118 replies to this topic

[Kalshion]

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

[Supreme Cmdr]

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?

[Kalshion]

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.

[canshow]

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

[Supreme Cmdr]

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.

[Martin Pelletier]

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...

[Supreme Cmdr]

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.

IS IT DEVELOPED FOR A HARDCORE AUDIENCE ONLY?

Players of our previous space/planetary combat games will feel right at home.

Our games have always been geared toward a specific audience and not for the mass market audience. All games are targeted this way but we tend to remain focused on the gamers who like a more rewarding gameplay experience based on what they put in.

A lot of games cater to a specific audience, though the media, publishers and developers - for financial reasons alone - would have gamers think otherwise. This is why most games, publishers and developers fail. Everyone wants to cater to the Status Quo, develop a "WoW killer", copy everyone else's game - then blow through a lot of money (usually someone else's) and FAIL.

Eve Online is a hard core space trading game that caters to a specific audience. They serve that audience very well and are rewarded for it. Planetside is a hard core fps game that caters to a different type of fps gamer. Given the numbers and its popularity, it is safe to say that it failed to capture the numbers due to the fact that hard core fps gamers can get a better experience elsewhere without a montly fee due to the saturation of the fps market. Those who stayed are the game's target audience.

And I could name a list of MMO games that have come and gone, most of them fantasy themed and which you've probably never heard of.

Despite the fact that we are working towards a "pick up and play" model for the game and which gradually leads up to a more in depth gameplay, with GCO we are sticking to a formula that has always worked for us. We know that there are quite a number of gamers out there who like the sort of games that we develop. They are our audience - hardcore or not.

That is not to say that we're aiming for the game to be as complex or hardcore as our previous games. No - instead we're shooting to make the game as easy to get into and play as possible. Basically if you can play Echo Squad SE (space/planetary combat), Angle Of Attack (planetary aerial combat) or All Aspect Warfare (planetary fps combat), then you already know what to expect from the perspective of those games since they have features which are part of GCO. Of course going up against AI opponents is totally different from going up against human players. So bear that in mind.

With GCO, we're aiming for a gamer to invest upwards of thirty to forty-five minutes a session and come away pleased at having achieved something and had fun. There is no grind and you can quit the game at any time you decide its no longer fun. The type of gamer that our games have traditionally attracted are dedicated gamers who help each other, are respectful of one another and are friendly and co-operative. We are looking to build on that and to provide a worthy experience for gamers who become part of our own small corner.

You probably should read some reviews of our most recent games to get an idea of the sort of experience to expect, though as was previously mentioned, we are looking to simplify things a bit but not to the extent that we alienate our core audience and end up with a run-of-the-mill game that fails to stand out or keep its target audience.

Regardless, GCO will have a Free-2-Play (F2P) subscription model, so you can always try the game and go from there.

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:

WHAT ACTIVITIES CAN I TAKE PART IN?

* First person combat (planets)
* Vehicular & Naval combat (planets)
* Aerial combat (planets)
* Space combat (space)
* Trading (planets/space)
* Exploration (planets/space)
* Mining (planets/space)
* Construction (planets/space)

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!!

[Eclipse]

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?

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.

[Supreme Cmdr]

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

Well, the GCO interests me very much.

Only a few things concern me. The graphics, and the trading system.

The graphics, as you stated before, will be like the GCES graphics correct? As long as they aren't like the old jumpgate graphics (never played GCES before) then that part, i think, should be fine.

Now the trading system. Until the first player-controlled stations/bases are build, money spent toward resources, minerals, etc. go to the NPCs?

Then when the player stations are built, how are the resources going to be transported there? And how is the buying/selling system going to work? Will there be a tax, or will all the money go DIRECTLY to the owner of the station?

Other then that, i think this MMO will turn out awesome when i can get my hands on it.

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.

[canshow]

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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

WHAT SORT OF MICRO-TRANSACTIONS WILL THE GAME HAVE?

Though the final set is yet to be determined, we have settled on the following for now. Our goal is ensure that everyone has a good time and without allowing monetary transactions cause balancing issues.


#Buy components, units and buildings for the construction of player controlled space stations or planetary bases and cities e.g. building a base is not just about buildings, you still need to defend it by buying and deploying surface to air SAMs etc

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."

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.

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.

[Badman]

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".

[Supreme Cmdr]

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

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?)

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.

That part in the FAQ says player controlled space stations or planetary bases.... not fleet/alliance controlled.

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.

[Supreme Cmdr]

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.

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.

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.

[Badman]

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 :-)

[Supreme Cmdr]

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

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.

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!!??

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.

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 :-)

...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.

[Badman]

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.

[Kalshion]

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

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.

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.

[canshow]

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?

[Supreme Cmdr]

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.

[RT]

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?