Author |
Development Update 10/4/2005... |
ReZ Vice Admiral
Joined: March 18, 2004 Posts: 59 From: Eh?
| Posted: 2005-10-08 15:01  
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-08 14:45, Enterprise wrote:
Quote:
|
Now, while i dont mean to smash or flame or hate on anyones opinion, which is what i saw this slowly turning into. I wanted to take time and acknowledge someone saying that this game is in constant evolution, and we all must adapt.
480 is gone, i'm sorry that the appeal from that version is gone from some of you as well, some of the 'vet's have simply learned to move on from that, others are seemingly so hoplessly caught in the retro of it that they stay unsubbed, sit in the lobby and rant about how much the gameplay sucks now. Thats their choice i suppose, and they can argue all they want that they have an idea that they know whats best for the game, and what worked well. While some of them may have valid arguements on the latter, the fact of the matter is the creator of the game wanted to take it someplace else. Direction? only he knows.
|
|
Adapt? Well perhaps, if you can adapt (as we all have) to WHs in SYs in the past few years, try adapting without them. Instead of complaining that it could have adverse effects on new players, perhaps they, too, should adapt to an evolution such as that.
|
|
I think you totally missed my point.. Well, nearly the entire latter half of the statements i made were misread, but i can understand that.
As for what i just quoted. You seem to have this notion that that point was a complaint, i'm sorry to say it wasnt. I said that it is not known how the players post 480 would take it. Nowhere did i 'complain' that they wouldnt be able to handle it and the sky is falling.
Now, rolling back i do not believe is moving forward, which is where i hope that faustus is taking the game. I had no arguements on your views as to taking the SY or WH's out, so instead of becoming adversarial on that it would be prudent to actually read what i had said.
As for reading and interpretation, 2 seperate things. But the next time you want to come after me about complaining, i suggest you speak to me for clarification on what was said. Misinterpretation leads to wars.
_________________
|
Enterprise Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002 Posts: 2576 From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2005-10-08 15:14  
Quote:
|
Adapt? Well perhaps, if you can adapt (as we all have) to WHs in SYs in the past few years, try adapting without them. Instead of complaining that it could have adverse effects on new players, perhaps they, too, should adapt to an evolution such as that.
|
|
Quote:
|
I think you totally missed my point.. Well, nearly the entire latter half of the statements i made were misread, but i can understand that.
|
|
And you totally missed the rest of the part where I stated about the rest of what you were talking about. Talk about selective posting.
Quote:
|
As for what i just quoted. You seem to have this notion that that point was a complaint, i'm sorry to say it wasnt. I said that it is not known how the players post 480 would take it. Nowhere did i 'complain' that they wouldn be able to handle it and the sky is falling.
|
|
I used the term "complaint" loosely. Would you like me to rephrase that to "Arguement"?
Quote:
|
Now, rolling back i do not believe is moving forward, which is where i hope that faustus is taking the game. I had no arguements on your views as to taking the SY or WH's out, so instead of becoming adversarial on that it would be prudent to actually read what i had said.
As for reading and interpretation, 2 seperate things. But the next time you want to come after me about complaining, i suggest you speak to me for clarification on what was said. Misinterpretation leads to wars.
|
|
Again, used the term complaining loosely. Please read above.
I did read what you said, however, you still avoid the fact. I asked you for your reasons why you felt that we should keep Shipyards - you did not provide any, other than that it may have adverse effects on post-1.480 players should we remove them.
However that is an assumption. Its not to become adversarial, but to provide a point.
Now back to your quoting - please tell me, how would the removal of two of the flaws in this game not be moving foreward? Im afraid, you left out your reasons for your belief on this...
-Ent
[ This Message was edited by: Enterprise on 2005-10-08 15:14 ]
_________________
|
Diabo|ik Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002 Posts: 327 From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-08 21:14  
Quote:
|
Now, rolling back i do not believe is moving forward, which is where i hope that faustus is taking the game.
|
|
Note: Nobody ever asked for a roll-back, the whole point of this post is to point out the plus and minuses of the different builds of DS regarding gameplay balances and one of them is the SYs-WHs issue. We're not asking for a roll-back, but to take all the best aspects of each version, remove the bad ones, blend the good ones together, get rid of the lag and the bugs so DS can move forward and I'll be drooling all over. Let's stick to that goal.
_________________ Mostly Retired.
|
Jar Jar Binks Grand Admiral
Joined: December 25, 2001 Posts: 556
| Posted: 2005-10-08 22:24  
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-06 19:10, Enterprise wrote:
Will try not to state painfully obvious...will not try to state painfully obvious...
Oh forget it. Look, how long has it been since SYs and WHs were implemented? Thats a good what, 2 years? Yes, two years. Now, the things above listed have been occuring, needless to say, for two years. Now in two years I have already tryed to suggest changes be made, already tryed what your suggesting now.
However, it seems no matter how hard we try someone wants to abuse it. But thats not merely the only reason. Sometimes I feel like people just pick the part of a post they want to flame and ignore the rest of it. I don't generally want to repeat the main idea three billion times before some reads it. As you said, read it then flame.
But of course you hadn't read, as no one is argueing the benefits I listed countless times in my first post - no one is argueing the facts I stated. Instead people just decide that "hey, you didnt think it out so your idea sux haha kkthxbye."
Maybe F might actually read it - everyone else, however, seems to not want to.
Instead of trying to nerf something, why not simply remove it - and return some of the core concepts of the game.
-Ent
|
|
then do it 2 more years. because obvilusly, your bitching havent had anything of value yet to get Faustus attention. now u have so lets acually make something good out of it?
no? didnt think so.
_________________
|
Enterprise Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002 Posts: 2576 From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2005-10-08 23:32  
Quote:
|
then do it 2 more years. because obvilusly, your bitching havent had anything of value yet to get Faustus attention. now u have so lets acually make something good out of it?
no? didnt think so.
|
|
Very constructive Jar.
-Ent
_________________
|
Pope Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 11, 2002 Posts: 2449 From: World of tomorrow
| Posted: 2005-10-09 05:43  
You're all wrong.
Hah.
Now, seriously said, the difference between .480 and this is pretty vast, but still, evidently this game has -grown- as opposed to being designed. Everyone should know what that means..
Anyway.
Why are Worhmholes and Shipyards perceived as problematic?
Quite simply, they changed the dynamics of player movement drastically. Some of you might remember the bitching when somewhere in .48x (What's with this meaningless versioning scheme anyhow?) ships that logged out seemingly without good reason (the only explanation was "Shipyards" which were still just a ghost on the horizon for more than a year to come) got returned to the homegate..
The game universe went from persistent, dynamic and lasting to unmanageable, chaotic and having no real point...
But i said that and more over a year ago, so why do i even still bother.
At least the Engine seems to be coming along better now, if only that.
_________________
|
Coeus {NCX-Charger} Admiral, I can't read, Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: February 16, 2004 Posts: 3635 From: South Philly
| Posted: 2005-10-09 10:26  
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-08 22:24, Jar Jar Binks wrote:
then do it 2 more years. because obvilusly, your bitching havent had anything of value yet to get Faustus attention. now u have so lets acually make something good out of it?
no? didnt think so.
|
|
And yours is even less so - at least Ent is trying to help the game - waiting on your contribution.
That said, I'd like to hope that up until the personal attacks & all that started that faust actually was reading & taking all of the serious posts into consideration.
_________________
Darkspace: Twilight
|
Fluffy Bunny Grand Admiral
Joined: April 02, 2005 Posts: 39 From: Denmark
| Posted: 2005-10-13 07:54  
Hi
I think removing of sy with the current players assigment to faction, would mean and give unfair advange to the faction with the most players and little chance for those with fewer to ever have a fighting chance of keeping there system, although that other guy who said about docking at nearest sy if logging/crashing/ out of the game other way that docking to one would sound like a interesting way to solve that, currently as it is now, if not everyone then most uses logging out for 2 mins, when ever they are changing it ship, and no where i have seen/looked/heard has this been a exploit of some sort, and since this makes the smaller (playerwise) faction abel to spaw and defend there systems/planets i must admit i feel that is a natural part of the game, ofcourse then i am relativ new, and still fighting/bombing for pres, and as such, it could see from a new ones poi, that although kinda of paranoid and tired of working for pres all day, that these restraits will only make it harder to gain any, and they are sat by those who allready are more or less at the rank top, trying apparntly to keep that place for only them self. This might be wrong, but never the less this is how i feel.
Ofcourse being new etc, i probely misunderstod a lot of things , and like the old players, except regarding this version i prefer not to lose anything from what it is now, but rather to gain more new interesting things working with what we have now instead of losing what i was "born" with.
Ofcourse in the end, i will roll with what ever comes, since i dont find it boring yet and i posetivly look forward for the new possibilites and oppetunities that arrives when the new patch comes
Imaine some fancy signature here, for what is greating than what the mind can create itself.
_________________
|
Fatal Command (CO) Marshal Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002 Posts: 1158 From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2005-10-13 08:37  
well....I said what I have to say and tried to do in a NON flame way......as did a few others....Hope F takes the info the way its intended and NOT the way SOME few take it.
_________________
|
DOM700 [-IMO-] Fleet Admiral
Joined: July 26, 2001 Posts: 3175 From: Eckental, Germany, Sol-System
| Posted: 2005-10-13 09:53  
Actually having no more shipyards is better for the faction with fewer players, they obviously dont have a chance in a fight faction a vs faction b...(lets say 3 vs 5)
but they still can capture a whole system until the enemies arrive (theoretically).....which is not possible with shipyards in any way
_________________ If the buildings on your planets disappear, guess who was there....
Never forget what you fight for
I have earned my betatester badge for being part of the open beta
|
Ham&Swiss Grand Admiral
Joined: October 12, 2004 Posts: 418 From: 10$ to whoever finds me
| Posted: 2005-10-13 13:49  
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-13 09:53, DOM700 [-IMO-] wrote:
Actually having no more shipyards is better for the faction with fewer players, they obviously dont have a chance in a fight faction a vs faction b...(lets say 3 vs 5)
but they still can capture a whole system until the enemies arrive (theoretically).....which is not possible with shipyards in any way
|
|
One question and one comment and then i'll shut up...How is taking away ship yards gonna help them fight a 3 vs 5 battle, sure about the system taking over thing, but the fighting...3 people could do a great deal of damage with a sy...i mean, die and then come back out...die coime back out...die come back out...each time doing some damage, working towards their deaths...Now then the comment, why don't we just go back to the 1.480 map, i think it looks preety good, don't you people?(maybe no wh's and maybe 2 sy per faction?)
http://www.angelfire.com/scary/diabolika/1480map.htm
thank your Diabolikaka for the map.
-MD
_________________ If violence doesn't work, Your not using enough!
|
Veronw Marshal
Joined: December 13, 2004 Posts: 554
| Posted: 2005-10-13 14:06  
NOOO!!!!!! dont get rid of the SY's!!! It's the only way your fleet can have a home system!! Oh, but here is a suggestion, either make shield (planetary) universal or scrap em, ICC got too much power.........planetary wise.
_________________
|
Fatal Command (CO) Marshal Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002 Posts: 1158 From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2005-10-13 19:38  
LMAO......ummmm.ICC is DEFENSIVE faction....which means we have great defense.piss poor offense.BUT ok......we'll trade....we lose shields..you lose flux.....kluth lose cloak....all Factions lose MAIN component of their faction.....then what?SY and Whs have lkilled the MAIN part of what was FUN in this game.SO...lets deal with 1 issue at a time plz....and trust me.....with the current bombing ISSUES......shields dont mean a thing anymore...
_________________
|
Nim * Chief Marshal Courageous Elite Commandos
Joined: September 05, 2004 Posts: 295
| Posted: 2005-10-14 13:10  
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-13 19:38, Fatal Command *CO* wrote:
LMAO......ummmm.ICC is DEFENSIVE faction....which means we have great defense.piss poor offense.BUT ok......we'll trade....we lose shields..you lose flux.....kluth lose cloak....all Factions lose MAIN component of their faction.....then what?SY and Whs have lkilled the MAIN part of what was FUN in this game.SO...lets deal with 1 issue at a time plz....and trust me.....with the current bombing ISSUES......shields dont mean a thing anymore...
|
|
He means the shield on planet and not the ships..last time i checked ugto hasnt got planetary flux and kluth didnt have Cloaking planets...
The whole bombing problem could be insta fixed if only we could build other faction techs like last version. Planets with icc+kluth ground defence and shields would stop all the pres whores we currently have and make the game more playable and fun imo.
_________________
|
Sardaukar Admiral Raven Warriors
Joined: October 08, 2002 Posts: 1656
| Posted: 2005-10-14 15:00  
My two cents... are completely unrelated and unthought out. I think it'd really make gameplay more interesting if every ship had it's max speed doubled with similar boosts to relative weapons, like fighters and missiles... and maybe torpedos.
_________________
|