been extensively reported to the devs - and there's hope that's the reason for the radio silence, because they're revamping that, and it's not just one thing, but impacts most of the 2.x gameplay).
On 2/10/2022 at 7:14 AM, Mesirez said:Second, I actually don't really mind the changes in Avorion 2.0. I don't want or intend to (again) discuss the pros and cons of Avorion 2.0, I just don't think that players with a strong sentiment against it are in the majority.
I've got to burst your bubble, because that's where you're wrong - if you'd seen the onslaught of criticism posted on their Discord shortly after 2.x launch, you'd know... but either way, there are some major issues with 2.x, from gameplay to AI and gameplay bugs there are plaguing the game - which is why the dev's radio silence is being taken as the game being "dead". However, I surely hope that they're just pulling a bit of a NMS here, where they just concentrate on revamping 2.x and getting things to a point where the majority of the community's complaints are being addressed.
PS: They might very well work on 3.0, considering that all the changes they have to implement to "fix" what the community complaints about with 2.x will require a massive re-write (not just in code, but also game mechanics / gameplay) - at least so I hope.
-
well, the title says it all. it's been over a month since the last update post on steam (actually, last one was 11-22-21, so almost 2.5 months ago), with a lot of bugs that have been reported, not to mention gameplay broken, with the new gameplay "forced upon" the player, which removed a lot of the amazing gameplay mechanisms from version 1.x - what gives?
the issues is that the devs think they should rework game mechanics that worked before (although with bugs and still lacking) without consulting their community first - aka "we know better" mentality, which has rarely worked in favor of a game's reputation and the people / company behind it.
maybe this "radio silence" is for the reason of a rework of those issues? but a bit of feedback would still be much appreciated...
-
also:
1. not just player owned ships, but also player stations should be able to do the same
2. have a persistent toggle on map to always show already "scanned" sectors (there's a mod for that, i believe that always shows yellow blips)
-
asteroids should:
1. be rare, especially those providing materials.
2. not be targeted when cycling through targets, unless previously explored.
3. this will require to search for them manually, or probes could be introduced that have to be bought and have to be launched to various areas to scan for asteroids.
4. also have an RNG number of various elements in it - the closer to a material belt, the higher the amount of the region's materials(s) would be present,
-
this consists of a few elements / has following implications:
1. EVE-like itemization:
* everything is an item and uses up cargo space; your inventory shows items in your ships' cargo space.
* if a player is inside a sector, everything is tracked.
* if no player ships inside a sector, this is simulated / extrapolated - just needs to be plausible rather than 100% correct.
* once a player ship enters a sector again, the simulated economy and their items are then being extrapolated and tracked.2. Stations don't just "randomly" spawn commodities / equipment:
* When initially exploring a populated (= stations present) sector, those things are procedurally generated, of course.
* Once a sector has been explored, every item is tracked and shipped to / from stations in crafts;3. Looting
* if the station or ship blows up, some items (maybe by volatility and fragility) can also blow up, so might not get full loot; but can salvage to get raw resources.
* "secure container" can only hold x amount of cubic space, and take up 1.3x their storage capacity in the ship's / station's cargo hold.
* secure containers prevent items from being blown up when the ship / station is being destroyed.
* secure containers exist in various sizes and are bought at trading posts / smugglers / military outposts (more secure ones, see next).
* secure containers also require a separate item, which is the lock.
* various security levels of locks exist, making them less / more difficult to hack.
* secure containers can also be "broken into" (shot at), but then items inside can blow up, just like when a ship blows up and the items were not stored inside a container. -
previous post, see below, plus my response gave me this idea (i mentioned this briefly in that post):
every (at least most, to varying degrees) faction should consist of a good mix of various groups:
* private vessels (miners, luxury liners, ...)
* miners
* traders
* police - they scan for illegal goods, deal with violations, small skirmishes
* military - they have their own sector(s) - they take care of invasions, put into action when a sector becomes tagged as hostile / unsafe (red)
* bandits - they stay away from military sectors and high-industry sectors, can be mostly found in yellow sectors but also commit raids in low-tech sectors
* smugglers / thiefs - their have their own sector (already) and are only found in larger / higher economic factions, they run solo and using stealth to invade any sectorall of them have their own ship sizes, strategy, stats ranges, materials and weapons (weapons based on materials they have access to):
* private vessels - small (common), medium (uncommon), large (rare) size - usually solo but up to 5 ships / group (the larger the group, the rarer); fight in skirmishes but flee red sectors - low dps and less armor, generally flee fairly quickly, fast - usually same mats as region but can have any mat (exponentially rarer and fewer blocks with those mats)
* miners, traders - medium to large to huge (uncommon) - usually solo, but up to 10 ships / group; they flee when attacked - low to medium dps depending on size can have fighters and even more armor, slow - mix of same or +1 higher mat than region
* police - small to medium (have fighters, if mat available) size - groups of 2 usually, but if trouble or higher economy sectors, larger groups; they flee when ~50% hull - medium to high dps, thin armor / weak shield, don't flee easily, fast - same mats as region
* military - mostly medium to large size with fighters (always have fighter bays) - fleets of 10+ ships, depending on faction military strength; they flee if ~10% hull - high dps, thick armor / strong shields, utilizing smaller shield and hull reppers and fighters - up to +3 mats compared to region
* bandits, smugglers - small (smugglers only) to huge (rare, bandits only) size, usually no fighter bays (except huge bandits) - fleets of up to 10 ships for bandits; smugglers run usually solo but up to 3 ships, depending on faction economy - medium to high dps - thick and lots of armor, slow - any mats, but the further away from regional mats, the exponentially rarer and fewer blocks of those matsthis should create some very interesting, unique and realistic scenarios!
-
On 2/16/2021 at 2:13 AM, TenguKnight said:
It feels a bit dumb when some enemies just throw themselves to die a certain death by fighting to the bitter end. It would be interesting if NPC ships (especially pirates but never the Xsotans) would have a chance to attempt fleeing and start charging their hyperdrive once their hull drops below a certain percentage, accompanied by the ship shouting something like "I am out of here, this is too much for me!".
i think the quote needs some work 😜
but otherwise, i agree; in addition, i think the bail-out should be triggered via shield or hull percentage if decreased from full, and:
* a range, randomly set
* set per-faction
* with per-ship randomly set trigger within the faction range, which gives more of a personalization and makes it less predictivethis could create "cowardly" factions / individual ships;
but also the opposite, very "determined" ones a'la "the reavers" from the tv show "firefly" / movie "serenity".this could (should) be fine-tuned, to create factions inside factions, such as police, military, general private vessels, traders, ... that have their own range - for example, a faction might be quite cowardly, but their military crew won't bail out so easily (but will still flee, because, you know, the faction as a whole are quite a bunch of cowards lol), and similar for the police (of course not as courageous as the military vessels).
-
It'd be good to be able to issue commands that run in parallel rather than are executed in line / queue, such as:
- Keep at n distance to ship m while no danger.
- Keep at n distance to ship m if hostiles are around.
- Fire at will / attack only when being attacked / do not divert from course (as such would "keep at distance to target" and rather let their independent turrets do the talking, that way effectively shielding and defending the set target at all times)
- ...
-
17 hours ago, TenguKnight said:
Traits:
-Slightly stronger than the average ships in the region
-Will bail out of fights (abandon their escort mission and jump out) if their hull drops below a certain percentage
-Infinite jump range and no hyperspace cooldown so that they can follow all kinds of ships without any hiccupsGreat idea - that's an upvote from me!
But, it needs some refining:
I would say the jump range, the percentage of hull damage before they flee, and their overall "strength" (shield, hull, omicron, fighter types and hangar size / fighter amount, overall fighter competency levels) - plus how many turrets, the kind of turrets and how many of those are independent targeting, and the duration of their contract - should all go into the amount of the hiring fee.
And about fleeing from a fight, that might not work if warp disruptors are in place - so as a possible solution, mercenaries would focus on blowing up those warp blockers first, only after that they will fight others.
Down the line it'd be also cool to issue commands to them, same way as AI captains are being issued commands, plus with some refinements (such as, have commands that run in parallel rather than are executed in line / queue, such as "follow distance while no danger", "follow distance if hostiles are around", "fire at will / attach only when attacked", ... - but I'll put that in a separate thread to vote on)
-
3 hours ago, Akeno017 said:
I vehemently disagree with anything that limits creativity.
That's your right for bias to play on a server that doesn't enforce that.
This is actually to increase creativity, by organizing and logically structuring it, following a more organic, logical process, thus creating more immersion for the player - enforced by server owners, and appreciated by its players, with the option for any server owner to not enforce that and for players to play on such servers.
-
3 hours ago, Akeno017 said:
I would love rotating components like such, but the Engine and PC performance might not.
What is your comment about "Engine" and "PC performance" based on? Do you know the programmatical complexity and computational impact of those?
Because one who has worked with and on games engines and has done 3D (Direct3D & OpenGL) programming, I can tell you that
- It is a very simple feat to implement that.
- There is literally no (or, very small, usually negligible) computational impact on both the GPU or the CPU - at least for basic translation and rotation of 3D objects.
-
And in addition to that, like in good old'e "Wing Commander" (and other space sims) fashion: "match speed with target" 😉
-
OP, the title is a mis-match / misleading to what you your suggestions are - also, it'd be best if you split up those into individual suggestions (reformulate)
-
1
-
-
OP you might want to edit your suggestion and put it into bullet points to make it more readable... also, it couldn't hurt if you check for spelling mistakes, to avoid confusion.
-
This is server side:
- Factions have a set of parameters that define the shape and layout (where certain blocks are allowed)
- This also applies to the player (starting faction)
- This could be defined by the server, allowing specific workshop assets to be used by certain factions
- Players can "break free" of that restriction eventually by building a "city hall", which will establish the player as its own faction and with its own rules then (or no rules at all)
- Factions that conform to certain building shapes have a higher standing (and rises faster - trust) with another, opposed to others;
- The more the designs differentiate between factions, the lower their standing to another would be - and the slower (trust) this standing would change;
- Trust changes slowly at least initially (affected also the further away factions are from another, because trade / contact would be less often / less likely);
- The trust level should change to the positive due to trade / acts of good deeds - or to the negative due to opposite actions.
This would make gameplay much more immersive due to logical plausibility, and open enforced "faction designs" even from the workshop:
- Star Trek
- Star Wars
- Unique faction designs with back stories
-
Missions that require player to get factory standing with specific alliance to a certain level, or even mission to establish an alliance between factions.
-
As title says: certain commodities require certain mats to be produced. This would have the effect that certain "rings" (with the galaxy core as their center) where the 2 or 3 mats within those are found, would produce (or specialize on the production of) certain good, which would require establishing long-distance trade routes.
This would have a much higher impact on a number of elements within the game, such as economical impact and how war in those areas can have an influence:
- destroyed trade routes will cause new ones to be spawned
- missions can be spawned specific to those events - urgent trading missions to meet supply-demand, combat missions to clear those areas from hostiles, new mission types (such as: diplomacy - get factory standing with specific alliance to a certain level, or even mission to establish an alliance between factions)
- ... (reply with ideas)
-
Every "ring" (with their center around the galaxy core) has their own two to three materials (mats for short) (iron, titanium, naonite, ...) that can be mined there; as such, it would make logical sense that those mats that are not found there, would be in much higher demand and thus by logic of supply-demand, would go by a much higher value than the next higher and next lower mat. This also ties in with my other (next, after this one) suggestion: certain commodities require certain mats to produce.
-
Avorion Graphics Engine - add "waits" / "sleep" per-object and global, plus can be fine-tuned in the graphics settings:
- The further away an object is (to the "camera" / viewport), the less of a graphics refresh it gets
- Global "graphics speed" throttle (beyond FPS limiter; plus, that way this would allow setting the "refresh rate" w/ vsync being active)
This should allow the (GPU) system to run cooler - especially noticeable and important on fan-less Macs (Macbook Air M1)
-
Native support of the new Apple architecture
-
Animated blocks - translation, rotation; attached blocks translate / rotate with those blocks; scriptable, w/ basic animations set directly via object properties in the editor (rotate around pivot point and x/y/z axis), in the long run perhaps with a simple in-game animation sequencer (not even an editor required), via in series queued commands (translate / rotate for n units on / around x/y/z axis, then... - like queuing commands for ships w/ AI captain on map).
This will allow for complex and interesting animations, such as rotating rings on space stations, cranes on factories moving around, making it look more life-like; trucks on mining asteroids transporting ore; ... -
Link to Discord Server?
The one posted on your forum is invalid (http://www.theskjaldborg.com/index.php?threads/guest-discord-access.11641/).
-
It'd be cool if it'd be possible to create a station that functions as a production / automation manager, where the player can set resource targets that when reached would build various types of ships, and depending on type of ship, they would follow a predetermined command queue (command preset):
exploration
patrol
combat
mining
trade
escort - might be a bit tricky to auto-set for newly created ships depending on their type (priority would be mining and trade ships), but could be defined as a ratio with a limit, so for example no more then 5 combat ships per mining ship
progress update - avorion development stopped, no updates posted?
in General Discussion
Posted
Yes, but no, it's not pointless to discuss, if considering the other's expectations. I am considering those of SPs such as yours, as such, I agree to some points.
Well, if I'm in a "bubble", so are you - which is, in the "casual Avorion SP player" bubble. There's also the "hardcore Avorion SP players", and they also agree on a lot of things, because most (all? I don't remember) of mine and those that have similar / same concerns, relate to core gameplay, which a lot has been taken away - not to mention some of it has not been implemented that was promised - from the 1.x version (in particular "chaining of commands"), which just can't be done anymore with the new "map commands / missions", but the dev(s) outright just removed the option to be able to send ships / fleets on non-missions, but rather fulfill a chain of commands (ie. "fly to x/y, mine, fly to x/y, mine, fly to x/y, mine, loop this chain of commands; or especially when it comes to trading: fly x/y, buy commodities, fly to x/y, sell commodities, loop this chain of commands; or any other command and any mix of those).
Those are new players or very inexperienced (low amount of hours of actual gameplay) ones - anyone who played 1.x extensively felt like a kick to the ballz because of what's been taken away, and what's been added is not a substitution for that, plus some overall gameplay is buggy (fighters specifically - I didn't even realize that until a buddy of mine pointed that out, and I was able to reproduce that) and the aforementioned missing content - you might want to check past Avorion update announcements on Steam since the first 2.0 was advertised, you should be able to discern what's missing - if not, then I can't help you other than suggest to read more carefully. Also, my other advice is to play the latest 1.x version, if you truly care to understand vs. if you don't and you just want to be right.
I already refuted your argument, see above - AKA missing content and buggy implementation that breaks mid-to-late gameplay (that's also for SP btw, not just MP, in case I wasn't clear about that).
See above, so unfortunately you are incorrect, Avorion is unfinished, you don't even have to be a "hardcore player" but just bother to progress further into the game and explore tactical options a bit further (not even to their fullest, which you can't anymore in 2.x anyhow).
Uh yes, it is equal parts SP and MP, especially considering:
1. Avorion can't be played without launching a server component - which means, it's a local MP game with 1 player slot... which can thus very easily be converted to MP.
2. Boxelware has even declared official(!) MP public servers.
3. All SP content, especially considering of my first point, is included in MP, so essentially there is no different between SP and MP gameplay or content - in fact, the only diff is PVP and PVE, where in PVP there's player-to-player damage (unless you're in an inhabited sector), which you can only play in a MP session (obviously), so strictly speaking, Avorion has with this addition change more MP content (game functionality, really) than SP.
You might really want to do a bit more research before coming up with argumentation... unless you don't care to be put into your place, so to speak.
And yes, Avorion can be played in a few different ways ("different visions how all of those things should work", as you wrote), but that does not change any of the issues that plague Avorion in its current state and thus demands at least a QOL update - or if Boxelware really cares and heck, even wants to capitalize on additional DLCs, a version 3.0, to make this truly the gem of a game that Avorion could be.