Capsule Space Video

Actually "all of the above" would be nify (if painful - lol) options. Maybe it could be semi-random, with influences such as:
- How far from the end you were before collapse.
- Tech level/power of capsule drive. BTW cabragol's post above makes it sound like you can possibly overcome a lower tech level by using a MUCH more powerful (read "expensive, bulky, and heavy") drive. Is this true? Cuz that would make a lot of sense... Much tech progress is really miniaturization. A higer-tech drive might also have additional widgets to help in jump failure.
- Number of those, er, obstacle lights (what're they called in-game?) hit before collapse.
- Ship shielding/armor (duh) AND size. Repair level too, of course.
- And so on.

As before, a well-prepared player would have much better odds, but even the rattiest ship might have a chance.

Have you guys considered missions involving scouting rogue L-points for factions/3rd parties, or izzit going to just be for the player's own direct benefit to trading/escaping pursuit?

What we are thinking is that the player would get a sellable "datascan" when completing a new jump (and living). And then the player could sell that scan.

I am kind of steering away from missions, and heading toward a "payout" scheme. Here are my reasons:

Mission require code to figure out a job that needs done. Then text and things to display to the player. Then more code to track the player actions. Then yet more code to setup mission challenges. That is a lot of work and the player gets a fairly repetative experience.

We have a tiny, tiny team. So we have to pick features super carefully. Instead of missions, what I am thinking is that we make all game objects (fleets, stations) "pay out" depending on what the player does with them.

For instance, if you help a station under attack, it "pay out" by giving you a reputation boost. The ships you kill "pay out" by lowering your reputation. If we attached monetary payouts to these kills, we could create a mercenary career without ever writing a line of mercenary mission code.

To build the explorer career we are allowing the player to sell claims to asteroids they prospect. We could code missions that say "go prospect" but by turning it in reverse, paying for prospecting, we leverage the code that already exists to supporting the asteroid miner career. Essentially, for the cost of developing a sell claims GUI screen, we get another career for the player.

It's very important, however, to make sure payouts are always intangible. If the player gets a tangible or semi-tangible thing as a direct result of something that doesn't involve any physical contact, it breaks fiction... big time. For instance, busting up a pirate den should earn you Boy Scout Points, but not any actual cash. You would have to go up to a Donut Shop to convert your Boy Scout Points into money. That also adds a strategic factor: you can't just go assassinating random ships in the hope that you'll get a bounty, since you have to remain on the good side of the law.

I hated Elite when I could get credited for just blowing up some random ship without actually checking to make sure it had a bounty. Screw the police, I'll just shoot up ships for a living, since I still get paid for killing a bounty even if the cops are hot on my ass... I also didn't much like the airplane physics, which is the ultimate reason I don't play it.


To ensure you're not railroading the player into an ethical choice, the bad guy part should also be conversely true. That is, some ships would be "marked" by the syndicates and shooting them up would get you Made Man Points or whatnot, which could be converted at your local Legitimate Businessman's Club. It still wouldn't be possible to just go around shooting everything, since "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is only true in limited situations. There certainly should not be a zero-point effect where blowing up an enemy ship exactly makes up for blowing up a friendly ship -- it takes honest dedication to blowing up their enemy in order to make your enemy forgive you. I would say that for every five or ten ships you blow up of an enemy, the enemy's enemy would forgive you for just one of their ships you blew up. You'll have to buy a lot of beers to make up for the other four of theirs you destroyed. That way, if you blow up everything, everyone will hate you, which is as it should be: destruction isn't productive.


(Note: I'm calling them Boy Scout Points, Made Man Points, Donut Shops, and Legitimate Businessman's Clubs, but these are just jokey placeholder names. If you actually call them that, I will hurt you. In many ways. )

_______________

"Important Note to Purchasers: This is a 100% matter product; in the unlikely event that this merchandise should contact antimatter in any form, a catastrophic explosion will result."

Odd, I was thinking something very similar. Defending a station can earn that factions gratitude, but if you wanted cash, you would need to have taken a "defense contract". The contract pays real cash to the player for kills made while defending. An "attack contract" would be similar. Attack contracts are specific in the faction that is to be attacked. Contracts are slightly more effort to code than nothing, but strongly shape where and when the fighting happens and when you get paid for it.

Your points about setting up the reputation bonuses are good ones. (my usual tendency is to error in making combat too punishing, so that it never pays to fight. hopefully that will balance better in the US release).

We still have a few big decisions to make regarding the capsule space simulation. Such as should routes between certain lpoints be static, or dynamic. Meaning the same each time you jump, or a random variation each time. And if we randomize them, how should that be done?. Having static jumps would allow people to brag about their capsule space piloting skills. "No one can make the Badeer lpoint jump. It's just too dangerous." Your smugly confident reply: "I can." However, static jumps could get boring after awhile. Adding some kind of dynamism would extend the refresh the challenge.

Why noy have BOTH types, eh? Mebbe one L-point "wobbles" about, while another is stable like the traditional known ones...