Faction-based technology
Forum rules
- This area is for general discussion; ideas and ships go elsewhere. Offending threads will be removed without prior notice.
- Unnecessary topics will be deleted or locked without warning.
- This area is for general discussion; ideas and ships go elsewhere. Offending threads will be removed without prior notice.
- Unnecessary topics will be deleted or locked without warning.
maybe mercenarys would be paid by the "space confederation"to protect these planets
- fr0stbyte124
- Developer
- Posts:727
- Joined:Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:39 am
- Affiliation:Aye-Aye
Re: Faction-based technology
But not everyone wants to play PVP. Futurecraft will also attract lots of players who just want to build and explore, and spread civilization across the galaxy, and you can't assume that any single server community are all going to want the same thing. So how do you consolidate these two play types? Anything which isn't explicitly admin protected is going to be relentlessly destroyed, even if it's just by 1% of the population. And I think fair fights in these cases will end up being the exception, rather than the rule.Tiel wrote:The Analyzer might be one. New resources could be discovered by scanning Unidentified Orbiting Rocks that could further development; servers would want that challenge, otherwise they'd end up like the current SMP scheme of things where gameplay is severely hampered by people just running around in full enchanted dia. Part of the fun in PVP is the risk of losing everything, but the rewards would greatly surpass the risks in this case.Keon wrote:Leading to hackers jumping in with 9000doomships.catsonmeth wrote:A server should be connected to the universe from the beginning, but not on any star maps until they build a gate or FTL drive. You could get to the newbie system if you know the IP and have sufficient FTL capabilities.
Also, tiel. What I mean is that if you know that there are OP factions in deep space that can and will kill you with their 9000 doomships, you would stay inside your bubble building your own armada of doomships so you don't get overrun. There needs to be some kind incentive to open your homeworld up to attack, like new resources in space, or something. Then we need a "sliding scale of balance", where n00b homeworlds are not a viable target for greifers until they too have those 9000 doomships, yet still can fight battles with the people who only have 6 or so small battleships.
If it got bad enough, servers could make an offshoot MMO server specifically for carebear play style, but I don't think people will be happy with that either. I would say it's a "not in my backyard" situation.
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts:1890
- Joined:Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:39 am
- Affiliation:GLORIOUS REPUBLIC
Re: Faction-based technology
Yeah, but if they don't want to participate in PVP, they don't have to construct a gate to begin with and just explore their own solar system. Win-win.fr0stbyte124 wrote:But not everyone wants to play PVP. Futurecraft will also attract lots of players who just want to build and explore, and spread civilization across the galaxy, and you can't assume that any single server community are all going to want the same thing. So how do you consolidate these two play types? Anything which isn't explicitly admin protected is going to be relentlessly destroyed, even if it's just by 1% of the population. And I think fair fights in these cases will end up being the exception, rather than the rule.Tiel wrote:
The Analyzer might be one. New resources could be discovered by scanning Unidentified Orbiting Rocks that could further development; servers would want that challenge, otherwise they'd end up like the current SMP scheme of things where gameplay is severely hampered by people just running around in full enchanted dia. Part of the fun in PVP is the risk of losing everything, but the rewards would greatly surpass the risks in this case.
If it got bad enough, servers could make an offshoot MMO server specifically for carebear play style, but I don't think people will be happy with that either. I would say it's a "not in my backyard" situation.
- fr0stbyte124
- Developer
- Posts:727
- Joined:Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:39 am
- Affiliation:Aye-Aye
Re: Faction-based technology
What about putting all the game modes in the same universe? So you can have PVP in one system, PVE in another, and Creative in yet another. Players will be free to travel between any solar systems like normal, but they can only interract with ships and gravity wells flagged with the same game mode. Furthermore, players can change between game modes, but it treats you as an alt, so you don't get to take your skills or your stuff with you, though you can hold on to schematics.
Ooh, this might be interesting. Some servers could be set up as alternate realities, by which an admin mirrors a PVE or Creative server on a PVP planet, and let PVP players fight in it and smash it up to their heart's content. From a lore standpoint, it could be seen as a fractured timeline, caused by a malfunction in the system's jump gate. You could even have creative players explicitely designing maps for battlefields in PVP.
I think that could make everyone happy. PVEers would have their carebear servers, and it would keep PVP mode from being a desolate wasteland and give upstarts a chance.
Ooh, this might be interesting. Some servers could be set up as alternate realities, by which an admin mirrors a PVE or Creative server on a PVP planet, and let PVP players fight in it and smash it up to their heart's content. From a lore standpoint, it could be seen as a fractured timeline, caused by a malfunction in the system's jump gate. You could even have creative players explicitely designing maps for battlefields in PVP.
I think that could make everyone happy. PVEers would have their carebear servers, and it would keep PVP mode from being a desolate wasteland and give upstarts a chance.
Re: Faction-based technology
*starts server in creative*
*changes to PvP after free ships*
*changes to PvP after free ships*
- fr0stbyte124
- Developer
- Posts:727
- Joined:Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:39 am
- Affiliation:Aye-Aye
Re: Faction-based technology
That's why you can't take anything with you. A server is locked to a game mode, and would have to be reset to change it. I suppose we'll also need to worry about creative players leaving resources for themselves in the other game modes, too. Not sure what to do about that, but I think the overall strategy is still sound.
Re: Faction-based technology
I think that would kind of ruin the feel, having all servers in all gamemodes in one galaxy. Mayhapsbeper multiple galaxies. You decide if you want to join the PVP, PVE, or creative galaxy/universe.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device"
— David Langford
— David Langford
Spoiler:
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts:1890
- Joined:Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:39 am
- Affiliation:GLORIOUS REPUBLIC
Re: Faction-based technology
I still think just having the server files shipped with PVP-enabled and then giving communities a choice between joining the rest of the galaxy to share in its wealth or destruction is the best solution.
Having gamemodes like vanilla Minecraft just makes things irrefutably messy.
Having gamemodes like vanilla Minecraft just makes things irrefutably messy.
Re: Faction-based technology
Two galaxies. One PvP and one creative peaceful.
- I can be reached as ducky215 on minecraft forums -
Re: Faction-based technology
Many times people like to build things peacefully in Survival. No clue why.
Re: Faction-based technology
Alright, 1 PvP, one PvE, and one Creative. Servers join one galaxy when they are created. They cannot swap. People join one galaxy. They can swap, but have separate inventories.
- I can be reached as ducky215 on minecraft forums -
- fr0stbyte124
- Developer
- Posts:727
- Joined:Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:39 am
- Affiliation:Aye-Aye
Re: Faction-based technology
Same reason as playing survival in single player. They want to work for the things they make rather than be given everything, and they want to be able to share it with other people. It's perfectly reasonable.Avenger_7 wrote:Many times people like to build things peacefully in Survival. No clue why.
Re: Faction-based technology
Alright, so I'm still watching these forums and honestly have been waiting for someone to go into something like this (I apparently I missed you discussing once or twice) That being said we are addressing some of the fundamental Minecraft gameplay problems.
Now the next thing conundrum vs. extra features.
Creative Mode
Adventure Mode
Survival Mode
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
- Dux_Tell31
- Midshipman
- Posts:100
- Joined:Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:22 pm
- Affiliation:Tellrim
- IGN:tell31
Re: Faction-based technology
You Sir, have thought outside of the box. Great first post!bsb23 wrote:Alright, so I'm still watching these forums and honestly have been waiting for someone to go into something like this (I apparently I missed you discussing once or twice) That being said we are addressing some of the fundamental Minecraft gameplay problems.Now the next thing conundrum vs. extra features.Spoiler:Creative ModeSpoiler:Adventure ModeSpoiler:Survival ModeSpoiler:Spoiler:
"This is Minecraft, sir. We don't make physics, we ruin them." -Fr0stbyte124
"We are made of the elements out in space, in essense we are the universe discovering itself" -Neil Degrasse Tyson
"We are made of the elements out in space, in essense we are the universe discovering itself" -Neil Degrasse Tyson
Re: Faction-based technology
I don't think that randomization will be feasible on a multi-server scale.bsb23 wrote:Alright, so I'm still watching these forums and honestly have been waiting for someone to go into something like this (I apparently I missed you discussing once or twice) That being said we are addressing some of the fundamental Minecraft gameplay problems.Now the next thing conundrum vs. extra features.Spoiler:Creative ModeSpoiler:Adventure ModeSpoiler:Survival ModeSpoiler:Spoiler:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device"
— David Langford
— David Langford
Spoiler: