I really like this tile set. Pretty sure the first, idk 10 outposts I find are getting raided. All in the name of the Proper Villains Akademy
No. No. No. And again, no. Allow me to relate my experiences with the game. 9/10 planets that I've walked fully around, there's been some form of settlement. Perhaps I'm just really lucky, but, assuming I'm not... Yeah. Your math falls apart easily. (Even though there was no math to begin with, but, we'll get into that in a moment.) Alright, so these outposts will be more dense, but they most likely will not be NEARLY as common. I have no clue what numbers you're crunching, especially with the fact that we have absolutely no idea, save for blind speculation, what portion these outposts will be. There are, literally, no numbers to crunch, except for the unbelievably common settlements, dungeons, etc. that can be found on nearly every single planet. And even if they couldn't, you are STILL making absolutely blind assumptions. How, HOW do you know - with absolutely no numbers - that one number is inherently bigger than the other? I mean, as big as the game world is, it's not truly infinite. Just so large that none of us will ever experience all of it. And if the ratio of these planets in this non-infinite universe is low enough, then the settlers of other planets that are true to their culture rather than being outcasts/runaways/whatever will outnumber those despite how dense the outcasts are in certain areas. But, still, we don't know that ratio. And thusly, we can't assume that it's lore breaking. Yes, it's POTENTIALLY lore breaking! But we don't know if it TRULY is. And as such, you have the right to ASK about the ratios, but you sure as hell shouldn't be bitching this thread into oblivion in the manner that you are. Hopefully my dramatic emphasis hammered that into your skull. If not, whatever, enjoy making up numbers and bitching your brains out. As for the exploration-killing I've heard you mention... Well, coord sharing killed that long ago, and fuel is so goddamn easy to come by just by mining for resources or tree farming that, yeah, no, these won't make any sort of dent in exploration. Unless players suddenly become retardedly stingy and cause some sort of universal stagnation doomsday by not doing anything fun ever. (At least, nothing that I view as fun. Other players may view sitting around in one single system fun, s'pose I can't really fault them or judge them for that if that's what they want to do, but, y'know. Think you get my point here.) But, seriously? 200 fuel is something I came by often enough that I was able to planet hop to my hearts content, gathering fuel on the fly before hopping 30 minutes later if I really wanted to. It's not hard at all. Especially with an established tree farm, which is easy as all hell to do. These useful planets will be bookmarked, or set as homes, sure! But exploration is so easy that a useful planet type won't invalidate the core mechanic. In short, you're basing your entire argument, and you're fighting so strongly for it, on... Unknown numbers... And the fact that you, inexplicably, treat fuel as this god-given resource that is so hard to obtain, apparently? Maybe? Regardless. No. No. No. And again, no. Get out, and stop making such a fool of yourself under the pretext of 'well thought out opinions'. Because, from my experience with the game, your so called 'problems with this addition' are absolute non-issues. You seem to be just making trouble for the sake of making trouble, honestly.
settlements of any kind are tied to biome, which is tied to planet type. settlements are quite restricted as to where they generate. ever find a glitch castle in a volcanic biome? a floran village on desert or arid worlds? ever find an airship outside of a desert planet? even assuming that only 1/1000 planets will be an outpost, by virtue of the sheer number of stars, as well as the non-guaranteed nature of generation of "real" settlements, your whole math argument is refuted. you dont need hard numbers for this kind of estimate. the math wasent the totality of my "it breaks the lore" argument, either. coord sharing was discounted early in the discussion, and you seem to have missed my actual arguments about how it kills exploration. in short, you dont have a clue what you are talking about, and are bitching at ME, just to bitch. in fact, instead of coming up with half cocked arguments that have been already taken care of pages and pages ago, why dont you explain why you think this addition is a good idea? i mean, shit, im not just bitching just to bitch, as you so elegantly put it. i offered up alternatives.
I think lore should be secondary and open to change when it's in conflict with gameplay at this point of development. I personally find it weak and mostly irrelevant anyways.
that would be true if i had not presented viable alternatives. you missed that part too. you miss a lot. is english not your native language, or do you just have trouble reading?
This is pretty uncalled for. Everyone misses things, even you. Yet, i don't see anyone asking you what your nationality is or if you are illiterate. You've kinda gone off the deep end these past couple days, and it's not helping any of your discussion points when your personality or your actions become the focus. In this case, it seems like you are pointing out that infinite planets in infinite universes or sectors means that the number of potential "non-Avos" Avian settlements are more populous than Avos itself, because Avos is only a single planet. You're assuming that each universe/sector has a chance for a non-Avos Avian settlement. While I think the point is sound (if that's indeed your point), I think that it isn't a major influencing factor here, because it brings realism into a gameplay experience topic. Namely, if you say "There must be a finite amount of non-Avos Avian settlements AND they must be few and far between" you are now saying that players must be very unlikely to see Avian settlements, because they must be extremely rare and small. This crosses the boundaries between lore and player enjoyment, in a way that I do not feel adds to either. Now, by trying to stay true to the lore's literal interpretation, you are degrading the playing experience. That's why I think this discussion should be celebrating new ways to enjoy the game, even if they could be extrapolated to cause theoretical conflicts with the lore.
neither the state of being illiterate or the fact that english is not your primary language is insulting. i ask so that i can eliminate those as reasons my posts are not being read. if i cannot eliminate those, i can offer assistance in making myself understood. gone off the deep end? no, i am the same as ever, doing the same things i always do. i state my opinion. someone responds with counterpoints. i defend my opinion. i will remain civil so long as those i am debating are also civil. when they become rude, i tend to as well. reveiw that skyrail thread to see how i respond to different "tones" of post. you've stayed with a literal interpretation of the argument. the whole avian thing was just selected as an example, you can substitute any race. i've stated my case quite a few times, unambiguously, both here and there. you might want to go back a few pages here to find it, i am getting damn tired of rehashing the same old stuff over and over because people are too lazy to go back just a little and read what was written. no, im not necessarily lumping you in there with them, i'm just stating my feelings. oh, and you misunderstand, i'm not saying settlements need to be few and far between, i am saying that outposts, as a planet type, reduce the total number of available planets for other settlments. in addition, as outposts are peopled by outcasts, this causes a big population imbalance with the supposed majorities and minorities of the various races. damn. you got me to type it out AGAIN. i have offered up viable alternatives that do not break lore, and then a further few that improve over what we know these outposts will do, providing a far more rich gaming experience. now to you see why i am getting so fed up with repeating myself? not even my opponents here seem to have noticed i have done any of that. so, all that out of the way, will ANYONE step up and explain why they think this lore-breaking, flat, unfun mechanic (that i believe will kill exploration into any system that does not hold an outpost) is a good idea that should be put in the game? especially over the more lore-friendly suggestions i have made?
i think there should be randomly generated vehicle's, not this grab in a chest thing i kinda dont want it to be a buff its kind of stupid
I disagree completely with this in this situation, as you used both with overt, negative connotations, but that's not really on-topic to any topic that should be on these boards. Infinity minus 10 is still infinity. Infinity minus 10% is still infinity. Therefore, there are still an infinitely number of Outposts, and an infinite number of non-Outpost planets that are settled. I think it COULD cause a population imbalance in theory, but in reality, people want new things in the game and they want hubs, so this offers that. If the lore is concrete and infallible but the game is not fun, no one will play it. I would rather focus on the game being fun and worry about "things that don't make sense" later, so long as they're not completely thrown out the window. And no, I don't feel this is completely throwing "making sense" out the window. I will find them very fun distractions from the emptiness that is most planets right now. So, to me, they will be fun. I do not plan on only going to planet systems with Outposts, specifically because an Outpost type planet does not have other dungeons and may not have random chests containing fun techs and vanity items. I believe this is a great start towards implementing their non-combat progression paths. Because all of the "non-combat" content is gathered into a single area, it can be tested much more easily by beta testers, rather than needing to find it randomly in pieces, strewn across the entire universe. If it does not work out, and does indeed have a negative impact on gameplay and enjoyment, then it can be rolled back or split up.
You can keep saying "Lore" all you want. But simple fact of the matter is - Just how the direction of the game can be changed from 100 level planets down to 10. From 5 sectors to 2. == So can the Lore. == The lore - is not fixed. It too can be updated to fit the new scenarios of the game. Or is the Lore written by some God - and chucklefish is forbidden to change it?
so, akado, care to explain why you are jumping on me for something that could at best be considered mildly insulting, and NOT the guy dropping blatantly insulting one-liners trying to be witty? the number of stars is not infinity. there's barely enough stars to justify conversion of the representation of them to scientific notation. wassit, 3 x 10^9? *sigh* now i know YOU arnt reading as well. i bet you didnt even read my last post to you before the current exchange. c'mon. i know you're better than this. if you have the time, at least read what i've posted from page 8 to now. it'll save both you and me time.
I have no argument against your - imbalance to gameplay. Because essentially it will have a large impact - which would be detrimental. == Just your argument how it destroys the lore.
sure, they can change it. changing it to make this poorly thought out concept would be monumentally stupid, and make all the previous lore development a colossal waste of time and effort. it's not like removing a 0 (threat level) or moving to the map style that was intended all along. edit: nice edit. hey, you're right. the planned outposts WILL have a hugely detrimental effect on gameplay. glad you agree. i was wondering why you so vehemently have been disagreeing with me, when our opinions were so close in the recent past.
Not really The expansion of species is only defined in the origins lore. Which is only about 10 - 20 codex items at most. So it would be fundamentally quite simple to change - the interaction of species lore. The rest of the lore is more focused on various events within the species and not related to the spread of them. In other words it would be quite easy to fix accordingly.
I have. Most of the arguments do not take into consideration game logistics and design. They tend to follow of how outcasts will overpopulate the universe in terms of associated planet generation numbers. This tied in the argument that outcasts are rare - in terms of the total general population of the game. The problem is you are missing one important point is the logical \ praciticality variable. It really isn't practical to properly represent a population of a village \ area effectively. Especially in a 2D game based on unproportional values. In a 3D game - it is much more viable due to increased screen real-estate. But 2D games the more NPC"s you have the more messy it will look. With that in mind - even though visually it may look like outcasts are equivelent in number. ========== The practicality of game design when included. It is about right. Outcasts are more proportionate to the actual number then say a Village would be. A village would have contained 50 - 60 people. An outcast post would have contained 10 - 12. But putting that into the game is not a practical addition. You could argue to make it proportional with a 1:10 factor. But the issue would be outposts at that point would look empty and lifeless. If you increase the number in a village - it will look messy and be an unnecessary memory drain. So no matter what ever direction you try to take A or B. you run into 2 dead ends. ============= You also made a statement about how real life outposts aren't filled with people trying to stab you and throw you out of windows. That actually was the case. Outposts in real life were either not controlled or loosely controlled only by local governments. Hence these would be hubs where normally criminals would find haven. One such famous outpost would be tortuga. Tortuga [ During the Imperial Time ] is one of the most famous outposts in history. [ Made even more famous with pirate movies such as Pirates of the Carribean ]. In Tortuga it didn't matter if you were white or black [ During imperial time - racial prejudices were pretty high ] - it matters how strong your sword arm was and how brave a person you were. After all one famous pirate Black Ceaser was part of Black Beards crew. ============= There was also an argument about how outposts are not suppose to be safe. Again this would be a wrong idea - it is because it is safe outposts exists. If it wasn't then no one would ever make one. Yes they are on the "Frontier" but they are on the edge of the safe zone. Which is why it can readily get supplies to survive, as well as trade with traders. You don't build an outpost in the middle of no where. There are logistics involved always when you make any sort of trade hub. The most important being security and resources.
It IS a space parking lot. And "safe" refueling station for all who were once at odds with each other.
no, I just don't care for what you say, since a decent 90% of what you've posted in this thread is bullshit. also, how can I not be good at English? are YOU not good at English, what with the missing apostrophes?
