Feedback requested...

[Azzanadra]

Well, I've had this game and played it off and on, and I love it, so I hope I can provide some meaningful feedback.

1. Personally I haven't used the multiplayer myself.

2. If the game gets big enough that it is best to restrict saving to space stations/docks, I would not have a problem with it.

3. What I enjoy about this game are the peaceful activities I can partake in. I think that combat should take less priority over the exploration, trading, mining, or whatever activities are in the future. Don't abandon combat! I would just rather see more of the non-combat parts of the game expanded.

4. It took me a while to discover the crafting elements in this game, I would love to see it go deeper. Worth a game delay? I'm not sure, there are things I'd rather see first.

5. I would prefer the game continue with jump drives being point-to-point, but an extra item that can be used for high speed travel would be fun to use. I'd use both.

6. I haven't used them. They sound excessive and I have yet to use them because I imagine that they're basically space nukes and I don't like collateral damage/accidentally blowing myself up.

7. I am no combat expert so for now I shall abstain from making suggestions.

8. A balance between realism and fun needs to be kept. I vote to not expand the size of planets, mostly due to performance or time spent doing nothing but flying concerns. I would rather the planets get more detail put on them.

9. All of the ideas there sound great. I was thinking myself that mining on planets should have a greater reward, either by taking advantage of the TW's faster mining beam, or by giving unique materials that can only be obtained on planets (such as rare stuff on uncharted planets ) but require a TW and you can only mine on certain special rock outcroppings (easily identifiable and spotable from your ship, of course). Overall I want there to be a reason to explore the surface of these planets, and more stuff to do and landscape details would do wonders for this. Although the game is in space, I love the idea of just going down to the surface of a planet for trading/mining purposes. It helps give this game a feeling of being a genuine universe.

10. YES, the TW is my favorite feature of this game. My favorite activity in this game is to explore space for unseen worlds and be the "first" (as I'm sure every planet at this point has been found) to set foot on them. I doubt many other games have features similar to this.

11. The only way I could imagine large ships being piloted by the player was if you were running a large cargo ship for trading purposes, however I'm not sure how to work that while maintaining the lone wolf theme of this game. That feels more of a hallmark of the X series seems to be about.

12. I understand that there are distress signals where players can deliver items to places for a large reward, but I feel those don't last long enough for me to take advantage of them. There should be longer temporary conditions (perhaps lasting for a few hours?) that cause things such as the price of water, meds, or solar panels (to name a few things, other new commodities would also be welcome) to increase and the player should be able to either sell them for the elevated prices, or sell them at a loss (or donate?) to raise your reputation within that system. If the idea of facilitating new colonies on uncharted planets is a thing in the single player game, I imagine you could find and sell these things to the new colonists to help spur their growth as well.

I might edit these ideas as they stew in my head, but that is what I can contribute as a small time player of these rather sweet game (yay for the steam sale for bringing this to my attention about a year ago).

[Ugly]

1. I stay away from clans just so i do not have to build stations and do endless 1-25 quests. there would need to be a much larger benefit for that to invest myself with what amounts to a mostly boring grind.

2. The main point of EM universe is Exploration. Give a more dificult save option (and perhaps a MP badge system to reward those hard core). But if a bad jump cause med to erase 4 hrs of flight/exploration time, I'd never explore.

3. I like the Balance but wouldn't mind an instanced arena combat. Team V Team kind of thing.

4. Yes please I''m a crafter in my soul and it's the primary thing i'm disappointed in EM with. There are two dynamic's I'd add to crafting. First Rare components only found via exploration. and Second, some form of R&D/Reverse Engineering. Components only found in Combat (dropped from ships).

5. Never played AA, but I'd vote both just either or on the ship.

6. I think they have necessary uses in PVE... just not PVP. I'd prefer a fix related to what your targeting and not what your firing. in this case Fulcrum's having a mass attraction item. making them much more effective at targeting Corvet size ship's, and less effective against your smaller fighters.

7. 2 things. Weapon ranges appear to be way to short for effective flight speeds. increase ranges (yes i expect other values to change). Second have a class of solid projectile that perhaps dosent work with mots but dosent have a range either. If you launched a slug in space realisticly untill Planatary gravity or a physical barrier stopped it would travel forever (for game limiting factor's 1SX should be sufficient).

8. Whats the point without more things to do on the planet?

9. AI TW's, Player City's or Outpost's, Deapth to Terain, Subteranian Planet's with Sweet TW Access.

10. Keep them, even with the little you can currently do on a planet having one makes being there way cooler.

11. Probably, Make it a multiple player ship. 1 player/station. Stations i think of are... Flight Control, Nav (warp flight), Gunnery Stations (Many). Ship's dock in a Docking bay and then are assigned or man their station by flight control (or ship owner). Your station looks like your (cocpit) and your ship's crew affect's your actions in it as they are part of your station..... Dunno if this is clear but it should fly like Dumbo without ear's... and be space only. Enter a planetary gravity field and expect to loose your ship. (Large cargo capacity) and give something to end game players to be able to do with their Billions. Make it Craftable and not purchasable to make this truly end game content. To emphasize MP with expansion of crafting have player crafting focuses and need multiple players to make the end item.

12. If i dump 5 TW's in a system, regardless of the system that should probably devalue the value of the TW on atleast that planet, and perhaps the system for a period of time.

[DynamicRanger]

Sorry I'm a bit late to this one, but I couldn't pass up the chance to pitch in. My strongest opinions about the design of the game and its potential are in this thread I started and contributed to a few months ago.

1. For me, MP is simply SP with chat. I don't much care for dueling/clans/fiction, so I would integrate the existing game mechanics more fully into MP. Off the top of my head: especially tricky/expansive contracts that require multiple players to complete, or even accept.

2. I hardly notice the save system, so it's probably just fine as it is.

3. The game is very open-ended and respects players' intelligence; no matter what may change or be prioritized, this openness is crucial. I think every aspect of the game could use more meat on those bones, however, especially the overall economy and the role planets play in it.

4. No. I think further developing crafting systems would be a distraction from core elements of the game that would benefit from improvement. For me, I'm fine with the two simple categories of cargo: commodities and equipment. If providing rarer/more processed commodities to a station and thus allowing it to manufacture/sell more advanced cargo and equipment counts as crafting, then I support that. In the case of equipment, I'd rather see a smaller selection of well balanced pre-baked equipment than grind for diamonds or whatever to make my own special sparkle beam. Making adjustments to existing equipment, slightly tweaking their traits within a prescribed range is much more interesting to me than crafting new equipment.

5. I'd like to see a combination: activating the jump drive has the same effects it has now, but the drive can't be activated at less than some velocity threshold--like 88 MPH in Back to the Future. Also, that velocity should be preserved when exiting the jump. This is just a thought, the more useful answer is "Yes, leave jump drives as they are."

6. They should stay.

7. Greater ranges for everything and greater variation in the ranges of weapons. I'd like to have misssiles lock on and stay locked on regardless of a ship's orientation, so you could fire missiles at a ship out of view. Missiles could be faster (even swarms are pretty easy to shoot down) but I haven't given it enough thought to have a strong recommendation. Missile ranges seem about right to me.

8. I don't care, as long as the amount of things to see and do on a planet increase relative to its total surface. Cities should be larger, there should be more of them, they should have contracts specific to their economies, and infrastructure (roads, rails, highways, etc.) should link the cities. In all likelihood, no, I don't want more realistically scaled planets.

9. I touched on this in a long thread I started about the game's economy: I'd like to see planets more specialized in their economies, depending mostly on the environment of a given planet. The transport infrastructure I mentioned could play a role in this: a city would act as a hub for several development zones connected by roads. Each of the zones could support a type of economic activity. The categories would be very broad: farming and mining would produce the respective raw commodities, processing would make more advanced commodities and manufacturing would make ship equipment.

10. Not in anything resembling their current state. Landing at a city, parking your ship and walking around in a TW makes some sense. Landing your ship and walking around in a TW makes some sense. But dropping it from your ship that magically disappears until you want it back? Of course, as has been mentioned numerous times, if TWs remain there should be more tasks specific to them. Exploring caves and uncovering wrecks/ruins seem like particularly promising options, given that those tasks could be lucrative, fun and difficult/impossible with a ship. More than expanding or eliminating TWs, I'd like to see landing gear on ships, so when you slow to zero at a planet's surface, you don't just hover there with an angry computer voice going on and on about altitude.

11. I doubt this will gain much support, but I'd include capital ships for the whole range of tasks in the game. So of course there would be military ships with lots of guns and missiles, maybe even carrier bays for AI or player-controlled ships. More interesting to me, however, would be freighters, capable of carrying a hell of a lot more cargo than standard ships. 10x more, at least, than an average civilian ship--I'll leave numerical details up to more detailed discussions. The part I doubt other players will support is that I'd like to see a capital ship design that constructs things like trade stations and planetary facilities. I've never really like the way a player's tiny ship can kickstart the construction of massive structures in space that alter the interstellar economy; so yes, I am proposing replacing construction modules (and construction from fighter-sized ships) entirely with a large, expensive constructor ship.

12. This is the one I've been waiting for. I began and participated in a very detailed and practical thread about this a few months ago. I won't labor the point here, but I think EM would benefit immensely from a more nuanced and detailed economy--specifically a set of mechanisms that would establish a high risk/reward black market.

[Edited on 1-2-2014 by DynamicRanger]

[NLS]

Well this is an interesting thread.
I have very few hours behind EM cockpit, but I think I WILL post a reply here for two reasons:
a) I do have experience in other "space odyssey" (as I like to call the genre) games.
b) I think will be interesting to see the virgin/newbie look of an outsider on things (before the game itself "biases" my opinion).

...I might revisit this topic if/when I am more experienced to see if some suggestions I made are stupid.

So (and after reading other replies)...

1. I haven't played MP at all. I am still curious how people actually are in MP and each one also follows his own (SAME) quest line. Feels a bit weird thinking about it. I would expect MP to "open" either after the quest line is finished or in a pure "sandbox" mode (i.e. no quest line). I would expect MP to be mostly useful for MP-only (read: server only) tasks/missions or complete plots (drop in/drop out). And/or dogfighting between fractions. Esp. in "MP only" mode, interesting things can happen like specific players having specific tasks that completing them will allow the rest of the team progress (like "you get in that cave, kill some bad guys for us and reach for the main gate controls to let the rest of us in" or something).

2. I think the best save game policy is to be (a) when the user wants (what happens if I am in the middle of something complex but HAVE to leave? Pause and and keep it open for days?) i.e. Real Life to always take precedence. AND (b) in various key points (before and/or after a major mission, when visiting a station, before some serious decision). But keep a number of those auto-saves (NOT JUST ONE as this can lead to deadlocks) - maybe last ten (talking about auto-saves not manual saves).
Also two "badges" would be nice (so not enforce people): (a) a "play as we wanted" badge or something (for players NOT using manual saves but only auto saves) and (b) a "dead is dead" badge (that is initially given after the first mission and then removed from all saves on first dead). (yes keeping backups could exploit this but, who can fight that?)

3. Equal mix all the way. I suspect the game needs more variety. How do I know with so little play? BECAUSE ALL SPACE GAMES, ALWAYS, NEED MORE VARIETY.

4. Hmmm... Crafting system MUST ALWAYS be in, but needs some changes. Rare artifacts/components/ingredients. Some research. Parts from other ships (derelict?). Also I have to note something weird. I like the 3D craft GUI, but some things are conceptually weird. How realistic is to resize (in all three dimensions) the engine, without any specs really changing? Or, shouldn't adding short winds affect negatively the maneuverability of a ship in atmosphere? This part needs depth.
Needs more time? Take it. E:M is fantastic already, don't RUSH anything. I am all in for things that WORK, not are half baked (and not branded as half baked). Yes. X:Rebirth effect here. * Whatever you do in future development, always let your fan base in. But you already know that. Help them support you. Give them alphas, betas, more threads like this as things form. Better prices (I am Greek, I had to say that, it's tough to afford anything nowadays).

5. The more options the merrier. Jump drives. YES! Jump gates. YES! Anomalies/wormholes? YES! High speed drives? YES! (but only for shorter distances and NOT EVEN CLOSE as X:Rebirth implemented them) Malfunction for each of the above? YES!
Also whatever requires the ship's own "powers", make them really depend on this. So ability to do jumps, ability to do jumps-after-jumps (i.e. how many before cool down), jump distances (some should barely reach from edge of one sector to edge of next), cool down period (so how much time you are exposed between jumps) should all be proportional to the ship capabilities (and each ship have unique specs for them).

6. I don't even know what those do, but I expect them to be some large scale lethal weapons. I have general comment on that. I believe that "weapons of mass destruction" should definitely be in the game (up to the level of destroying a moon maybe, or a city) BUT except that they should definitely need to be ULTRA ULTRA difficult to obtain (missions, money etc.) they should also be having major effect on the player (a part that is universally neglected in implementing those). Something that will make a player that HAS one major weapon think twice (or three times or more ) before using it. Not "yeah I have a star destroyer thing but I now need to get away from those pirates so, let's throw this behind me and I will eventually buy another". NO WAY. Something to affect reputation, trade etc. Something major.

7. Haven't done much combat yet, but a general comment is to try and steal as much as possible from Freespace 2 (OSP) combat. Definitely energy weapons should always balance with the energy capability (or set energy dedicated) of the ship, while other weapons (like missiles) not.

8. Hmmmm... tough question. I am always fore more realism. Yet what this game needs is more content. So I would maybe expect some growth in the planets but still far from "real" sizes (maybe just make them 10 times larger), but also way way way larger cities, more cities, more varied environments and more things to do (surfaces to make sense - and even subsurface and subsea where applicable). Maybe here the way to go (to keep sizes manageable) would be procedural/pseudo-random-generated construction (like Elite et al). What planets need definitely, is more life.

9. Answered above.

10. Well those I've seen are not very realistic. It really shows you just added them because you wanted to have them. If they stay (I vote yes), they need to be more realistic and have real usefulness (see again #1 for cooperative play)... maybe to board ships (so, space walkers), visit stations, go places not possible otherwise etc. I have to say, difficult for a single dev project.

11. I say yes MAYBE, but similar to #6. Someone having such a ship should be task-oriented and/or have real counter-effect on other things - and also be ultra difficult to have it AND maintain it. Also a big discussion if it should be remotely commanded, or take over a ship station (like a turret) or what.

12. Not sure how it works now, but I vote for having special things that are very rare (also useful to complete some missions or for crafting). Not sure if there is MP trading between players. If now, there should be.

Ah something else for the future. Landing on planets shouldn't be a given. Should need licensing from authority and ship (or add on) able to cope with atmosphere entry etc.
Maybe even varied depending on different atmospheres.

[Iron man]

1 I'm agree with the opinion of seejay me too. See more ai defending one main station with turet defence. Why not Added ai stronger and more powerfull like a boss to kill for optain the area who will require more player.

2 I like the current save mode.

3 That the core of the game a open box. Don't change this is the key of his success. Maybe improve the main story like player as See jay did. For me it's a litle bit too short :S

4 Defenly Yes ! The system of craft is exelent but not enough choice for me. Add secret one will be a nice idea.

5 Jump drive is exelent for the moment. The only problem is for going to so some place with a mantis it take sometimes over 15 min ! DUring this time the players do pretty much nothing except talking if he's in mp.

6 Full crum torpido don't bother me. Leave it like that. I would like see people I kill when I use it against other player instead of see he just dead....

7 Weapon system is pretty good. Just I would like see more choice. Secret weapon or equipment in hiding system could be interesting for restart the desire to keep looking for find better stuff in hiding uncharted system....
I bounce on Hawkeye missile phisic should be changed.

8 Size of planete actually is perfect for me. It took over 30 min for me to scan a planete to see if there are something special or lost box on it. Increase the size I think will be too much. Increase the size of sun will be maybe interesting.

9 All the idea you said could be interesting. I think as a lot of players the planete is quite empty most of the time. Add some impacts of explosion or crashing ship or I don't know the idea is big ahah.

10 terrain walker is something awesome Maybe the terrain walker could mine things the ship can't or going on some place like cave the ship couldn't go in. That will obligate people using more the tw instead of just salling it for making money ....

11 Well I heard a lot of player would like to build bigger ship. For my part I'm good with the current size of ship. But it will be interesting to escort players for example.

12 THe economy is good I think the only problem is what can I do with my B of credit? :S I'm agree with splosive. Why not possibility build city or something else. Create a black market sound be a good idea as well.

[Major Grubert]

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.


i like it the way it is now, i play mainly mp and its a long time i'm not playing sp, but i like it the it is like now

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.


i like the fast key alt F9 and get quick use to it, about WHEN to do it, i like the way it is part of the "game" whatever the "way you'r gaming" the evoverse...

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?


i like the relative equal mix, i'd like to see all of them get more attractive in equal mix as well

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?


it's an idea i write maybe down here some times in past, i'm definitely interested by this, and pretty sure it could attract more peoples/gamers into the exploration/trade far away from gated shiny roads

make this and a way to store goods for real cheap and drones for defend those storing stations

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?


I dont know about the arvoch things but i like the way the jump does work now, but i dont like the bright white flash it does when activated, i'm kind of photosensitive and it switch my brain to sleep mode very fast if i look to much at it..

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?


i like them, its a good trade stuff and sometimes i like to do some arcade total insane gaming style with messing reds, i never get the point about that torpedoes

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.


more missiles, more stuff, more choices, more strange beam from remote systems, more fight tools for the ship, detectors, beams, radars, counter-measures, more attach points for more rooms for bigger ship with more crew..


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).


i like the way it is now, i travel a lot, if not mainly, ouside gated road, this mean i jump and jump and.. ok.. and i find that it's somehow "realistically playable"

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).


more diversity, more strange world, more unstable world, dunno, more options as well, the more we can do the best it is, i like the ideas you give above after "include"

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?


i dont use it that much but i really like the option to have it for doing something with it

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).


dunno really, maybe with grades we should access kind of ship class available and at some point we could hire transporters civilian or military ones, with associated capacity's and needs as crew and logistic side, needless to say that in mp single players could dock on cap ship and cap ship play in coop missions with smaller ships, cooool



12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

more items, more options, more mysterious materials and things, more opportunity to get out gated roads, more things and places to discovers, old city, temples from extinct civilizations, abandoned large ships or space station, new aliens, more rares items to use for build things and so one.. class of ship dedicated for traders more cargo and dedicated things..

[PaulB]

I hope you will permit me to diverge from the point by point reply to your questions.
I'm quite new to EM - just bought it a few days ago and have been reading a lof ot the forums and Hint & Tips and such and played the game a little.
I like the game but I would like to see some more options.
I hope you will allow me to compare (in terms of what things I'd like to see added/changed/made options) some to Privateer Gemini Gold since I have been playing that a lot up until now and doing Mods to it as well.

Something I saw last night and really struck me - an AI apparently messaged me to Trade - I think asking me to Join it's Guild Fleet. (Only I didn't see any kind of reply other than to join and get the 40000). I saw no Decline and didn't want to accept so I just closed the Trade console. But I thought that was really cool and would like to see more AI communications with the AI's. Maybe you recalle back in the 80's in the early days of computing the Lisa programs I think they were call to simulate AI between human and machine. Great for those of us who can't or for whatever reason don't do MP. I wold love mor dialong possibilities with AI's in ships, stations, planets - as an option - not mandatory interactions or limits on being mandatory.
The limited AI comminications in PPG are rather pitiful.

I would like to see more Gun/Missile options. In PPG I love how I've modded my Galaxy Merchant ship. Instead of 2 Guns - I've now got 4 guns - a Tachyon Cannon and a Plasma gun which I both love and really give you a fighting change and a hoard of AI Pirates or Retros. And I've modded 5 Launchers, 2 with up to 20 Image Recognition Missiles, and 2 with up to 20 Friend or Foe Missiles, and one Proton Torpedo Launcher with up to 20 torpedoes. So I can be a well armed Merchant and/or Mercenary and take on Kilthrathi Hoards if I have to.

Another change I'd like to see is the ability to swap assembly points with ones stored in cargo hold during flight - aka - swap weapon capacitor with tractor beam in the cargo hold or the Shield Battery with the Fuel converter rather than only being able to do so while docked. That's really annoying. There will always be times whem you suddenly need one and not the other when a situation changes unexpectedly and nowhere (or time) to dock and swap.

No offence and I'm not trying to talk you into making EM another PPG, but I find the weapons in EM too 21st century realistic and a bit too much emphasis on Newtonian Physics.
I do want more N.P. than is in PPG - I like the Inertial mode on/off - but I'd also like to see the IDS more 25th - 30th century perhaps. I like that the Centurion and my modded Galaxy in PPG and go 600+/1500+ Normal/Afterburn and be more responsive in non-inertial mode - not to completely negate Newtonian Physics.

If one makes the credits, mining, trading, contracts, don't make it extremely hard to find/buy upgrades

I'd like to see several optional "story lines/paths" like in PPG, aka, a peaceful story plot, a Semi-peaceful plot, a Mining Mystery Plot (ancient artifacts or somthing), a Trading Plot, a Military Plot, maybe wth slight cross-interactions in spots.
That would really make a broad and fun game.

I love the Mining in EM - great. I'm don't care much for the (IMHO) too limited Frame Slots on ships.

Please no larger planets to drag frame rates don't an had hours to just landing. I think the planetary body sizes in EM are fine. One of the big complaints I have read while googling Evochron Mercenary is the loooong time it takes to do anything (flying someplace and the learning curve).
I'd like to see a more PPG like (not totally) Autopilot and perhaps a few added simpler/similar JumpGates - but remember I'm very new to EM so may not know what I'm talking about there yet.
Landing on the planets is great and if you want to add more thngs to do and uses want it - fine. Me and probably many mainly want a good space sim and the planet interaction is extra icing on the cake.

My main point is - I want to have fun - I'm 62 years old and I don't want to spend 8 hours to do something - like some has said in a couple of post - go get a coffee while you wait.

Here is my philosophy which I think should be applied to games as well: Give me a Dorothy L Sayers - Lord Peter Wimsey or Raymond Chandler - Philip Marlowe novel to read over ANY of the movie attempts which have butchered the stories.

Make the game broad and fun and expansive and not overly complex to play - not overly easy - just not overly complex either - fun, and imaginative, and broad - A lot of what you have already done from what's I've seen so far.

Paul

[Edited on 2-25-2014 by PaulB]

[Stateofpsychosis]

I 2nd the idea for volcanos and all of that
flying down a volcano would be fun as hell especially if there were lava tubes that you could explore

more exploration stuff on the planets would be awesome

more caves and stuff to explore as well

to get some use out of the terrain walker

I really want to go under water too. it would be cool if you could get something like the terrain walker for water
but i imagine that would be a pain to code or something



[Edited on 5-14-2014 by Stateofpsychosis]

[Zeno]

I also am a new initiate to the Evochron universe having only discovered the game recently. I was a fan of Frontier: Elite back in the day, and had simply given up hope that a more modern game, like Evochron, would ever be made. I have to say up front that I am in awe still as to what this game already is, especially as a single dev project. So any comments/suggestions here are only intended to be my humble take on possibly furthering your already amazing work!

I'll only address the numbers on the list that I have things to say about:

2. I think either restricting saving to stations, or allowing saving at any point would be my suggestion. It seems kind of arbitrary as it is now (no saving during a contract, for example). Station saving would give a nice roundness to adventuring, since you'd always want to "return to base" when done exploring. But on the other hand, heading into really uncharted territory might be made more tedious. On the other hand, I find that being able to save at any point no matter what is sometimes really detrimental to the suspense or investment that comes in a game. If there is really something at stake or for you to lose (since you can't always just save), it can heighten immersion.

3. I think the rounded nature of Evochron is one of its best features, so I don't think there should be an overt focus on any one thing.

5. I like the setup of the jump drive system as it is. Being able to warp "through" objects is quite fun for me and makes navigation less of a headache than it would be if you had to find a clear path through everything.

7. I agree with some of the other comments that weapon range feels a little too short. While it does make the combat feel lively, I usually feel like I have to be right on top of an enemy for the weapons to connect.

8. In this case, I think I differ from many of the previous responses. I would really enjoy more realistically sized planets for their realism/immersion factor. As it is, landing on a planet seems like kind of an easy/trivial task, and I think it would be good to feel like a weightier decision whether to land or not. I totally agree that more things to do planet-side would be great, and might really contribute to that decision making. I.e. rich mining/exploration/story/community interaction vs the time/difficulty/cost of entering atmosphere. I also really like the previous suggestion that certain planets be easier or harder or even impossible to enter atmosphere (possibly equipment depending). I think that possibly employing some kind of procedural generation for planetary objects/cities/etc could be a good move in order to make them feel more lively while saving you the time of creating all that content (but I'm not sure how much work would go into creating/synchronizing those procedures). In any case, I think a universe on an even grander scale (bigger planets/stars/etc) would be even more appealing from this game (even at the cost of greater computing requirements), and if there were clearer costs/benefits or consequences for deciding between planetary exploration vs purely space-bound exploration, it could provide another interesting facet of personal choice in the sandbox universe.

9. and 10. I like the ability to go off ship and explore the surface "on foot" so I'd say definitely keep them. I also agree though that more planet side activities like farming or cave exploration or just city/economy specific contracts would be great. Again, it would lend to the question of whether to engage in deep space exploration or planetary exploration.

In the end though, its a great game all around, and thanks so much for listening to suggestions!

[Edited on 10-22-2014 by Zeno]

[Nigel_Strange]

I would like to have the target ship subsystems all displayed on the right MFD. This area is normally reserved for cargo when you have a cargo scanner, but I think that, if the cargo scanner is not installed, you should be able to see the target engine, nav, wep subsystem damage levels without having to cycle through them using a key.

Of course, I'd also like to specifically target various components, such as engines or weapons selectively. It seems like you should be able to do this, but I find that it only works on capital ships.1

[Serayl]

A disclaimer: I only fired EM up for the first time today in almost two years, so bear with me. I felt like giving some input of my own despite how old this thread is, but anyways.

1 - What kinds of changes, additions, or deletions, if any, would you like to see made to the multiplayer system? Keep in mind that the long term Evochron design structure of being able to transition from single player to multiplayer would likely be retained, so differences between the two modes will always generally be kept to a minimum as has been done in the past.

I think the way the system for transferring SP to MP progress is pretty good as is. The clan system needs an overhaul though, as those with more experience on the matter have indicated. Having to farm/grind for control of a system doesn't, in my opinion, promote activity as that sort of contract spam isn't exciting after a while. This goes double when you amass more money than you could realistically spend in the game.


2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

The current save system is good, although adding some sort of ship extension or equipment specifically to allow deep-space explorers to avoid losing hours of travel time perhaps at a credit cost, such as paying $50,000 per save would get a thumbs-up from me.


3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

I always thought the game's balance was spot-on. War zones (among other things) exist for those who want to fight, there's a ton of empty space for explorers to roam in, racers can hit the track that I've never seen before, traders can trade and miners can mine.


4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

Yes. Yes. Maybe.

I always liked the weapon lab, and I thought it was a cool thing to have even if it was fairly limited in scope, and ultimately making any custom weapon isn't all that hard currently.

Crafting, along with a somewhat more in-depth mining system, could be a whole other niche of gameplay for those who enjoy that sort of thing. I'll explain a little more about this later.


5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

Point-to-point is fine. As mentioned earlier, it saves a little navigational headache, fuel & playtime having to plot around any large objects like planets that are in your way.


6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

I only ever traded these. Since they appear to be a little too effective as a fighter-suppression weapon, I'd suggest reworking FTs by changing their explosion shape from a sphere to a front-facing cone. That way they'll still be deadly effective against capital ships without being a cheesy way of emptying your radar globe.


7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)? This includes weapon damage, firing rate, and range balances. Along the same lines, should missiles do more damage, less damage, have more range, or shorter range? Again, please be specific. And if there are systems where you don't want to see changes, make sure to list those as well.

Additional range would be nice. The little PvP (read: duels) I did often involved numerous high-speed passes and Excalibur spamming. Missiles ought to be reworked such that Excals aren't the only realistic choice - for example, custom missiles I built and tested never seemed to perform better than an Excal pack.

Having some more selection in the gun/beam department wouldn't hurt either, perhaps by giving classes of weapons a special effect such as a small energy drain on target or similar. Additional choices in a fashion players can support and enjoy cannot be anything but good for combat.


8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented (they would likely be about 500-1000% larger than they are now minimum, with each planet covering up to and beyond 5 sectors of the current scaling system each)? This would also require increasing the game's universe size significantly to accommodate the larger planets, so even every sector would probably be around 10X times larger in size. Details aren't required in this thread, that can be reserved for the other thread about planet scaling and in question 9 below (which doesn't necessarily relate to larger planet sizes).

This sounds good on paper. I do not know if this is such a good idea in practice though, especially since those super-large planets would currently be populated with super-large nothingness, moreso than they already are. While the huge surface area would mean more nooks & crannies to explore, it'd take a small eternity to properly map a planet.


9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options? Examples that are under consideration include automated farming equipment (that would work similar to current automated mining equipment), city/outpost construction, terraforming (installing atmosphere processors), transporting colonists to new cities/outposts (or at least protecting/escorting the ships that do), discovery and charting (with credit rewards), and surveying new worlds (with required equipment item(s)).

Planet-side needs options. Lots of them.

I thought planets were often pretty barren and not super interesting to explore, unless they had a cool anomaly such as an asteroid field sitting in the atmosphere. All of the stuff in the Q would be great, though I understand it'd be a lot of work to implement, test & balance accordingly. Clans ought to be able to use a new planet system as a means of leveraging control of the local area, and as a base of operations that isn't as easily destroyed as a simple station - stations still would have a role, but planets, to me, would represent a more serious (and permanent) investment by a group of players.

Things like caves would be great for TWs, and unique resources found only on planets (with some found only on special planets...) could tie into a new crafting system and give explorer types some monetary incentive to seek these things out.

For example, a unique mineral with a name such as Mineral-M219 (having been found/mined on the planet M219) could be used in a slightly better version of a particular gun. This mineral would exist in a number of deposits that can be exhausted & that respawn randomly, over time, on that planet's surface.

Anyways, one of the unique things about EM is that you have that seamless transition from space to planet and back again, and I know I'd like to see the planet aspect of the game developed further, especially to give greater reason to venture down to the surface in the first place.


10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

TWs should stay. They simply need things to do, such as spelunking in caves, helping build planetside facilities, mining unique resources and engaging in some level of combat, but without turning this into Battletech: Evochron.

EDIT: TWs could also be split into three classes, where the difference between each class is the sort of conditions the walker can sustain without dying. Class 1 would be cheap and suited for normal environments for newer players with the potential of making it part of a new start setup, while C2 and C3 would be able to better handle hardships such as high pressure (ocean floors), wading through lava flows & handling nasty atmospheres (hi Venus), and as such would be aimed towards more established players.

New contracts such as rescuing civilians from a downed ship, being contracted to build a structure (using the tractor beam to 'assemble' pieces as prompted) or recovering items from hazardous areas would make use of the new TW classes.


11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game? If so, describe how you would like to see them be part of the -relevant- Evochron gameplay equation (ie lone wolf style mercenary approach, not 'table top' RTS or fleet micro-management).

I think capships could get into EM without breaking the game, but only if done sparingly.

Carriers, for example, should be brought in if for no other reason than as something for clans to spend their hard-earned money on. Carriers would function mostly as a moving station, providing support for a clan's fighter group, with a little point defense to ward off enemy craft.

Things like corvettes could be done, but care would be needed to price them accordingly (not cheap), and give them a proper role in combat, as opposed to them being the ship-based version of a FT.

Battleships, however, are right out. Perhaps clans could buy them - for several arms & legs - and chill out on their bridges as a sort of flagship that can be ordered to do things, but any notion of a player directly driving one such as is possible in the X-series is a no-no.


12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

I feel like the market could stand to be broadened & diversified, tying into a shiny new crafting system. I won't repeat the bit about adding new planetside minerals for specialized crafting uses.

For example, I never saw a reason to visit an agricultural planet, as there never seemed (to me) to be any profit in doing so. Such worlds ought to produce the food that the real money-makers need (such as tech planets) in order to function, and when that need isn't fulfilled, the demand for tech goods should drop off as a result, as no food = no tech production = no demand for all that platinum you've been hoarding.

I also found it strange that making things like plat --> electronics caused little gain or a net loss in value (from what I've seen). Manufacturing stuff from raw materials should increase in value on average, or there's no point in refining anything.

I think raw materials could also stand to have their upgraded products branched out. For example, metals currently can only ever become machinery at a constructor (as per my understanding). Instead, a player could have a choice to turn metals into machinery, or perhaps into engine components, building materials, sidearms (the handheld kind), or refined metals (used in higher-grade items). The 1:1 ratio can also be tweaked too, but changing that might warrant needing to give players a way of storing large amounts of raw materials (ie. bigger cargo bays) and their hard-earned good stuff (station/planetside personal lockers?).

EDIT: The way the prices are calculated also ought to get an overhaul since in some areas of the game, you can drop two stations at the right system boundary for a huge cost differential, and make enough money to swim in without any actual effort. Adjusting prices based on supply/demand would help curb this, as doing things like trading FTs would stop being so lucrative after a run or two. Even after a store refresh, they'd likely still be overstocked and not offer much for the same things. I do understand this is a difficult thing to change & balance well.

I also think planets should offer slightly better (10%?) prices both buyin & selling as a means of encouraging players to land versus speed-docking to an orbiting station. Consider it the money you'd save by not using a third-party to haul your goods to the surface.

[Edited on 12-26-2014 by Serayl]

[Coyote]

1 - I haven’t played multiplayer yet so can’t really comment, but it would be good to see clans able to develop planets and capital ships. These points are described more fully later.

2 - A configuration option to auto-save in stations or planets would be useful. As a fairly new player I find being able to save after asteroid mining etc useful in single player mode. More experienced players can always choose not to save

3 – I like the current gameplay mix but a better trade system (Q12) would enhance it.

4 - Yes, perhaps enhancements in this area could be developed in a series of releases

5 - I haven’t played Alliance so can’t comment but have no objections with the current system.

6 - I’ve never used one but having read other responses, I understand that the problem is that they intended to target capital ships but are being used to area-blast fighters. Perhaps they could be changed to bombs that detonate on impact. The fighter dive-bombs to release them and they only explode if they hit a capital ship and only damage that ship. If the bomb run misses then they float off, shooting them down destroys them but they do not detonate and tractor beaming them only causes them to detonate once they are stowed i.e. make contact with a ship. This way it would be very difficult to target a fighter with one but a close bombing run on a capital ship should be achievable. If that’s not possible, can they be removed from multi-player games but left in single player?

7 - I think the range of the cannons should be doubled and the missiles range increased 10-fold for most missiles. At the moment I just fly away from missiles and they fall short and aren’t even a nuisance (though I am only fighting in Olympus). I feel the damage should be set so that a single missile badly damages but does not destroy a medium sized craft – I’m not experienced enough with the game to confirm but looking at the various spreadsheets and guides, the yields for missiles are a little high for my taste.
I would like to see fuel consumed when recharging weapons or shields in addition to using afterburners (I’m not sure if that happens already and I haven’t noticed).

8 - No, the planets take long enough to fly round at the moment

9 - Lots of changes, tied to the trade/economy/crafting system but they are probably mainly long term rather than short term changes. Instead of space-borne constructor stations, resource conversion and crafting could only take place in a city. Cities could be founded and developed by players or clans constructing new buildings.
Discovery/charting and surveying sound interesting. I’m enjoying finding uncharted systems and the bulletin boards suggest many other are as well. Having a contract system to help guide players into this aspect of play on behalf of others before doing it for themselves would be good. The specialist equipment aspect ties in more with the enhanced city and trade system.

10 - For single player they do not add a lot and could be removed. If multiplayer clans are allowed and city development takes place then they could form a significant part of inter-clan warfare. If that is the case then they would be another extension of the crafting system and be treated like ships

11 - This could be a good cooperative multiplayer clan warfare aspect of play but would probably require a lot of development and is very dependent on how popular large scale multiplayer is in Evochron. I did a little light research on world war 2 era warships and tried to translate that into equivalent weaponry for spacecraft, as follows:
Key: Class - Primary Guns/Secondary Guns/Point Defence/Missile Launchers/Fighters/Armour/Tonnage – Players Required
Ship – P/S/D/M/Ftr/Amr/Ton - Players
Fleet Carrier – 0/8/4/0/75/150/40 – 88
Escort Carrier – 0/2/4/0/50/75/20 – 57
Light Carrier – 0/0/4/0/25/10 – 30
Battleship – 8/8/18/4/0/300/40 – 33
Battlecruiser – 4/8/12/2/0/100/20 – 25
Cruiser – 0/10/12/2/0/100/10 – 25
Destroyer – 0/6/4/2/0/75/6 - 13
Frigate – 0/2/4/1/0/50/2 - 8
Corvette – 0/1/2/1/0/50/1 - 4
Armed Freighter – 0/0/4/0/0/25/100 - 5

Primary Guns were typically 12inch guns, which I think (thanks to pi r squared) had roughly 6x the mass of secondary guns which were around 5 inches and the point defence weapons which were mainly 2 inch guns and .50 calibre machine guns. Missiles were very roughly estimated from depth charge launchers missile systems and just scaling through size (i.e. making it up).

In game there would be several roles for controlling a capital ship:
Captain – Flies the ship and has the radar but cannot fire guns
Primary Gunner - Fires all the main cannons (particle/beam pair) on either the Port or Starboard side of a ship. The cannons are fixed in position and the gunner has to wait until the target is in the sight to fire the appropriate cannon. Primary guns would fire relatively slowly
Secondary Gunner – Fires a single secondary cannon (particle/beam pair). The secondary guns have limited target tracking (as the guns do now). Secondary cannons would fire at about the same rate as a primary cannon.
Point Defence gunners – Operate a turret with a standard fighter sized pair of cannons. They can rotate around to acquire targets and the guns have target tracking and have radar access.
Missile Launcher – Each missile launcher has up to 8 missiles, the operator can rotate around in all directions to acquire a target lock independently of the ship’s heading and has access to radar.
Pilot – A pilot of a fighter that is carried in a carrier

The armour rating above is the rough amount of belt armour in mm, for the larger ships. I made up the smaller ships and freighter’s amount of armour to scale it to something useful. The tonnage is the rough and rounded averages for the various classes of ship and again is used to scale each ship.

In determining the players needed to provide a full complement I decided that in a Corvette, the Captain would also control the single secondary gun as its targeting is basically the same as a fighter’s targeting. I left the missile launcher as a separately controlled item so that it could target independently but it could be combined into the Captain’s role to make the Corvette very similar to the existing multiplayer model, the extra crew would be turret operators and if they weren’t around the Corvette would just behave like a big clumsy fighter ship with a slow but powerful cannon.

As capital ships are scaled up versions of mercenary fighters, it would seem appropriate to also scale the missiles into ones that only capital ships could carry. They would have massive yields but are likely to be relatively slow turning and not really a threat for fighter ships. These capital ship missiles and the primary guns could potentially also be used for orbital bombardment. Following this line and the previous two questions on terrain-walkers and planet-side developments a further ship-type the planetary assault craft could be added by modelling carriers with walkers instead of ships. These craft could enter the atmosphere and land. The closest real-world equivalent I know of is HMS Ocean, a Helicopter carrier which also carries many landing craft and marines.

All-in-all as I think this could be fantastic and I believe fits the existing Evochron gameplay style but is likely to be a lot of development and would be speculative as to whether it would be widely used. It is also questionable as to whether the gameplay would be interesting primary gunners and missile launchers in particular. On the other hand if a clan decides to commit the resources to build a battleship and then can’t man it then that is their lookout.

The other aspect I thought of is that this could be very unbalancing. If all of a sudden one clan turns up in another’s system whilst they are all at work in the real world, so there may be some need to arrange and schedule battles ahead of time.

Maybe this should go down as a long-term ambition or Evochron Clans v3, with some experimentation with Corvettes and possibly Frigates in the current version.

12 - My one gripe with the current game is that raw materials cost more than processed items. E.g. Platinum costs many times more than Electronics. I’m not sure how the current system is configured but I assume there is a base price for each item which is then modified by economy type and other conditions. The base price for each item should, by default, be double the base price the components that go into its manufacture, with the other 50% of the cost being the processing cost. Individual items may then be adjusted depending on the level of processing required.

From this point this question and question 4 become intertwined, as do some of the other questions. Commodities are processed into higher forms and then into equipment that is assembled into ships. It is not a great leap to extend that paradigm to include buildings. The whole could be given a 3rd dimension by adding in technology levels that make better versions of the same item. Taking the existing weapons lab as an example, metals could be swapped out for a super alloy and fusion cell for an antimatter cell to make a superior weapon.

Extending further, the recipe for the super alloy would have to be researched (as per Q4) and then production facilities created (as per Q9) and the materials delivered so that item construction, particularly of higher end ones is more complex but ultimately is not excessively powerful.

The technology levels could also work downwards, I’m particularly thinking of nuclear fission. Whilst fusion power, which is predominant throughout the game is cleaner; fission is cheaper and easier to produce and may be attractive to rebel groups. E.g. a fission based cannon might require less materials than an equivalent fusion cannon and may also be a touch more powerful. However it may be illegal in many systems due to its inherent radioactivity. The same may also be true of antimatter in more conservative systems.

Illegal goods, such as narcotics etc or restricted goods that require a licence would be a good addition to the game; particularly if the restrictions vary by system.

This expansion of trade items and manufacture would also benefit from an expanded list of raw materials and here a tweak to the mining system could benefit, and also relate to Q9. Each planet and asteroid would have a unique composition of minerals so mining turns up more variety.

Returning to item pricing, I think Spaceports should buy at 10% less of the planet’s market price and sell for 10%more, the price difference being a convenience fee. Ideally the game would simulate market economics but, if that proves to complex and/or resource intensive to implement then a random price variance beyond say 50-200% of the item’s base price should be introduced on a bell-curved scale. If the price is lower than 50% then items are not produced and if they are more than 200% then they are not bought.

I’m happy to email my rough notes on the capital ships and trade if you would find them useful references. For the trade items, I’m trying to compile a model for my own academic interest and maybe simulate it on some system dynamics software if I have time.

[Aegix Drakan]

I had a reply typed out for this months ago, why did I never send it?

1) Multiplayer:
It's fine as it is, IMO. Maybe a friend list thing to find out where your pals are in the universe would be neat, but that's all I can think of.

2 - Should saving game progress only be allowed at dock points such as stations and cities? If not, are there any other changes you would want to see in the saving system.

I like being able to save anywhere. Maybe only being able to "resume playing" from Stations, cities, and carriers would be neat, but I like to be able to know that my progress is safe from sudden power outages when I've been out mining and constructing for a good hour or two.

If it's not already in, allowing the game to autosave whenever you dock at a station would be neat.

3 - Would you prefer a game that focused more on pure combat, exploration, trade, or include a relatively equal mix of these elements without any one particular element being a primary focus of the game?

A mix is the best, IMO. One of the things I really really like about Evochron is how open it is. Being able to do so many different things and have so many avenues to play the game and switch between them is great.

The main thing I'd like to see more of is "hard choices" for equipment. I like having to consider flexibility and profit versus convenience when looking at equipment. Like "Oooh, this equipment will help me detect points of interest at a longer range, but I'll have to ditch the Shield Booster or Cannon cycler or Stealth Field to make room, which will put me in trouble if I run into pirates! Do I really want to take that risk for a little more convenience?". Hard choices like that are amazing.

The "mineral-specific" tractor beams are a great start, personally, since they dractically cut your diversity, but allow convenience. It's a neat tradeoff.

There's one thing I REALLY want to see in the next game, though and that's a robust way to log and note and categorize map logs.

Like, if I find a neat space station hidden in a nebula that's not on the map, I'd like to be able to note the location, and then easily sort it without my log looking like a giant mess. Options like sorting by primary system, planet or search-field words would be a godsend and make exploration feel more rewarding.

4 - Would you like to see an extensive crafting system as a design priority? That is, many gameplay items (and maybe even a few secret ones) could be built using a pattern of materials/elements/commodities? If so, would it be worth the extended development time/delay to implement it?

While it doesn't have to be "extensive", adding a step or two between "turn 25 material-x into 25 commodity-y and then turn 25 commodity-y immediately into Equipment-Z at the exact same constructor for maximum profit" would be nice. There's little point (to me, anyway) of just converting materials to commodities if I can upgrade them to much more valuable equipment at the same station that I'm turning them into commodities from.

Aside from that, the shipyard and weapons lab are plenty complex already and don't really need that much more.

5 - Should 'jump drives' continue with the current space folding point-to-point approach, or should they revert to simply high speed drives (as found in Arvoch Alliance)?

Both have their charms so I'm fine either way.

My only problem with point-to-point is that it's a bit too powerful. If there was equipment that briefly allowed you to track or follow enemy ships that jump away, that would be neat.

Having certain stations or other landmarks (spacemarks?) have "dead zones" around them preventing you from warping directly in would be a neat idea as well, especially if smuggling and scanner ships ever make an appearance (Pointing your nose to 180 and warping directly into a docking bay is fun, but if there's anything trying to stop you from docking, they can't stop that.)

6 - Should Fulcrum Torpedoes remain in a SW3DG space-sim or should they be removed entirely?

Haven't found any yet, no opinion.

7 - How would you like to see the combat systems changed (or not changed)?

It's fine as is. Maybe a repair beam, allowing you to heal allies would be nice, and a way to track escaping ships even briefly would be fun to add.

Combat already really feels like a strong point in this game, even if I don't engage in it very often.

8 - Would you like to see fairly realistic planet sizes be implemented

I tend to prefer smaller-but-livelier. Either way is fine for me though.

9 - What kinds of things would you like to see added for planet-side options?

Discovery, charting, surveying, etc with actual credit rewards (and a robust log system showing what you've personally discovered) would be incredible.

Anything else (hidden outposts, etc) are just icing on the cake.

10 - Should terrain walkers remain a part of a SW3DG space-sim or would you prefer resources be devoted solely to focusing on spacecraft options/technology?

I'd prefer if more resources and time went to space stuff, but the terrain walkers as they exist now are fine. Maybe just having a second model that's more combat-oriented in case of planetside pirate vessels or walkers would be neat. Aside from that, the walkers are fine as is.

11 - Should piloting capital ships be added to such a game?

No opinion, if such a feature existed, I'd likely ignore it.

12 - What changes/additions would you like to see in such a game's economy/market system relative to how EM's is set up now? Please be as specific as you can (items, trade locations, values, etc).

This is gonna be the big one. >_>

I'd like more commodities that are worth trading in that aren't mine-able, more "hard choices" for equipment and more options for convenience really. So far, my experience is that platinum, diamond, and converting fulcrum engines to sell are the way to make lots of money trading, wherever you go.

Mostly, though, I'd like smuggling and illegal goods to be an option, and one that feels risky and "smuggler-like" to participate in.

A tiny amount of well-marked illegal goods (like "!!! - Contraband - !!!" in white on a black inventory button) that most stations will not buy from you (but are quite profitable in the right places) would be neat.

Especially if ships with cargo scanners can report you to local patrols or demand you jettison all illegal goods or face hostile action.

To add some "hard equipment choices", perhaps there could be un-scannable cargo bays you can buy for your ship that cost more and can store only 5-10 units or cargo instead of 25. This adds safety, but lowers maximum profit for those so inclined.

Hire-able smugglers/pirates as crew could also be nice. They could point out if a sector has a lot of "scanner ships", or notify you of a pilot in the area who would be willing to buy your illegal goods ("Callsign A.C.E near Errato Constructor is interested in !!! - Vonari weapon Scraps - !!!, maybe you should sell yours to him"), or other such services.

--
13 - Equipment ideas.

As I said, I like having dilemmas over what equipment/crew to bring, so having more makes me happy.

Long-Range-Scanner: Every X seconds, informs you if there's a point of interest within your immediate vicinity, but not of the exact location. Higher tiers check more often.

Jump-Tracker: Allows you to follow a ship after a jump. Higher tiers can track more jumps before losing their target.

Repair beam: Not only is this useful for flying in teams, but it can open up whole new mission types, like repairing capital ships in a warzone, etc.

[Radikal]

Fuel converters and deployable fuel stations making use of planetary rings (which are water in Evochron) to produce hydrogen fuel. Really surprised they don't already do this.

Would like to have tractor beam that locks on to other ships, cargo pods, escape pods, and other items of similar nature that allows you to bring those items along with you (wouldn't maintain lock through jump). Could add new gameplay in multiplayer being able to tow in crippled player ships after a co-op battle (and possible salvage missions in SP and MP).

[Marvin]

Could add new gameplay in multiplayer being able to tow in crippled player ships after a co-op battle (and possible salvage missions in SP and MP).

You can simulate a tow by having the stranded player jump into your gun turret. Fly back to a station or city in the same sector and have the player disconnect.

[Radikal]

You can simulate a tow by having the stranded player jump into your gun turret. Fly back to a station or city in the same sector and have the player disconnect.

Can't do that in SP (don't have a good enough internet connection for MP).

[TGS]

I've always found this community to be rather hostile to new ideas, especially ideas that have been brought up and shot down. One idea that I have been thinking about upon learning of Evochron Legacy and now purchasing it is the revisiting of Capital ships and ownership of said capital ships. And while I am pretty sure the community is largely against them I feel I must clarify that what I'm talking about isn't "flying" capital ships, because quite frankly that would get rather boring. What I'm talking about is simply owning them. As mobile bases of sorts. In a way that they can be commanded, but not flown.

One of the things I primarily would like to see in this respect would be carriers. Not dissimilar to what you find in war zones except owned by you and as I said, acting as a mobile base. You'd tell it where to go and it'd go there. One thing that I think would make it really good is that these could have the potential to be massive money sinks. As in a large investment and ongoing cost. After all one of the things that EM had was that once you got into a certain currency bracket there weren't really any money sinks that could impact your wealth too much.

Anyway, I know it is probably a pipe dream that would never happen given how entrenched this community is. It's just sad that I didn't know of Legacy until so late in its development or I would have tried to pitch a more thought out and practical capital ship ownership idea.

[Marvin]

Most ideas are rejected either because they are impractical within the scope of the game (massively increasing the size of the DL) or because they would cause an imbalance in MP. That said, Vice never rejects an idea forever if he can find a place for it in his game ... for example, the auto-save function now available in EL. But, if you want to pitch a subroutine which allows a player to own capital ships (or a second, third or more ships of any kind), a "flow chart" as to how it would work within the scope of EL would be welcome, I'm sure.

[TGS]

Most ideas are rejected either because they are impractical within the scope of the game (massively increasing the size of the DL) or because they would cause an imbalance in MP. That said, Vice never rejects an idea forever if he can find a place for it in his game ... for example, the auto-save function now available in EL. But, if you want to pitch a subroutine which allows a player to own capital ships (or a second, third or more ships of any kind), a "flow chart" as to how it would work within the scope of EL would be welcome, I'm sure.

I suppose it would depend heavily on how receptive he in fact is realistically. I pointed at the community primarily because in the past I noticed members of this community thinking of Vice's games as almost perfect and in need of little to no changes.

And while I do admit that bringing player owned capital ships can bring extra challenges, provided it stayed in the framework of the already established lore I am not sure that it would be overly problematic in terms of balancing. Especially if it was to be scaled up in such a way that actual capital ship battles became a common thing especially in terms of territory warfare.

One of the things that never particularly made sense to me in any of these games was the idea of territory warfare being largely performed by fighters. Or even just on the whole the obsession with "fighter" sized craft.

To be blunt, Vice has done the fighter genre to death. I'd like to see him expand beyond reiterating the exact same things he's done before. But how do you do that when a good chunk of the community feels that the game is perfect and the only thing that needs "changing" is simply to make everything that exists bigger and better?

Legacy is released, I didn't know of its existence in a time frame that would have made it practical to even consider a lot of the ideas I have. Even for example the point to point jumping. He offered that up for change and the majority of the people seemed to say it wouldn't affect them if it changed or that they didn't want it to change. But to me it is one of the things that needs changing the most. Why? Because in EM and I haven't played enough of EL to know if it's the same I found myself using it *ALL* the time. In fact the only times I didn't use it were when I was landing on a planet or engaging in dogfighting. I'd use it to over 5-10k. Because the process of using 1 fuel to line up to a station hitting jump and instantly being docked, versus manually burning and realigning multiple times to get into the station was almost always disadvantageous. Now as I said, I haven't played EL enough to know if this is the same but I personally found it nonsensical that not only was it quicker, but it was almost always more practical to use the jump drive to get from point a to point b simply by design. Even when covering insanely short distances.

Now obviously this could have been rectified by not allowing people to jump within a minimum distance, but that would just be an annoying limitation because the game by design works that way and as much as I personally think it's silly, it IS the way the game works.

Now would that mean that a "high speed" warp drive is the answer? I don't know. Possibly. I've had an idea bumbling around in my head for like 20 years on how to handle/solve high speed FTL transit in a game of this scope but it is way too late in EL's development cycle to consider and honestly I'm not sure if the rest of the community would be open to it.

So at the end of the day I have a lot of ideas, but it isn't just Vice that I have to convince, it's the rest of the community and I already view it as an uphill battle due to the fact that so many seem to think that the game is perfect as it is.

[Marvin]

The Legacy universe is populated with large ships. And much larger sectors. At max throttle, it takes a long time to traverse even a single sector. But there must be a logical reason to forgo your jump drive. We, at IM, spent a lot of time in EM and will spend as much time in EL "dragging" enemy ships at normal speeds toward a planet so that we can engage them with TWs. If NASA had the option of using a hyper-drive to get to Mars, don't you think they'd use it?

[TGS]

The Legacy universe is populated with large ships. And much larger sectors. At max throttle, it takes a long time to traverse even a single sector. But there must be a logical reason to forgo your jump drive. We, at IM, spent a lot of time in EM and will spend as much time in EL "dragging" enemy ships at normal speeds toward a planet so that we can engage them with TWs. If NASA had the option of using a hyper-drive to get to Mars, don't you think they'd use it?

You're misunderstanding, I'm not talking about simply removing the jump drive and not replacing it with anything, that would not make any sense. What I'm talking about is simply changing the way the system works so that it is more like a warp drive or hyperdrive rather than a point to point "magically disappear from here and reappear here". The only functional change would that there would still be some travel that occurs. The amount of travel would decrease considerably relative to how powerful the drive is.

To put it in another terms what my idea would entail would be a drive/system that when you activated it you'd be pulled out of "reality" into a alternate version of the universe, which exists in parallel with the main universe. The key here is that it would make everything in the universe bigger and closer by a factor of x (whatever x is for that class of drive). Now functionally there is two simulated universes. Which I know would probably freak people out including Vice in an "OMGAD HOW WOULD WE DO THAT??!?!?!" fashion but hear me out. This alternate dimension (hyperspace for lack of a better term) would be somewhat dynamic depending on the drive and the perspective of the person in it. Why? Because if you have a class 1 drive you'd maybe gain a factor of 2. So everything increases by a factor of 2.

Now I'm just making up values so that it can be visualized. Imagine if you were 800k (in current terms) from a planet and you wanted to get there fast. Currently you target somewhere close and hit F8 and it magically poofs you from where you are and then poofs you to where you selected. My system would make it so that once entered in this alternate dimension the 800k is now only 200k and the planet is much much larger. Or rather the "mass shadow" or gravity well of the planet is much larger. So you simply fly to it in this altered state. But wait... that's not all. YOU are also much bigger. So when you're going at 5k speed its more like you're going at 25k speed or even 50k speed. Why? Because the planet is bigger, the distance between you and it is smaller and you are bigger. So all of those things relative means the process of getting from point a to point be is a lot quicker. Now functionally you simply fly AT the huge whopping great big mass shadow and as soon as you reach a certain point within it you are automatically dropped into realspace. Or rather the system starts "pulling you" out into realspace. Which could happen instantly or over a few seconds with a visual effect of everything returning to normal size.

The main purpose of this is that in this other dimension how you perceive things is based around the class of drive you have and when you start wanting to traverse very long distances with a very powerful drive even the act of navigating will become visually distinctive and quite honestly... fun. Instead of playing virtual battleships and "poking" at certain areas hoping to land near where something is... at those levels of warping even relatively small celestial objects may become visible to you and all you have to do is fly towards them and it'll pull you out when you get close enough.

This system would probably be far beyond the scope of EL and is partly why I've never brought it up in the past because I never got in early enough when it could actually be considered or prototyped out.

The main point though is that this is actually a very good implementation of Star Wars Hyperspace. Even so much as it could translate into some interesting game play mechanics such as interdiction ships/stations/etc and chases, as well as common hyperspace trade lanes. Now the beauty of this is that it could be designed and balanced in a way that it simply isn't practical to use on a small scale. So the point to point small scale jumping could still exist side-by-side with this system.

For another sort of example of how this would work, for anyone who has played Minecraft you can imagine it similar to the Nether and the Overworld. How the Nether can actually be used as a "hyperspace" of sorts to traverse very long distances by entering the Nether and traveling what really seems like a pretty small distance, plopping down a portal and bam you're now a significant distance from where you originally were despite having traveled very little. It is basically that... in Space. And instead of a straight value it is a dynamic value depending on the class of drive you have. Now that could be semi-problematic in that it could require creating multiple instances/dimensions, but given that everything is relational to the core universe it shouldn't tax things too heavily.

[Marvin]

Interesting concept. Personally, I prefer the methods used by Isaac Asimov: either a hyper-drive or standard space ship propulsion. The cool part is, when transiting space via the hyper-drive, distance is still a factor ... ergo, the trip might require days to cover just a few light years. And, every once in awhile, the ship must exit hyper-space to take a fix and adjust course accordingly. That would be so cool in real time ... it would give me the opportunity to watch a couple movies on demand (thanks, in part, to the Travel Buddy telling me how long it will take to reach my destination).

Instead, though, both the Fulcrum and Mantis drives don't actually travel through hyper-space ... they use wormholes, which are nearly instantaneous and can connect any distance (up to the drive's maximum performance capability), be it one sector or ten (for the Mantis) in the same very short length of time. Or so I believe. You'd need to discuss it with Evochron's resident scientist, DaveK, for a more thorough explanation.

It might be interesting to see how No Man's Sky solves the problem of presenting "realistic" intergalactic, interstellar and "short hop" inter-system modes of travel.