Today the temporary teaser site for Galactic Command Online went live. It contains some media as well as an extensive Q/A document which we will update over the coming months. If there are any questions that you would like addressed in that Q/A, please post them here for further discussion.

Yeah baby, just what the doctor ordered, AAW engine bolted to updated universe engines .......

Awesome SC!!!!!

P.S. May I please be involved in some phase of the testing?? ................

EDIT: Ah ... just finished reading the site and see that you're initially focusing on NA; I'm in ASPAC .... hmmmmm, I have 30+ years in I.T. .... hmmmm, hosting ..... hmmmm

Focusing on North America simply means that we're not doing any localization to foreign languages or setting up servers outside of North America.

Thanks for the clarification SC.

And if lag, due to massive popularity :-), ever becomes an issue ................ Server down-under, and call it GCOZ (lol).

I'm sure that we'll have local operators in English speaking countries. So thats not an issue atm.

The FAQ was updated with a missing link only just discovered in the "WILL I EXIST IN FIRST PERSON INSIDE A CAPITAL SHIP?" section. You might want to go and read that section again.

Darn ya SC!

Now I've gone and pee'd for glee over this news. Of course, reading that we don't get carriers as fly-able assets just eradicated some of my plans.... oh well, I'm still looking forward to this game regardless. This is what I've been waiting for seven long years to hear and you've made this fleet leader very very happy

Hmm... GC-Online....

The decision regarding carriers - though reversible - was a very difficult one to make. Those of you who have played our games I'm sure understand the reasoning behind it. Particularly as it relates to asset handling. e.g. most carriers can have up to 16 fighters on-board. Imagine folks with carriers, all unleashing NPC controlled fighters and imagine the mayhem.

I'm sure that through gamebalancing, experimentation etc it can be worked out, but until then there aren't going to be any user playable carriers in the game. Even if there are, they will be treated as stations, bases etc - in that you can only purchase them rather being able to have one by way of XP and such.

Yea, I can see that. All those fighters flying around would cause quite a strain on the server, not to mention people's computers and their graphic cards trying to render all those fighters, weapons discharges, capital ships firing... oh man... almost an instant server halt right there.

So yea, it's understandable.

In relation to NPCs, what kind of NPC's will we see here? I know you mentioned traders and such so that I can see, but what about NPC military/police patrols?

- NPC traders: they move all over the galaxy, between stations, bases etc - and you can trade (buy/sell) with them.

- NPC police patrols are all over the galaxy. Their main task remains the same: to engage and destroy offenders/griefers regardless of race/caste.

- NPC military will only be found in sectors where there is a space station. Their primary role is to defend that sector and station.

How many people are working on GCO ?

Why does that matter and what has it got to do with this thread?

Oh, I just wanted to know what can I expect from this mmo. I really liked GC (and the complexity of it), so with knowing the number of people working on GCO, I could probably guess the outcome (and the fact that you will spend around a year or so in development). Since this is the only opened thread in this subforum I decided to post here. Sorry if I made a mistake.

Understood. But the fact is that the number of people working on any game is irrelevant for the most part. You can have one person make a good game and have 100+ people make a terrible game.

Anyway, if you go back to the FAQ and scroll to the very end, the "HOW CAN YOU ROLL OUT AN MMO IN A LITTLE OVER A YEAR?" answers your question I think.

Yea, that's it! Thanks
Can't wait first gameplay videos.

looks pretty cool. Brings back fond memories of UC and BCM

I'm really looking forward to it.

I know youre still working on it SC.

But what would be (or planned) requirements be? Just a fast connection and a decent computer? Or would there be customizable graphics from like UCCE 1.4 (Minimum) to UCCE 2.0 (maximum)?

Its not in the FAQ so i just bothered to ask before someone else.

It is too early to talk about any system requirements, but they will be about the same (or higher) as for AAW/AOA. If you can't run either of those two games, you can't run GCO either.

Plus in 2010-11, you better have a rig capable of running a 2008-09 game.

As always, I have no particular interest in the lowest common denominator. People who are going to be attracted to this sort of game should already have a capable system for running it.

I would rather have a good system than a good car .........

P.S. Before you smack me SC I know this thread is not about computers but GCO ........ so my point is that I would build a system just for it :-)))))

Derek, I know my question is a bit early but I have this feeling that as we get closer to release SOMEONE will ask it so I might as well do it now.

What are your plans for an ingame fleet interface? What will be at our disposal?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that all other MMO's have a guild interface that allows the leaders and officers to demote/promote/change MotD/titles and what-not of members. I'm just curious what you guys have planned for this

This is planned, though I'm not yet sure what form it will take given the nature of the game. e.g. fleets are primarily for folks with crafts, but then what about planet bound marines?

Good point; I actually didn't think of that.

MMmmm, we have fleets for space (starships after all) what about companies or armies for the ground? Two seperate enties that can operate together? (IE: An army of marines can be bound to a fleet of starships)

Or, perhaps, a fleet can have sub-divisions in it. Such as divisions for marines, a division for navel ships (That begs the question, would you even ALLOW players to control navel vessels? Considering how limited their role would be) a division for starships as well. Also, allowing the leadership to name these divisions also adds a dynamic to the game.

Just to name a few.

You know, adding navy assets would make the game even more interesting. Just stating the opinion.

Since "Commander" is no longer a rank but a role, marines can get to be space craft commanders as well based on their progress.

There won't be any armies or such, just one fleet structure. Just need to figure out how the marines would fit into the structure. From my current design (still open), it won't be any different from modern day where soldiers are deployed to foreign lands. They are still part of their army but they have their own roles.

The biggest issue is going to be moving those marines from place to place. e.g. marines on Earth will be right bored with nothing to do if there are no conflict zones on Earth in the event that all hostiles have been killed and all their bases destroyed or captured. So then those planetbound marines would need to be relocated to another planet for combat purposes. And then they'd be operating behind enemy lines the whole time - especially on hostile planets that have no friendly bases. Which would mean that the fleet ships would need to keep them supplied and such as well as move them around rapidly. Since anyone can board a craft (just like in AAW), a fleet leader with a craft can move planetbound marines around.

So the difficulty is going to be in coming up with roles for them within the fleet structure and this is something that can only be ironed out during playtesting and such.

Ohhhh, I'm so gonna play this game

Derek, have a special request. When the first persion add-on will be live, I want to be able to board your ship and have the pleasure to be the first (or one of the first) to be ejected from your ship airlock At least I hope we will get airlocks to throw people out hehe!

Now it's time to practice more...

I have been having some interesting conversations with some network operators and publishers about the game and I have to make some decisions in the coming weeks. So I figured that I'd start with some prelim discussions first which I expect to continue in the GCO blog website once James is finished with it.

Let me quote something from the GCO FAQ in order to set the stage for this discussion.



As you long time die-hard BC/UC fans know, those games are huge, complex and squarely in the niche category. Since GCO is basically going back to those roots but with some revised technologies, multiplayer-centric etc there are some concerns that this would end up being like Eve (though 300K paying subs is nothing to snub) but of course on the opposite spectrum. I don't really care about that tbh but nevertheless my ultimate goal is to make the game a bit easier to get into and play.

Which of course means removing a ton of BC/UC specific features which would just get in the way and make things that much harder. Lets face it, making GCO to be UCCE with better graphics, tech and multiplayer is just not going to cut it - and that never was my plan at all. So those of you expecting that this is what is going on, are going to be sadly disappointed.

For example, our hardcore fans won't mind the total responsibility of managing a fully NPC crewed cap ship because managing a massive carrier while trolling Perscan, keeping track of intruders, crew rotations, supplies, crew fatigue etc- and Resnig - are all part of the excitement. But whats the point of having a 100+ person carrier with launch crafts (fighters, shuttles, vehicles) if you can't use them? Can you imagine having even 32 advanced players on the server - all with cap (carrier, cruiser, transport) ships - deciding to launch those assets, deploy crew on the planet etc? All at once?

So stuff like that is definitely out in terms of NPC units. Instead, my goal is in treating cap ships like station assets - in that all slots have to be player manned. e.g. a carrier with fighters can't launch them unless they have a human player. You can't have marines or personnel on your cap ship unless they are human players etc.

This plan would also involve making carriers and cruisers totally automated (like stations). They would have a specific patrol zone profile, are very hard to destroy and can only be manned by very advanced players who - due to the game's progression scheme - I don't expect to be able to do this inside of six to eight months of playing the game.

I am going to treat transports differently. Since they don't have launch assets (except for mining drones), those can still be player crewed for those traders. So this issue is really about carriers and cruisers.

This would also mean making these NPC manned cap ships operate as spawn locations. So if for example the carrier GCV-Intrepid is patrolling Sol, you can spawn inside it (not in 3D, but attached to it via an APT as in AAW) and then launch from it as a fighter or shuttle pilot. Probably even as a marine, though that would require specific handling to determine how the marine can leave the ship and materialize on a planet since they can't be in space unless they're flying shuttles.

The other part of this discussion revolves around splitting the GCO game IP into two separate game types catering to different audiences. In this case, the first game would be a pure space combat game in the vein of GALCOM Echo Squad SE. This would be "fighters only" space combat - and it wouldn't have 90% of the full game's feature set. The other game which comes later, would be the more hardcore game.

Quoting from the GCO faq:



From the above feature set for GCO (all derived from the BC/UC games), you can clearly see that the first game would have only one specific gameplay type: space combat. Also, given how huge the galaxy is, we don't want fighter pilots spending the bulk of their time navigating to where the action is, so it may take place only in the Terran section of the game galaxy, instead of the entire game galaxy. Its not going to be fun as a Terran pilot launching from GALCOMQ HQ in Earth space and having to spend the first fifteen to twenty minutes flying to the action.

It would also be F2P (you only pay a nominal fee for the client perhaps).

The plan is that doing it this way allows us to do a staggered release while gauging the response to the game, the sign-ups etc while catering to a more action focused audience. Of course that game won't be upgradeable but anyone wanting to move their character over to the more hardcore game, would be able to do so.

The flipside of doing this is that instead of continuing to stand out and apart we end up being direct competitors to Jumpgate Evolution, Black Prophecy, Taikodom and their upcoming ilk. Do we want that?

So there you have it. This is an open call for comments from hardcore as well as newcomers to our games. Your opinion counts. There aren't very many space combat games out there and even the few that are out there all have something lacking - which is why the genre continues to remain in the niche category regardless of the audience they try to attract. My goal is to continue to cater to our hardcore audience but I don't particularly want to ignore those who want games to be fun, not work.

Discuss!!

Since my work involves a good bit of advertising, I've been reading up on marketing techniques to give myself a better grounding. One thing all of those books harp on over and over is be different and be the first to be different. It seems to me that going this route is going to be difficult because Jumpgate and their ilk are already going to be there by the time GCO comes out. You do have the chance to be the first in mind though with the not inconsiderable history behind the BC series itself. Going the other route is also a tough call because Eve already has a good chunk of what most folks would consider the UC/BC series to be on first glance (and in today's world first glance seems to be all anyone gives) and allows customization. As far as space goes I think Eve has a good chunk of the market share.

Now where I think the BC/UC series shines is that it's unlimited in scope. You have planetary ops as well as space ops in a massive world. You have well established background and factions which set themselves up well for story arcs and goals. You also have the hardcore simulation aspect. For scope, perhaps at least initially focus on a single quadrant and plot a story arc that will eventually lead into a second expansion quadrant. I think that the aspect of planetary ops needs to be played up since it gives you total freedom to be in a universe opposed to a box in other games.

Moved from a thread that bears not relations to the subject matter.



What on Earth gave you the idea that we'd put a three (will be four by the time GCO is out) year old graphics engine in a 2011 game? Did you not read the - rather extensive - FAQ?

The stations/bases don't need to be player-controlled to allow trading. The NPC controlled stations/bases will handle trading just as they currently do. In that if you have stuff to sell, you can sell it at a station/base. In the full blown trading system, you can sell to stations/base or other players.

There won't be any player controlled stations or the like. Except for fleet controlled stations and those are differently only by their alliance. Nothing to do with controlling them.

If you haven't yet, at the very least, play the freeware Universal Combat game to get an idea of how the trading system actually works - because we're not changing it, apart from allowing player to player trading.

Sorry for putting it in the wrong forum >_<.




My bad. I didn't read the FAQ extensively enough. And a small concussion earlier kinda threw me off my game. I apologize.




I didn't say that the bases NEED to be player controlled, i was just asking/confirming that the trade system would be the one in the UC series if we had to buy from NPC controlled stations.




So, in the full blown trading system, that means i can sell my crap to other players.

Awesome.

Are there going to be price range for every item, or can i be a total jackass and charge people whatever i want for a certain item? (supply and demand?)




Right... Well, ill just pull out something from the GCO FAQ...



That part in the FAQ says player controlled space stations or planetary bases.... not fleet/alliance controlled. And below the question it says "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a good time without allowing monetary transactions cause balancing issues."






I already know how it works. As i said, i was questioning the one mentioned in the GCO FAQ I bought UCCE for a whopping $49.99 at a gamestop which i had to travel 15 miles to buy it from...and the box was in horrible condition.

SC, I would tend to agree with Eclipse. You know I love Echo Squad SE, but you yourself have said that it did not sell as expected. The "just space combat" road, even though it is epic in Echo, runs the risk of competing in a flat market with the others. And when you consider that you have the FreeSpace Source Code project evolving it's "boxed in" space combat with good mods galore, and the excellent Evochron with trade / free netplay - even though Echo smashes both those titles in terms of "density" and "intensity", I would be very sceptical that there is enough meat in the "pure combat MMO" sandwich. The only way you might pitch it is to make it VERY clear that the combat MMO was considered a "training" module only (but that could only last a few months before any individual punter had their fill and moved on; we do live in a ADHD world after all, very disposable. Too much COD run and gun type gaming is turning everyone's brain elasticity to clay). You would have to include planetary combat as it defines the elite end of this gaming spectrum (pun intended), using the new technologies of course, but perhaps leave out the ground combat to save on the need for ground asset detail as you did with Echo. You could also do something like "Capture the artifact" type co-op stuff, but again, I do feel this is all old news......

And let's not forget FutureMark's Shattered Horizon!!! ... This will be a unique take on MMO Space Combat.

....

Now to the large scale game: -

I agree with the decision to limit the Cap ships AI control elements; the AI coding elements would be crazily intensive on resources. Also, there is no point in having a 3000ad legacy style game type thrown into an MMO. Apart from being neigh impossible to implement, the gameplay would be way too difficult to regulate, and you would end up with very dominate old schoolers running the universe, with any newbies being very intimidated at even getting into it. This is where the phase 1 training module as a tiered approach might work though, as there has to be a level playing field involved, and newcomers play the "training" universe scenario before being promoted to big school.

And when in big school: -

I really do like the idea of being able to be just a grunt on a larger vessel to begin with - and fly fighter sorties etc, all under the command of a real human that I "work" for. I can progress in rank, but essentially start out as a basic pilot or ground dude and then take it from there. NOT just limited to the combat though as some of the most exciting moments for me in the 3K universe are spent EXPLORING .....

That brings me to one important point. There must be a single story arc that underlies the overall "why am I playing" infrastructure. I do that all the time for UC / BC; make up stories in my mind of where I am going to go today, and why I am going. It's what makes these games so powerful.

That is where the Commander will end up acting like a dungeon master; not competitive, but integral. The dungeon masters run the universe, all ultimately under watchful eye of 3K / SC.

....

Conclusion: - Maybe Phase 1 Academy with it clearly defined as to what is to come --- e.g. there has been a massive event and only small crafts have survived, with a few large crafts / stations under AI control, GALCOM / EarthCOM / Insurgents (etc) are all building new resources, and all the planets base radiation has gone through the roof which makes it difficult or impossible to land ..... then feed the new assets / modes of play in as you can --- Give it purpose.

....

I know you don't really need to be told this SC because I have seen you do this many times before (not literally of course), but Jerry Cantrell from Alice in Chains said in his cameo in Jerry Maguire "That's how you become great man ..... hang your balls out there".

No worries. Anyway I have merged the topics to avoid confusion.



There will be a price range based on the current trading model where the station's security, location, inflation level etc are taken into account. What I don't want to ever get involved with is a situation whereby you have over 2000+ items in your inventory and you are stuck setting prices for each one. So for trading with stations, the current calculations will remain in place. So you just have to go where you get the best prices - just like it currently works. For trading with other players, you get to set the price during the transaction. So if you have an item that would sell to a station for 100 GC, you can sell it to some desperate fool for 500GC if you want.



Ah, that should be "player fleet controlled". Will fix.

Regardless, player fleet controlled space stations doesn't mean "control" in the sense of the word in terms of how you control your craft. It means a station that was built by a player fleet (it is highly unlikely that one person will be able to build a station) and owned by that fleet.

An example would be the construction of a station around the moon. Though you built it, you don't get to stock it, set prices, add defenses etc. Once constructed (as a prefab) it is a fully functional station with base inventory, turrets etc - just like the default ones in the game. It becomes a place to hang out, plan activities etc. And the the fleet leader of the fleet that built it, can access its inventory just he can his own ship's. If you recall, in the current UC games, you get repairs for free at GALCOM HQ, but not invididual items. In GCO, it works the same way for friendly and player fleet controlled stations. Though unlike the current games, if the supplies at the station run out and they are not replenished (through trading, mining etc), they will have no items. i.e. they are not automagically re-stocked when stuff runs out.

How do you build a station? Well, assuming you belong to a coherent fleet of dedicated players, you all pool your GalCreds and the fleet leader initiates the build when you have collected enough money. Its that simple. As simple as in All Aspect Warfare whereby you can go to a supply platform and build a unit that then appears nearby.

Also, you can only build stations around planets or moons and you can only have one around any planet or moon. The 58 stations which are already part of the game mythos, will again be the defaults in GCO. And given that there are over 200 planets and moons in the game galaxy, it is going to be awhile before all of them have stations. And if that becomes the case, then the solution would be to allow more than one station (in a different eliptical orbit) in orbit around a planet or moon. Of course that it not to say you can only have stations in orbit around planets or moons, they can be anywhere so that may be changed in GCO to allow them to be anywhere in space and not just in orbit.

Good points Badman.

The idea behind the phased approached was more to stiffle the stigma associated with our games. You know that there is this misconception that they are difficult to play etc - when the truth is that once you learn how to play, it becomes second nature pretty much. So it would be more of an introduction more than anything and with the preview to lots more to come. It also allows us to get the game out quicker and start building the direction, gameplay etc from there.

So yeah, it would be more like a F2P model like Echo Squad SE (i.e. player controlled fighters only) with both space and planetary gameplay.



There are no plans to have any sort of "story mode" mission scripting in the game. The game - as mentioned in the FAQ is predominantly PvP and with some PvE elements thrown in.

The game wasn't designed for an underlying storyline and since it is not instanced or sharded, would be nigh impossible to implement and would also ruin the nature of the game as planned.

The underlying storyline based on the IP's mythos, remains as-is e.g. the Terrans are up against the Gammulans, the Insurgents are just angry Terrans - usually up to no good etc etc. Those underlying rules (governed by the game's AI) will remain as-is. So if you play as Terran and you end up in Gammulan territory, you are going to be engaged by either human or NPC forces. Of course that doesn't mean you won't run into a friendly (maybe your next door neighbor) Gammulan played by a human player.

There will still be NPC traffic in GCO just as there are in our pre-existing games. e.g. NPC traders will still travel between stations doing their trading - you can engage or trade with them etc.

Understood, and the more I think about it, the more the "stories" will come from the very fabric of the community.

So, in essence, phase 1 would be Angle of Attack assets and technology, but you can leave the atmosphere to travel through an updated-graphics-engine-space to reach other planets, possibly within a contained region, blended with Echo gameplay, throw in strong massively multi-player with other real humans all over the shop!!?? Honestly just to be able to leave the surface from AAW or AOA would be enough to give me a real rush at this stage, so an effective method of getting players together to start MMO would be a great "technology evolving" step, and sounds as wise as bringing out AAW / AOT in the first place. And that, in my opinion, was an Earth (LV-115) shattering move :-)

Exactly. Scripted scenarios don't work in MMOs unless they are instanced and sharded. In an open-world game with no instancing or sharding, thats just not possible unless the game is designed specifically for that.

It is possible however to have world events scheduled at specific times. e.g. the Terrans in Earth space could launch an attack against the Raiders in Sygan. Such a "raid", would be scheduled for a specific date and time to the community. At that date/time, the event runs. Anyone not present during the skirmish, will miss it. These events are things that I am already planning on having from time to time and they can range from raids and search & destroy actions, to exploration and such. Folks who want to participate, just have to show up as scheduled.



Something like that - yeah but multiplayer only of course. Also, I wasn't planning on allowing planetary access for several reasons.

1) The terrain assets for all the planets would need to be created first - they're not ready atm

2) the world is already massive - just space alone. So adding planetary access would just be another barrier that prevents the social aspects from taking off as needed. Heck I'm still trying to figure out how best to get folks in and into the action in under five minutes without altering the game galaxy too much. Because it makes no sense to have such a massive world with Terrans one side and Gammulans (for example) clean, clear on the other side - given how the galaxy is currently divided up. So if you vets have any ideas, I'd like to here them.



...and thats the reason for my bringing this up in order to get as much feedback as possible. You guys need to spread the word around to the other space combat communitities so that nobody gets to cry foul later on when a decision is made.

Idea for Combat only game - Phase 1

Maybe for "planetary" just the Earth with 1 large base and the moon with 1 base hosting an Earth force field generator, have to take it out first ..... only our solar system ..... protect it from within or attack it as the Gammo's from just outside pluto!!!! only ever 2 teams .... objective, make it to Earth and take over.

"Destroy the Secret Citadel" main base at the bottom of the Grand Canyon or something.

Whenever you enter the game or re-spawn you are not sure of which side you will be on because the teams always have to have approx equal numbers.....

Oh' I can already feel the pain ... GALCOM, EarthCOM and Insurgents fighting together against the common enemy ..........



And yes ... I will let the guys on the StarWraith forum know that they can have a word in here + I'll do the same at Hardlight.

Wow, that was a lot of reading.. thumbs up to ya!



Well, a couple idea's is one that can in fact be possible.

We all know insurgents like to cause problems (Blast ya Shohashi! I'll arrest ya one of these days!) so it's natural that they would have a base or some small outpost on Earth that is hidden away.

The same thing could apply to the Gammulans. Where as they have a small base of operations located somewhere on Earth (preferably away from major population centers, but close to an active military base) this would allow Terran and Gammulan players to engage in ground based pvp.

Naturally, because there are a lot of Terran base's the odds of the Gammulan players being able to gain an absolute foot-hold on Earth would be small. Just like how if the Terran had a BOO (Base of Operations) on Gammula they'd equally be hard-pressed to gain any sort of foot-hold.

Of course, don't make the offending bases obvious. Their color schemes should match what area they are located in, for example, if you plan on having forests in GCO - hide an insurgent or Gammulan (or, if you truly want to be evil) put both in there. This encourages combat between these two factions.

Idea 2

The other idea I had was one that can be player made; make it so that players can actually land their ships on a planet and let that ship serve as a BOO for their faction. This ship could be either player run or perhaps AI controlled (Maybe even a troop transport perhaps? Give’s that transport another reason to be used) and if it is player run, this will add a depth to the game and add some excitement. After all, you got ground-pounders waiting to dirty their feet and with a troop transport there they won't have to worry about respawning back at their main base or something. Transports can serve as additional respawn points for dead players (Ground pounders are more likely to die in succession than captains of a starship)

Likewise, the transports themselves can equally provide artillery support for attacking forces.

Idea 3

Another idea I had that might work, is to set up hidden stations within each sector (Sol and what not) to serve as launch points for opposing players, granted these stations can be disabled (temporarily) to give a reprieve to those players.

Otherwise, I don't really have any other ideas.

All this talk about space and trading.

So how will the intruder system work in GCO?

Same in UC where theres a chance to get them when there are hostile NPC's in the region?

Since you won't have any NPC crew to tackle them, and given that they have to come from somewhere, there are no intruders in GCO.

When the 3D level add-on content is developed, intruders will obviously be in the form of other NPC players. Since you all will be in first person, thats pretty much a better experience than a 2D AI + stats driven one currently in BC/UC games.

As I said, those thinking that GCO is just an MMO version of a BC/UC game, need to understand that it is not. I can't stress this enough - so it is good that all these questions are being asked now, rather than later.

What I am worried about is that just like any MMO, the game will attract jerks, lots of them. Add to that the whole anti-derek smart thing, and I can see how some people would play just to mess things up and ruin "those derek smart sycophants' " fun.
Seeing how destroying stations in UC is easy once you get the hang of it (of course capturing is another matter...), that could be a serious issue if you consider allowing people to build stations. Sure stations have defenses, in the form of NPCs or other players, but this can be abused too: unless there are lots of people online at the any time, dedicated to station defense (which doesn't seem to be what you're going for), it will be easy to find a station defended only by its NPC assets (if they'll have such things, like they do in BC/UC). Those are easy to fool, and can even help you destroy the station they're defending (by trying to take you out if you're in range but the station is standing between you and them).
That means, a lone player could easily ruin your hard work for the sake of it.

What could be possible to prevent this:
-no more blind spot in the stations PTA defense grid
-stations indestructible to everything but capital ship fire (as cap ships seem to be a bit too much work for you average griefer I hope)
-stations indestructible outside of planned events?
-making sure NPCs friendly fire is turned off?

I do have the same concerns as RT does.

What also concerns me are the farmers, IE: Gold Farmers. What's to help curve this possibility of people selling ingame currency for real money?

Because the LAST thing I want in my fleet is for some member to go to some gold farmers website and buy ingame currency with real money and then try to pass it off as them working hard to get it. In fact, that'd piss me off and cause me to throw them out of Prime (and I'd inform Shohashi and the other fleet leaders as well)

All games have jerks. There is no defense and there is no point in worrying about it. Given that its an MMO, banning an a/c is trivial.



None of that will do anything to solve the problem - so it is pointless adding more "stuff" to counter it. Plus all of the above will break the style of the game and can't even be done. e.g. the PTA "blind spot" is based on the station's design and nothing else.



Gold farmers are not found in all MMO games. Thats because it depends on the type of game to make it worth their while. They won't have any incentive to be in GCO since the trading system is not like other games and the game is not about trading. So until they show up and it becomes a problem, I'm not concerned about it.

a few more fabricated questions for ya.

1) Will the chance of being able to spawn camp be eliminated?

2) What if a station goes boom and im in it...or will stations become undestructable in a sense and that wont happen?

3) Will lag be an issue? Because i really don't want to inflict 100 damage for every minute im hitting someone...lag is bad..=(

4) If you can, how would you gain credits from combat? (other than pods in space)

5) Artifacts...yes or a no?

6) What do you think you'll set the subscription fee at?

7) Will there be GDS's or you know, those satelites orbiting planets with uber owning capabilities? If yes, would they just be the same concept as in the game? 5000 M away from the space station for no purpose other than to lure poorly programmed NPCs into them?

1. There is no spawn camping in any of our pre-existing games, given than there is a period of time when you're invincible during spawn. So this is a non-issue.
2. You'll die. No. stations are not indestructible. One thing I'm planning on doing for stations/bases is instead of immediately triggering the destruction event when it is signalled, an alarm goes off and a with a count-down (e.g. 10 secs). So have time to get in your ship and get the hell out. It is similar to how destruction events are currently handles in our recent games (AAW/AOA) whereby something can still be destroyed, but lingers around for a bit before being removed from the world.
3. Lag will always be an issue in multiplayer games if you have a bad connection. Since the client/server engine we currently have in recent games is as robust as can be, this is of no concern atm.
4. You only gain XP from destroying objects or killing others. If they have cargo (e.g. you blow up a transport), you can of course pick them up - just like you could in previous BC/UC games. No change there.
5. No artifacts. All upgrades will be in the same form that we currently have in BC/UC games.
6. Sometime next year - but as indicated in the FAQ, a F2P version is definite.
7. Yes, there will be Orbital Defense Systems. Given that their code logic has not been revised since the very first BC game, they will be completely overhauled for GCO to make them more effective.

Wow, 256 players in a universe is a lot for a fighting part of a game since most fps games this days support around 30 players, yet little for trading and exploring since all you transmit is data that doesn't have high real time value. It's a difficult thing to balance a number of players with server capabilities. It would be nice to have a story in the game because most (and I do know that AD3000 doesn't want to copy other titles) MMO offer choices in which you can do what you want or do quest and explore more about the game you are playing. Something like:

When you begin the game you can choose to enroll in a academy or get a random class in a draft.
With either option you have a choice of either enlisting in a army/navy, and follow a career or roam the galaxy as you want to. You do get an option to go through training (which you can skip, because most will be covered in a 100 or more pages manual or two ) which offers you a quick introduction on how to do stuff with a chosen asset.
Enlist and you get steady income + bonuses for missions and a chance to be promoted to a higher rank. If you choose free roam then you make your own money doing quest, trading, bounty hunting and so. Both parties can form and join in a player fleets.
Example:
After few months exploring and fighting in a space navy you finally get promoted to the rank of a captain of a battleship (doesn't have fighters but does have hangar in which transports can deliver goods and has storage space for a ship or two to dock ). With that rank you can plan combat missions for npcs and players and you can pay them with your command authorized budget. If the npcs are in your navy fleet you can give them patrol routes. For PC you can set something like scan system x planet y (or sector z ) for xyz credits and put that on a public job offers which can be accessed in job offering system/ship. All big ships come with a map room and in that room you can plan those missions.
Some ranks in player fleet's should be able to do the same.

Will it be possible to construct buildings on planets, such as industrial, military, and commerce types of buildings ? And even possibly connect that with space station in orbit. If you have trade station you get more income of the planet, if you have military one you get more protection general purpose station populates planet faster and so on.
Will this game have total destruction enabled, so that you can destroy the station, bomb (orbital bombardment ?) the planet and ultimately allow one race to destroy all others completely.

Things that would be nice:
-personal data pad
In which you can take your notes, get reports from your assets...
-respawn system with a twist
besides regular insurance on assets which you can choose to pay in some time cycles you also have to pay some tax value on your life. The more secure the location the more expensive it gets. Basically you can transfer character info to less secure locations which transmits your info once every month to permanent storage (race home planet) but can be destroy and set you back.
-offline location
you can die even if you are not online
-offline progression
you can go to the gym => increases your movement speed
do chores => earn more money
counseling => increase morale
study => get xp per min and so on...
-fleet morale
constant loses on a battlefront can turn some of your races assets to pirates and as such endanger some areas for assets
-natural expansions
every so often race will try to colonize another planet (if you have high enough rank you might influence that )
-”smart” AI
AI can chose to run from a fight if heavily outnumbers (more important navy assets of another race)
-maneuvers
each ship should have thruster hard points which you can preprogram to be used as you wish (if you don't like default ones) and those maneuvers into quickslot bar for use in combat. Limited by the amount of fuel/refueling time and usage.

Some ideas:
For taking down a station, I would recommend that you as a attacking player/group of players also have to invest a lot of money to destroy it. Such as 1. (less expensive) block the comm chatter out of station so they can't send sos, and new npc won't rush to the system, player owner of the station will lose communication with that station, but can be bypassed by launching a probe or sending a fighter to send an sos outside of the blockage. 2. (expensive) Put out some sort of device that block's fast speed arrival of ships via ftl drive, minimum 5-10 minutes distance to cross if you are outside of that's thing range. Can be destroyed . Otherwise nearby police and navy npc assets will rush to the aid of that station even if they are few systems away.

For system traveling:
You can jump one system of distance instantaneously. More than one you have to wait certain amount of time unless you are in your race territory, where you can travel instantaneously as well because you don't have to slow down so that your nav computer can process data
If you chose to jump in a system which is controlled by the enemy and more then 1 system away their sensor will go off and they will welcome you with their full arsenal. And outside their systems are regular patrols, satellites and so on (something like Star Treks' neutral zone).

I have answered some more questions over here at the HLP forums. I'll just cut and paste.

Hey guys, good suggestions and commentary all around - exactly the kind of discussion we should be having. Let me highlight some points which I need to make clear.

If you haven't yet, PLEASE do the following:

1. Download and play the Echo Squad SE demo (2008). This will give you an idea of the twitch based fighter space combat.

2. Download and play either All Aspect Warfare (2009) or Angle Of Attack (2009) game demos. This will give you an idea of the aerial combat, first person engine etc. These are ALL new technologies which will be used in GCO and will remain largely unchanged.

3. Download and play the freeware Universal Combat (2004) game. Though this is a much older game, without having to buy the newer Universal Combat Collector's Edition v2.0 (2009), this is the closest that you will get to having an idea of how the cap ship combat, space<->planetary transition, fps etc will work since everything is rolled into these UC games.

As I mentioned in the GCO game's FAQ as well as on the forum thread, the idea here is not to change anything that works; but rather to lower the barrier of entry somewhat, while keeping intact the elements that more advanced players love about the games



Indeed. Which is primarily why there are absolutely no quests, missions or anything of the sort. The IP's underlying storyline which seeds alliances, territories and such - are all there is. So this will keep the game's open ended nature intact.



Exactly. And this is the reason why we're scouting the space sim communities and getting feedback. I certainly don't want the game to favor expert players or to have an unbalanced game world. My goal is for those starting the game today, to not be at a significant disadvantage against players who came in months before. That of course is going to be tricky, but if the game is not complex and rewards all gamers equally, I don't see that as being a problem. Sure, some issues will arise, but thats what game balancing is all about and is exactly the reason why I'm going to start the public testing from the late Alpha stage and right through to the final release.

As to the PvP vs PvE issue - I am well aware of this and will rely on the testers to shape that path. Due to how the game world is designed, I don't see PvP as being a big problem. For example, a Terran/Military player starting off at GALCOM HQ station (in orbit around Earth) can still trade and explore the Terran quadrant without fear of being attacked. Of course if you get too close to a hostile station (e.g. in Sygan), you will be. One thing I have in place is a "weapons off" directive whereby via electronic locks, your weapons simply won't work. Period. The problem with that is say this is activated in Earth region, this means that no combat can go on in that region - hence the station there will never be attacked.

So it is going to be a balancing act - especiallyh for a game that have PvP components. As there are no quests or stories, being that the game is neither instanced nor sharded, PvE is going to be just players going up against NPC station or base assets. e.g. if you engaged the Sygan station - even with no human players in the region - the station will launch defense assets, fire its turrets, missile batteries etc. This means that it works exactly as it does now. If you just want to trade, then you stick to the friendly trade lanes. But tbh, without PvP in this game, its not going to be much fun for long. I guess the thrill is going to be seeing how deep into enemy territory you can go with illegal arms and such withough getting blown to bits. Since the game world is already seeded, there is a lot of exploration to be done. And the richer you become, the more likely you are to find a barren rock and build something on it without anyone knowing about it.

My goal for GCO is the same as my previous BC/UC games in that I want gamers to make their own adventure. Anyone who finds this to be an issue, will have to go play something else.



Our games have no cutscenes. Never did. The transition from space<->planet takes place in an external camera view once you set in motion the event that drops the ship into planetfall. Having it any other way (e.g. how Infinity QfE does it) adds nothing to the game and is of no consequence whatsoever. The issue with airfoil stress, atmospheric burnup etc - again - add nothing to the game and just adds another barrier for newcomers who have to learn all that stuff. Thats not my goal. My goal is to make the game easy to get into, play and fun, not work. None of the above bear any relation to that goal.



None of that equals fun.



Thats now how my games work. The game world is open and with no restrictions. Also, adding artificial barriers does not equal to fun. If you see a planet, you can fly around it, do what you want etc. And if you decide to enter it, you just target it, press a key and planetfall is engaged.



You can already do that in my BC/UC games. But this won't be in GCO because there are no NPC crew. The only way cap ships are going to be able to deploy troops to a planet from space using the transporters, is if the troops are human players on board the ship.



Thats already part of the current BC/UC gameplay mechanic. Even in All Aspect Warfare, you can shot down out in the middle of nowhere and can teleport to a friendly nearby base using a key sequence. I intend to preserve this gameplay mechanic in GCO but with some penalities.



This is space in the 30th century. Use of missiles and BVR combat is inevitable. By the same token, the advance jamming tech means that using missiles doesn't always guarantee a success. Especially since the game is twitch based and thus player skill comes into play.



That may be an issue for someone who has no experience with networking or building large game worlds. But its not in our case. Bah! we already did that back in 2003. Our networking architecture is client/server based and one of the reasons that I'm keeping the player limit to 256 per server is so that everything runs as best as it can in real-time. This is not P2P. The server doesn't send data to clients that don't need it. So its not like if you're in Terran quadrant, you're going to be getting server data packets from the Gammulan quadrant.

Elementary stuff really. Been there. Done that.




Visual quality has nothing to do with networking. The server is console based and doesn't do any graphics processing whatsoever. The visual quality of the planet as seen from space is down to how many polys are used to draw it, the quality and size of the texture used and whether or not mipmapping and/or Perlin noise is used when up close.

Again, elementary stuff that is of no consequence.



Ah yes, no BC/UC conversation without reference to Resnig. hehe, since there are no NPC crews in the game, I guess the only way there is ever going to be a Resnig is if a player happens to play as him and is part of your ship.

If BCMG was the last game you played, man, you're like ten years out. A LOT has gone on in terms of interface, key commands etc. Try playing one of the games I mentioned at the start of this post and see for yourself.

There is no storyline in GCO. Though there will be planned "events" which can be scheduled to take place at a certain date/time/place. If a player misses that event, then it never happens again. I intend to use this to flesh out some of the underlying mythos of the game world and its various nations. These events will be planned and announced well in advance of their occurence. And yes, the crashed probe is one of many such stories that I intend to resolve in GCO.

You can't board other ships or stations in the first release of GCO simply because there won't be any first person gameplay mode inside those assets. This will be added maybe a year or so after release as an add-on expansion. With that in place, sure you can board other ships and run around inside them in first person perspective. The FAQ has a link to shots of the Engstrom carrier levels to show as an example.



Not sure I understand what "first person hurdle" you're talking about. There is no "first person hurdle". We've had first person in my games for the past ten years or so. Made even better in the recently released All Aspect Warfare and thats the same fps engine that is being used in GCO as shown in the movie currently on the teaser site.

All the server does is send data back and forth between clients. It is pure client/server architecture and with 256 players the server won't even break a sweat. It is all down to server CPU, memory and bandwidth. Nothing to do with the game itself.



uhm, I don't think so. I'm not going to go to someone's site and rudely peddle my game.

Apart from that, they are a totally different community. For one thing, Infinity is more of a tech demo and proof-of-concept, than a viable game property. Each time I think about it, I go back to how I started out with a ton of ambitious ideas and such - then ended up with very niche games decades later. I do not believe that it will evolve into a game that many people will play.



Have that already.



Have that already.



Have that already.



Nah, thats ok. As I said, GCO is built off my game properties and tech that already works.



Not an issue. Even procedural terrain has its limitations. Unlike BC/UC games, GCO is not modeling entire planets because it is pointless and wasted data which nobody is going to see or play on. Sure it will be a large map, but where you emerge from space or start on from the planet side of things, is currently no larger than a 500 sq. km stretch of area. Our recent AAW/AOA games used a 400 sq. km stretch of land on a single planet - and people still complained that it was too big. Since GCO is only going to have 256 players per server, creating massive planets is pointless and adds nothing to the gameplay.

With the 500 sq. km map area, the terrain data is trivial. Heck, the map itself for each planet is only 32MB. And since gas giants don't have any terrain, of the 216 or so planets in the game world, only about 175 have any terrain. The server demand loads the entire galaxy without issue.



Indeed. And thats what I was talking about earlier. To me it appears to be more of a comp.sci experiment more than anything else. They are quite competent of course but the fact is, there is a big difference between a science proof-of-concept experiment and a game.

My guess is that it won't evolve as a game anytime soon. The terrain engine - if it actually does what I've read on there in any meaningful way and with decent performance - is something that they should consider packaging and licensing out. In fact, at one point I had considered joining forces with them, but decided against it because I wasn't convinced that they actually want to make a game out of it. Going from tech to game is a major leap that most first timers tend to underestimate. I should know - I've been there.

IMHO there is no need to put storyline in GCO, because I almost never played BC/UC campaign based on storyline. For me the best part of game is free roam mode. I played campaign once in BC 2.09 and thats it.

When add to this MMO elements of gameplay in GCO there will be plenty of fun without storyline.

That answered quite a few of the questions I had lingering in this head of mine. I knew there was a reason why I stuck with 3000AD (Derek sticks to his guns, and never runs out of ammo)

From another board posting:



Though there will be planet life on some planets, there are currently no plans to have animal life on any planet.

The accessible planetary areas cover about 1000 sq. km (twice the size of the surface area of the world used in AAW/AOA) and are not level based.

As mentioned in the FAQ, the planets all have day/night swquences as well as various weather patterns.

And, I will point out, is going to be huge! :-)

-Sho