Pirates?

[Swede]

Let's be honest, whether we are in the middle (or end) of a huge civil war or not, there are going to be those that illegally disrupt trade, harass civilians, and rob miners. Most of the time these people are called pirates, though I can remember them being called some other, less savory names... Anyways, I have noticed that this class no longer exists in Evochron Legacy; and don't tell me it's because the galactic government has eradicated crime.
So what this basically boils down to is, I'm tired of being the only pirate in the universe Can we have a pirate faction please?!?

Sincerely,
A lonely pirate..

[Iron man]

Good day,

If you are interested enter into a pirate clan welcome joining AP clan. We do still existing and flying sometimes not ad much as before mostly because most of players fear us and run when we approaching side them

[XenonSurf]

Yes, EL is way too peaceful, you don't run into the enemy unless you carry out military missions, or if you reload the game in a disputed territory. also once you succeed these missions, it's just peace forever. This has to change IMO.

In Mercenary, it was IMPOSSIBLE to be friendly with every faction, a good thing because you have a lot to do to avoid fightings if you are not well-equiped, and even some missions become much harder. That's because of the numerous factions. I don't understand why they have been taken away, but the playing results are unfortunate.

All this is true for SP players, as player groups like Iron Man will surely kick the butt out of any lonely traveller in MP...
I just wish it is *somewhat* the same in SP, introducing at least some more 'active' NPC ships.

XenonS


[Edited on 5-7-2016 by XenonSurf]

[DeathTech]

If you've ever put a sensor beacon next to some planets or simply friendly sectors, I think you will be amazed just how many hostile forces are in the neighbourhood. Despite being in a 98% alc area I still get raided by huge strike forces from fdn.

I do not know this "permanently peace" you speak off. I have had that scenario even in 100% alc turf.

EDIT: And on the topic subject, perhaps one or two pirate bases inside an asteroid belt would be cool. I for one am perfectly happy not getting harassed every 5 seconds by pirates. But I do miss having some pirate kill rampages and being rewarded for "killing pirates".

[Edited on 5-7-2016 by DeathTech]

[XenonSurf]

If you've ever put a sensor beacon next to some planets or simply friendly sectors, I think you will be amazed just how many hostile forces are in the neighbourhood. Despite being in a 98% alc area I still get raided by huge strike forces from fdn.

I do not know this "permanently peace" you speak off. I have had that scenario even in 100% alc turf.

EDIT: And on the topic subject, perhaps one or two pirate bases inside an asteroid belt would be cool. I for one am perfectly happy not getting harassed every 5 seconds by pirates. But I do miss having some pirate kill rampages and being rewarded for "killing pirates".

Yes, i know that's the way to find enemies in hostile areas, but what I mean is: currently, once you succeed 1 single military mission, the Economy status will change to your favor and as I said: peace forever...
For example, I have built a station in Olympus 1-2 sectors away from an enemy FED station; still the Economy is 'Disputed'. And yes, I got enemy incursions after reloading the game. Same would happen if you leave/re-enter sector I guess.
Then, a serie of offensive missions were in the contract list. I picked one where I had to deliver goods to a ship with 2 enemy fighters involved. Ok, I did the mission faster than usual, success and: Economy changed to Alliance (me), and...I never saw any enemy again in that sector with or without sensor station (up to now; maybe this may change, but I don't think so).

That was way too easy...
In Mercenary, I could be surrounded by enemy ships at ANY time having some tough decisions to take. This doesn't happen in EL, surely because of the changed faction system and a modified NPC 'spawning'.

Your idea with pirate gangs in Asteroids is a nice one

XenonS

[Edited on 5-7-2016 by XenonSurf]

[Swede]

I think, with as massive as the Evochron universe is, we shouldn't have a terribly hard time fitting pirates in the game without disrupting the peace lovers. Pirate bases would only spawn in unsettled corners of the universe, and more prominently in sectors where the disputesender are greater.

I for one think this is a necessary addition to Legacy.

[DaveK]

In terms of gameplay, how does attacking pirates/pirate bases differ from attacking the other faction's ships (ie hostiles)/taking over other faction's system?

There are already two opponents in EL - the other faction and the Vonari; adding pirates would add a third diffuse uncoordinated hostile force - how would that add to the gameplay? Vice could make the Actarians more aggressive which would add a third opponent; If I read the four centuries of history since EM right, humanity is almost on it's knees, still focussed on holding the Vonari back and still trying (with extreme prejudice) to work out which faction will eventually dominate ... basically still determined to self destruct.

Pirates would, I suggest, be simply disaffected individuals or very very small groups of outlaws preying on lone mercs in remote areas; They wouldn't be organised groups with major bases in remote regions - remote regions won't have enough prey to support a major predator presence. Any pirate group big enough to be worth tracking down and attacking would need to be active in gated systems and would therefore be rapidly eradicated by the might of the appropriate faction's Navy mighty capital ships.

Still, as that evil doom lord, Iron man suggests, players could form a pirate clan (even though clans are no longer embedded in the game's code). That would bring a real opposition force into the game!

Or am I missing something?

[Swede]

This game has so much potential; but some times I think that it's own background will be the death of it. This game could easily be a multi-million dollar title, but it lacks two major things, things that the mainstream titles have: content and variety . I know I'm not the only person who thinks this way, a few threads on the forums have shine this to be the case. People need goals, motivation to play. Currently everything in the game feels the same. There are two cockpits in the game, which I guess is appropriate because it feels like there is only two ships in the game, a slow ship or a fast ship... That's nearly the only difference though because what ever ship you have you can still install the same weapons and equipment on either one. Even in the civilian ships there isn't really any motivation to buy a better frame (besides the fact that there is nothing else to spend money on). Even the cheapest frame can hold as much cargo as the most expensive frame.

I could continue but it is unnecessary. I think you all know what I mean. The potential of this game tops many of the most popular titles out there. There is no reason that this game shouldnt be as popular as Elite Dangerous. We need to fill in this potential.

Sorry for the rant, I just have strong feelings about this game...

Expansion, Expansion, Expansion...

[mmRunner]

I'm just exploring the region beween Alpha Centauri, Orion, and Sirius. Randomly appearing hostile ships (1 to 5) without any faction (= pirates) would bring a bit action in those remote and sometimes boring regions.

[Marvin]

Even in the civilian ships there isn't really any motivation to buy a better frame ....

I would've thought that "survival" makes for quite a good motivation.

[Vice]

Thought I'd post some comments also. Marvin points out one issue with certain statements made in the attempt to validate the claim for such a change. While changing core gameplay elements such as the two-tier faction system could be a possibility in the future, in order for me to consider statements/claims and give them merit, they'll need to be objective, factually accurate, and relevant to the game's intended design. I'll go over some of the points individually below:

This game has so much potential; but some times I think that it's own background will be the death of it.

You could be right about this and I could be nearing the end of my PC/Evochron game development career. There may be a dwindling market for gamers interested in the type of game I set out to make, how I want to make it, and what kind of traditions it includes.

This game could easily be a multi-million dollar title, but it lacks two major things, things that the mainstream titles have: content and variety .

No, it could not be a multi-million dollar title. The budget is a small fraction of a small fraction of that kind of financing. And it takes a huge budget to implement the kind of (media) content and variety you are referring to. I do what I can with what I have to work with out of my own pocket and the modest budget has been able to meet my objective(s) for what I want to do with my game. You may not like the limitations or requirements, but that simply indicates your priorities/interests may be different from mine. And that's perfectly fine.

I know I'm not the only person who thinks this way, a few threads on the forums have shine this to be the case.

Of course. A lot of people have a lot of different opinions, interests, levels of patience, and expectations. But this isn't a video game catering business. This is, in the end, my game and my vision focused on what I want my game to be (namely a tightly focused technical space combat flight simulation). If it succeeds, great, I'll keep at it. If it fails, I'll go do something else for a living. If you like it, great, enjoy the game. If not, great, plenty of other games out there for you to enjoy. But the idea that argumentum ad populum should dictate what I should or shouldn't do with my game won't carry much weight with me when the stated expectations don't line up with my objectives... and especially when expectations completely disagree with each other. Just something to keep in mind when saying something should be done because a bunch of other people have suggested a bunch of other different/unrelated things.

People need goals, motivation to play.

Of course, but what those are can be different for different people. Some might like the diverse quick bite sized gameplay objectives in Evochron, some may not and want much broader, long term investment objectives in gameplay. Neither are wrong, but motivation is subjective and different for different people.

There are two cockpits in the game, which I guess is appropriate because it feels like there is only two ships in the game, a slow ship or a fast ship... That's nearly the only difference though because what ever ship you have you can still install the same weapons and equipment on either one. Even in the civilian ships there isn't really any motivation to buy a better frame (besides the fact that there is nothing else to spend money on). Even the cheapest frame can hold as much cargo as the most expensive frame.

This is where error appears to creep in and makes it difficult for me to consider much merit for your point. Again, you use a subjective term (motivation) to claim 'better' frames don't offer anything better. I can't consider that as valid the way it is stated because of how the reality of what the higher level frames offer and are capable of in everything from power reserves to armor to assembly hardpoints, etc.

And incomplete information is another problem. Claiming the cheapest frame can hold as much cargo as the most expensive frame leaves out what it takes to get it there. Namely, stripping it of very important equipment and configuration options to make it into a flying cargo can. And I actually want the player to be able to do that. Making mistakes in ship design to achieve what they think may be important, only to learn later that their ship will be severely limited and vulnerable, is part of the intended gameplay equation I'm after. Not only in ship design, but also allowing for mistakes and less than optimal decisions in many other facets of gameplay as well. So these kinds of statements don't do very well to substantiate such claims, to me at least.

And perhaps the player has a temporary need for a design like that. What if they are early in the game and only have a few thousand credits to utilize and they need a lot of cargo space for one important cargo run that can pay off really well? They don't have the money for a big ship with a lot of cargo space, but for a few thousand credits they can transform their small ship into a stripped down cargo hauler that can get the job done. I want such options to be available to players, whether utilized by mistake or by intentional design to provide an overall broader spectrum of options available to them.

There is no reason that this game shouldnt be as popular as Elite Dangerous.

I'm not interested in a popularity contest. ED development has its design objectives and goals, I have mine. And they do not line up in -many- ways. In fact, I fully expect that Evochron's perhaps more niche and definitely far less mainstream approach will have a much narrower appeal. But that's because I've built the game I wanted to create, play, and support. I didn't make it to be popular or mainstream. In many ways, Evochron is specifically designed -not- to have or do things like other games... it's part of what makes it Evochron and the niche game that it is.

So in the end, we can certainly talk about such things and I'll be happy to consider improvements and changes for the future. However, any such additions/changes need to be supported by my interests/objectives, the community's interests, and be objectively relevant to the game's intended design.

Now to the main point. When it comes to a 'pirate' faction, I have for a long time been considering something similar. My plans involved a faction named 'Raiders' (using a RDR label) that were effectively off the grid in terms of faction affiliation and would operate much more independently. However, it's been on hold because of the strong interest and feedback that directed the strict two-tier faction system with focused and consistent AI combat behavior. It is something I've been keeping in consideration though.

[Delta99]

If you do end up implementing a "Raiders" faction then to satisfy both sides perhaps you can make it optional. I'm not a fan of the strict two-tier faction system but I'm new to the series and don't know why multiple factions were a problem in past versions.

[XenonSurf]

Personally I don't mind that there are only 2 main factions, the gameplay as for combat difficulty and you planing your ship setup is as difficult as in EM. But I would highly welcome a more aggressive fine-tuning of meeting more hostiles in *disputed* or *hostile* systems. In other words: the balance shifting of territories should be more radical and in some cases more difficult for the player to achieve.

The problem is not that the combat missions are too easy, far from that, it's that you don't encounter any hostiles OUTSIDE of these missions, making it too artificial.

Now I hear you: Some people will answer they are not interested in combat, but want to explore, solve puzzles, do races without being bothered by aggressive ships (I personally would welcome doing a race in such hostile conditions, it's more of a challenge!). That's fine, I understand it. But fact is: such players don't have to go in disputed or hostile systems to do that, they can do it elsewhere at any time.
Hence, increasing hostile encounters (pirates or not) would not really obset anyone I think and make it less of a 'milk run' for combat-oriented players.

@mmRunner,
I'm with you, but as DaveK pointed out: there must be a credible reason why such disparate systems have pirates rather than in more populated systems. It would add little to the combat part that you could start at will at anytime going in the Warzones or in a hostile area. The realism in EL is quite good as space is just immense and you have little overall chance in any encounters.
Despite of all that, I do favor it for more 'action', maybe as an option to switch off as suggested above.

@Vice,
technically speaking, and you will know the reason much better than I do, I only get action outside of missions by hostile ships when I quit/reload the game in disputed areas. Will I do so every time I want action? No. That's something to solve IMO.

XenonS


[Edited on 5-14-2016 by XenonSurf]

[Edited on 5-14-2016 by XenonSurf]

[DaveK]

One of the (many) strengths of this series of games is the well argued and reasoned input from this very supportive community coupled with the fact that Vice - as the sole creator and final arbiter - listens and responds to suggestions and requests and the discussions they create.

I get a great deal of pleasure from the community discussions (though not as much as exploring the Evoverse in my trusty ship and trying to work out how all the technology works! )

The Raiders as a 4th 'faction' sounds intriguing - would they be AI only, or could players join instead of being Alc / Fed? If so could players join Von? And what would that do to gameplay, except giving Iron man free rein to be sneaky and evil?

Yep, I know that it's on hold at the moment, but it's an interesting idea for the future ...

[Marvin]

I'm not a fan of the strict two-tier faction system but I'm new to the series and don't know why multiple factions were a problem in past versions.

When I and others argued the point, it was because multiple factions in MP resulted in clans of 3 or 4 (at best ... on a good day). The only clan which exceeded that number on a regular basis was a futuristic version of the knights of the round table. But, since they had no other large-scale clan as an adversary, the only way for other clans to challenge the knights was to combine forces. And that took more coordination than time would usually allow. Now, of course, the number of servers (relative to the number of players) is as much of an obstacle to faction wars as was the variety of factions in EM.

[Vice]

And unfortunately, starting to add in new optional faction groups would begin the process of again returning to splintering players into smaller and smaller groups, when originally just two large groups were what was requested.

The Raiders as a 4th 'faction' sounds intriguing - would they be AI only, or could players join instead of being Alc / Fed? If so could players join Von? And what would that do to gameplay, except giving Iron man free rein to be sneaky and evil?

I originally had considered making it an option for the player as well. The idea floated around from being a 'neutral' ID to a 'raider' ID of some kind, or at least facilitating raider-style gameplay with the neutral ID when the player selected it. 'NTL' or 'IND' (for independent) were to be other possible labels.

[XenonSurf]

Pirates:
I can see a really useful function for pirates in the game: they could be competitors for picking up floating cargo containers, making it more of a challenge for SP players collecting them - and getting rich the easy way.

XenonS

[PaulB]

I can only speak for EM for reasons stated in the past, but I could tolerate a Pirate faction similar to what WC Privateer had with certain Pirate 'systems' and an occationaly encounter elsewhere from time to time.
Personally I'm not sure I'd lke the FDN ALC faction as it sounds like it's implemented in EL but since I can't play EL I'm not positive.

As far as hostile encounters, I don't want to have them on too frequent a basis. What I notice in EM is that if , for instance, you are in a FAIR system and you hang out near a planet you will tend to have hostiles appear more often than if you are jus flying out in nearby sectors or stations. That seems pretty realistic to me - Rebels and Guild are going to be patrolling where the traffic will be - near a planet and maybe near stations and only occasionally out in nearby sectors.
I would assume EL is probably yhe same way.

I do notice - and I'm glad - that there is less hostile contact in MP than in SP, presumably because it's hope and anticipated that there will be more human player to make up for the abundance of AI in SP.

In EM in SP I have Rucker, Olympus, Talison, Cerulean and others converted from FAIR to GOOD but when in MP when in those systems if I just hang out in those systems for a while I will get a Rebel or Guild to show up now and then (since you can't convert a System rating in MP though you can make it safer). And hanging out near a planet in those may give a few more encounters than the rarer encounters I see out in other sectors/stations.

[matchbox2022]

If the playerbase for Multiplayer increased.....maybe 5 times what it was when the game was launched (it was surprisingly a good strong base) then I can see more tags or factions being something pretty important.

As far as a seperate pirate mode where everyone hates you.... I have enough issues being a FED in pearl somedays.

[BLEVE]

Living in Australia MP for me is a hit and miss affair. Rarely anyone on and therefore not much to do. I'm not interested in attacking enemy modules whilst they are not online. So I build some of my own, only to find them destroyed by others whilst I'm offline. LOL.

Had enough of these problems whilst a member of the Legion and I have no interest in these conflicts. The clan system did not work as there was too many small clans, as had been stated previously, it splintered the player base. However 2 clans to my thinking is too few, as can be seen with the majority of new players joining ALC simply because it is the first in the list. They are overwhelming the Fed areas, and it's obvious nothing can be done to stop it.

Half a dozen clans at most, either chosen by the executives of the game, or voted on by the player base, then settled by Vice & co. would be a nice compromise IMO. However this has been argued for a long time and the current system was favoured by the majority of the players. So be it.

As it stands I'll stick to SP and the great quests being made by Marvin and Dave.

[DaveK]

Too many for some are too few for others; who are the 'executives' of the game? Vice is sole creator and Marvin is the sole (super) moderator; who are the 'co' of 'Vice & co'?

Thanks for the compliments! Marvin is the 'quest expert' for the game and created EM quests of his own and helped SeeJay with his quest (Over the Hill). Quests are big projects and usually a team effort. I wrote the quest storyline for SeeJay and he created the quest steps to match the background storyline - Marvin translated the quests steps into quest code and a team of players tested it in detail.

In Legacy, Fed and Alc aren't clans ... they are the opposing sides in a civil way that encompasses the whole Evoverse, hence they are factions - Vonari are the other major faction but can't be played (I guess flying a cool Von fighter might be too much of a temptation! )

If there are more 'groups' then they couldn't all be totally outside the factions - outlaws (pirates. raiders, conscientious objectors or whatever they call themselves) are feasible as an extra group for players to choose but it would make the rest of humanity (ie Federation plus Alliance) hostiles towards them - Having a handful or more groups would effectively recreate clans and clans, despite many and varied attempts didn't work.

There's nothing stopping groups from working together and calling themselves a clan - Humble Bumblebees are till around (though hibernating at present) and will still be doers of good deeds as required; we're looking into a refuelling rescue service for MP to mirror the official contracts for example! But we won't (can't) be 'official' and written into the game code.

[BLEVE]

The executives are the people Vice goes to first with new ideas or possibilities. We all know who you are. It's meant as a compliment not an accusation. LOL.

The problem with the FED and the ALC is there seems to be no real difference between them. Furthermore we have to choose at the start without any knowledge of what we are choosing.

If the choices were say a right wing corporate (not fascist) faction, a left wing socialist (not communist) faction, a flawed democracy, an independent miners and traders faction, a small anarchist/pirate faction and the strictly NPC Vonari. It adds a little flavour to the mix.

Don't get me wrong, I for one do not want to go back to the free for all clans. I prefer the 2 faction system over that, as lets face it, most of the wars were fought over in the forums, not in space and certain aspects of it became more like work, than the fun it was meant to be.

However I chose a faction, then after playing for 2 days, went over to the other side and started again from scratch. Yet I don't feel any passion for either side. I find certain systems have been taken over by the "enemy" and feel no outrage or need to fix it. Sorry buts that's how it is. I'm an independent pilot, that's been forced to chose a side, when the choice I would have made is "none of the above".

[XenonSurf]

Hum.. I have done extensive SP combat in a disputed zone the last 2 days, winning some important missions, and even destroying 2 cap ships. The result afterwards was: I had only a tiny advantage of 54/46 in my favor.
So my rant above about disputed areas being too easy has to be buried I think
I had plenty to do, and pirates would have overly complicated the equation...

But I would welcome pirates as a balance in far out systems. I mean, equipments like the Shield Recharger (just to pick an example), are meant to be purely defensive. To setup your ship with them and to make sense, the game should also create hostile encounters outside of the civil war's combat areas. Otherwise such equipments have no usage at all.
Currently, my ship setup situation is: Or I have a 'flying can' full of cargo bays and NO offensive or defensive weapons whatsoever, or I setup my ship for combat because I *know* I do combat missions. There is no in-between, no uncertainty like in EM, and I'm missng this.

XenonS


[Edited on 5-17-2016 by XenonSurf]

[Marvin]

The political side of factions is an interesting idea. Being, myself, non-political, it would blow every negatronic pathway for me to come up with a quest scenario for any kind of quarrel between competing political views. Maybe somebody else can do it ... if not political, then maybe a fight over how territory should be used.

[BLEVE]

Yeah, we are in the middle of a federal election in Australia. That was just the first things that popped or pooped into my head. Polictics was just an example.

The history of the game features the ALC and FED, so they must remain in the game, but make them different somehow. Otherwise just add an independent option, that has to pay a fee when it docks at the other 2 factions stations. It doesn't even have to be a faction itself. Although the IMG is still unofficially around so the quests can be made for either faction.