max2veg

Yes, but no, it's not pointless to discuss, if considering the other's expectations. I am considering those of SPs such as yours, as such, I agree to some points. Well, if I'm in a "bubble", so are you - which is, in the "casual Avorion SP player" bubble. There's also the "hardcore Avorion SP players", and they also agree on a lot of things, because most (all? I don't remember) of mine and those that have similar / same concerns, relate to core gameplay, which a lot has been taken away - not to mention some of it has not been implemented that was promised - from the 1.x version (in particular "chaining of commands"), which just can't be done anymore with the new "map commands / missions", but the dev(s) outright just removed the option to be able to send ships / fleets on non-missions, but rather fulfill a chain of commands (ie. "fly to x/y, mine, fly to x/y, mine, fly to x/y, mine, loop this chain of commands; or especially when it comes to trading: fly x/y, buy commodities, fly to x/y, sell commodities, loop this chain of commands; or any other command and any mix of those). Those are new players or very inexperienced (low amount of hours of actual gameplay) ones - anyone who played 1.x extensively felt like a kick to the ballz because of what's been taken away, and what's been added is not a substitution for that, plus some overall gameplay is buggy (fighters specifically - I didn't even realize that until a buddy of mine pointed that out, and I was able to reproduce that) and the aforementioned missing content - you might want to check past Avorion update announcements on Steam since the first 2.0 was advertised, you should be able to discern what's missing - if not, then I can't help you other than suggest to read more carefully. Also, my other advice is to play the latest 1.x version, if you truly care to understand vs. if you don't and you just want to be right. I already refuted your argument, see above - AKA missing content and buggy implementation that breaks mid-to-late gameplay (that's also for SP btw, not just MP, in case I wasn't clear about that). See above, so unfortunately you are incorrect, Avorion is unfinished, you don't even have to be a "hardcore player" but just bother to progress further into the game and explore tactical options a bit further (not even to their fullest, which you can't anymore in 2.x anyhow). Uh yes, it is equal parts SP and MP, especially considering: 1. Avorion can't be played without launching a server component - which means, it's a local MP game with 1 player slot... which can thus very easily be converted to MP. 2. Boxelware has even declared official(!) MP public servers. 3. All SP content, especially considering of my first point, is included in MP, so essentially there is no different between SP and MP gameplay or content - in fact, the only diff is PVP and PVE, where in PVP there's player-to-player damage (unless you're in an inhabited sector), which you can only play in a MP session (obviously), so strictly speaking, Avorion has with this addition change more MP content (game functionality, really) than SP. You might really want to do a bit more research before coming up with argumentation... unless you don't care to be put into your place, so to speak. And yes, Avorion can be played in a few different ways ("different visions how all of those things should work", as you wrote), but that does not change any of the issues that plague Avorion in its current state and thus demands at least a QOL update - or if Boxelware really cares and heck, even wants to capitalize on additional DLCs, a version 3.0, to make this truly the gem of a game that Avorion could be.

You (and friends) should play the pre-2.0 update, then you'll see what all was removed in 2.x - a lot was added in 2.x, but most that was removed, and even some that was changed in 2.x, was unnecessary and made the game a lot less management and a lot more micro-management heavy, which some might like, but most pre-2.0 players, such as myself, do not. Again, you don't know what you miss out on, until you have experienced the functionality of the previous version.

Well, it shouldn't take 2 months to figure out how to generate more cash. It's actually straightforward: 1. Fix the issues most players are having with, increasing its minor version (2.x); also and continuing doing so, keep fixing bugs. 2. Create new DLC. It will have to be in that order, but only initially, once the core issues the community is upset about are taken care of, then the other issues and bugs can be fixed while working on a new DLC. Even just making the community happy(ier) will bring more money in, because Avorion is a great PvE group game, though still is badly lacking in PvP. Yes, you can call a SP game "dead" - and Avorion is not "mostly" a SP game, it's SP and MP to equal parts, although as I mentioned, PvP is pretty much dead, even though there are a lot of PvP servers out there, but most of them are being played PvE, for a number of reasons (and has very much to do with some of the major issues of 2.x, which have been extensively reported to the devs - and there's hope that's the reason for the radio silence, because they're revamping that, and it's not just one thing, but impacts most of the 2.x gameplay). I've got to burst your bubble, because that's where you're wrong - if you'd seen the onslaught of criticism posted on their Discord shortly after 2.x launch, you'd know... but either way, there are some major issues with 2.x, from gameplay to AI and gameplay bugs there are plaguing the game - which is why the dev's radio silence is being taken as the game being "dead". However, I surely hope that they're just pulling a bit of a NMS here, where they just concentrate on revamping 2.x and getting things to a point where the majority of the community's complaints are being addressed. PS: They might very well work on 3.0, considering that all the changes they have to implement to "fix" what the community complaints about with 2.x will require a massive re-write (not just in code, but also game mechanics / gameplay) - at least so I hope.

well, the title says it all. it's been over a month since the last update post on steam (actually, last one was 11-22-21, so almost 2.5 months ago), with a lot of bugs that have been reported, not to mention gameplay broken, with the new gameplay "forced upon" the player, which removed a lot of the amazing gameplay mechanisms from version 1.x - what gives? the issues is that the devs think they should rework game mechanics that worked before (although with bugs and still lacking) without consulting their community first - aka "we know better" mentality, which has rarely worked in favor of a game's reputation and the people / company behind it. maybe this "radio silence" is for the reason of a rework of those issues? but a bit of feedback would still be much appreciated...

also: 1. not just player owned ships, but also player stations should be able to do the same 2. have a persistent toggle on map to always show already "scanned" sectors (there's a mod for that, i believe that always shows yellow blips)

asteroids should: 1. be rare, especially those providing materials. 2. not be targeted when cycling through targets, unless previously explored. 3. this will require to search for them manually, or probes could be introduced that have to be bought and have to be launched to various areas to scan for asteroids. 4. also have an RNG number of various elements in it - the closer to a material belt, the higher the amount of the region's materials(s) would be present,

this consists of a few elements / has following implications: 1. EVE-like itemization: * everything is an item and uses up cargo space; your inventory shows items in your ships' cargo space. * if a player is inside a sector, everything is tracked. * if no player ships inside a sector, this is simulated / extrapolated - just needs to be plausible rather than 100% correct. * once a player ship enters a sector again, the simulated economy and their items are then being extrapolated and tracked. 2. Stations don't just "randomly" spawn commodities / equipment: * When initially exploring a populated (= stations present) sector, those things are procedurally generated, of course. * Once a sector has been explored, every item is tracked and shipped to / from stations in crafts; 3. Looting * if the station or ship blows up, some items (maybe by volatility and fragility) can also blow up, so might not get full loot; but can salvage to get raw resources. * "secure container" can only hold x amount of cubic space, and take up 1.3x their storage capacity in the ship's / station's cargo hold. * secure containers prevent items from being blown up when the ship / station is being destroyed. * secure containers exist in various sizes and are bought at trading posts / smugglers / military outposts (more secure ones, see next). * secure containers also require a separate item, which is the lock. * various security levels of locks exist, making them less / more difficult to hack. * secure containers can also be "broken into" (shot at), but then items inside can blow up, just like when a ship blows up and the items were not stored inside a container.

previous post, see below, plus my response gave me this idea (i mentioned this briefly in that post): every (at least most, to varying degrees) faction should consist of a good mix of various groups: * private vessels (miners, luxury liners, ...) * miners * traders * police - they scan for illegal goods, deal with violations, small skirmishes * military - they have their own sector(s) - they take care of invasions, put into action when a sector becomes tagged as hostile / unsafe (red) * bandits - they stay away from military sectors and high-industry sectors, can be mostly found in yellow sectors but also commit raids in low-tech sectors * smugglers / thiefs - their have their own sector (already) and are only found in larger / higher economic factions, they run solo and using stealth to invade any sector all of them have their own ship sizes, strategy, stats ranges, materials and weapons (weapons based on materials they have access to): * private vessels - small (common), medium (uncommon), large (rare) size - usually solo but up to 5 ships / group (the larger the group, the rarer); fight in skirmishes but flee red sectors - low dps and less armor, generally flee fairly quickly, fast - usually same mats as region but can have any mat (exponentially rarer and fewer blocks with those mats) * miners, traders - medium to large to huge (uncommon) - usually solo, but up to 10 ships / group; they flee when attacked - low to medium dps depending on size can have fighters and even more armor, slow - mix of same or +1 higher mat than region * police - small to medium (have fighters, if mat available) size - groups of 2 usually, but if trouble or higher economy sectors, larger groups; they flee when ~50% hull - medium to high dps, thin armor / weak shield, don't flee easily, fast - same mats as region * military - mostly medium to large size with fighters (always have fighter bays) - fleets of 10+ ships, depending on faction military strength; they flee if ~10% hull - high dps, thick armor / strong shields, utilizing smaller shield and hull reppers and fighters - up to +3 mats compared to region * bandits, smugglers - small (smugglers only) to huge (rare, bandits only) size, usually no fighter bays (except huge bandits) - fleets of up to 10 ships for bandits; smugglers run usually solo but up to 3 ships, depending on faction economy - medium to high dps - thick and lots of armor, slow - any mats, but the further away from regional mats, the exponentially rarer and fewer blocks of those mats this should create some very interesting, unique and realistic scenarios!

i think the quote needs some work 😜 but otherwise, i agree; in addition, i think the bail-out should be triggered via shield or hull percentage if decreased from full, and: * a range, randomly set * set per-faction * with per-ship randomly set trigger within the faction range, which gives more of a personalization and makes it less predictive this could create "cowardly" factions / individual ships; but also the opposite, very "determined" ones a'la "the reavers" from the tv show "firefly" / movie "serenity". this could (should) be fine-tuned, to create factions inside factions, such as police, military, general private vessels, traders, ... that have their own range - for example, a faction might be quite cowardly, but their military crew won't bail out so easily (but will still flee, because, you know, the faction as a whole are quite a bunch of cowards lol), and similar for the police (of course not as courageous as the military vessels).

It'd be good to be able to issue commands that run in parallel rather than are executed in line / queue, such as: Keep at n distance to ship m while no danger. Keep at n distance to ship m if hostiles are around. Fire at will / attack only when being attacked / do not divert from course (as such would "keep at distance to target" and rather let their independent turrets do the talking, that way effectively shielding and defending the set target at all times) ...

Great idea - that's an upvote from me! But, it needs some refining: I would say the jump range, the percentage of hull damage before they flee, and their overall "strength" (shield, hull, omicron, fighter types and hangar size / fighter amount, overall fighter competency levels) - plus how many turrets, the kind of turrets and how many of those are independent targeting, and the duration of their contract - should all go into the amount of the hiring fee. And about fleeing from a fight, that might not work if warp disruptors are in place - so as a possible solution, mercenaries would focus on blowing up those warp blockers first, only after that they will fight others. Down the line it'd be also cool to issue commands to them, same way as AI captains are being issued commands, plus with some refinements (such as, have commands that run in parallel rather than are executed in line / queue, such as "follow distance while no danger", "follow distance if hostiles are around", "fire at will / attach only when attacked", ... - but I'll put that in a separate thread to vote on)

That's your right for bias to play on a server that doesn't enforce that. This is actually to increase creativity, by organizing and logically structuring it, following a more organic, logical process, thus creating more immersion for the player - enforced by server owners, and appreciated by its players, with the option for any server owner to not enforce that and for players to play on such servers.

What is your comment about "Engine" and "PC performance" based on? Do you know the programmatical complexity and computational impact of those? Because one who has worked with and on games engines and has done 3D (Direct3D & OpenGL) programming, I can tell you that It is a very simple feat to implement that. There is literally no (or, very small, usually negligible) computational impact on both the GPU or the CPU - at least for basic translation and rotation of 3D objects.

And in addition to that, like in good old'e "Wing Commander" (and other space sims) fashion: "match speed with target" 😉

OP, the title is a mis-match / misleading to what you your suggestions are - also, it'd be best if you split up those into individual suggestions (reformulate)