Comments on: Che Rolls In 0.0 Space

By: clear

clear — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:24:50 +0000

because most people are not sci-fi fans, and because most people want insta super powers, also because for most people its easier to understand one guy holding a sword and running in the wilderness killing wolves and hairy stuff then to understand a force-recon ship fitted with a cloacking device, electronic warfare modules like a remote sensor dempners, a scan speed booster, a couple of capacitor boosters, a warpdrive and warp scrambler… navigating through 0.0 space solar system, scanning for intruders near all the star gates near to the corp POS.

yeah thats kind of fuzzy, but for sci-fi fans its a great deal.

By: SparroHawc

SparroHawc — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:49:11 +0000

Fortunately, now that Allegiance has been released as open-source, it’s free to download -and- play. It’s got a small community, but it’s still there and you can usually find a sizable game going.

By: Viz

Viz — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:27:10 +0000

The thing that killed Allegiance was a monthly fee where no monthly fee should’ve been.

By: Mist

Mist — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:55:19 +0000

We’re just saying that it’d be a lot more popular if it actually played like a video game in a way that people are familiar with. That’s why WoW works, it plays like its actually a video game like Zelda, not a MUD with a bad 3D interface tacked on. It’s fast paced, the controls are responsive, and the UI gives good feedback.

And I’m not saying take the tactical scale combat out of the game, just restrict it to the larger ship types. It makes no sense that frigates fly the way they do, or are even called frigates, when the carrier drones called ‘fighters’ are actually much much bigger than frigates. If I was to create a similar game I’d have fighters, gunships and assault ships that used a piloting interface, replacing the frigate and destroyer classes (and their variants) in EVE entirely. Some of the cruisers and smaller industrial transports too. Then start the tactical interface with the battlecruisers and up.

As for the technology, I think its definitely there and just not being utilized. Almost 10 years ago, Microsoft made a game called Allegiance, which used a very interesting physics model and allowed players to play a fast paced FPS style space flight sim, over dialup, and a 200 player game could be hosted on a single mediocre server that was available at the time.

By: Kwai

Kwai — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:50:43 +0000

I see a few people talking about that the game would be better with FPS style controls. Sure you could do that, but you could never get the number of people in the same system.
Deterministic controls are one of the factors that allow the single universe thing to work. Anyone remember Jumpgate? How many players did that game support in a single system?

Deterministic controls and combat that is more tactical than FPS is how the game was designed, you can complain all you want and say the game would be better as a FPS game… but is it possible to make a FPS game at this scale? Even with todays technology I think you’d be stretched to achieve what CCP has done if you started from scratch.

Personally I think complaining about the lack of FPS is like complaining that C&C doesn’t allow you take control of a single trooper in a squad.

Haven’t played the game for a few years myself, but I’m glad to see it do well.

By: Andrew Crystall

Andrew Crystall — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:54:56 +0000

Soul,

Despite the hype, the latest “great war” in Eve involved, at best, half of the residents of 0.0 space (and about two thirds of those, only nominally), the “winning” side (fighting goes on, as it always does, but the major power blocks are broken up) were not the ones who started the war, and even now their alliance is breaking up.

Heck, I’d point out the far earlier Great Northern War in Eve, which lasted over seven months and involved nearly as many people actually fighting.

By: Soulflame

Soulflame — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:03:22 +0000

I thought that EVE was yet another demonstration that if you allow players to “win” a PvP game, eventually it’ll occur to a guild that maybe they should go ahead and do that.

By: Mist

Mist — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:31:19 +0000

EVE is a lot of things, but certainly not a time commitment based game. You can easily progress a character playing as little as 4 or 5 hours a week, because your skills train when not online.

By: Rhinohelix

Rhinohelix — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:31:57 +0000

What a breathless bunch of crap. Firstly, Eve is an evolution, not a revolution of gameplay which first seen in UO. And while maybe CCP made the game inaccessable to those not willing to put the time in to learn the interface deliberately in order to weed out those with a lesser commitment, I think that is after the fact rationalization. Finally, while I appreciate the attempt to utilize the “revolution” theme, he could have used someone who was less of a Stalinist murdering prick and spent less time slathering his own ideological spoor over the article to get the point across. Eve is less about a socialist upheaval than it is about unfettered capitalism gone Lord of the Flies. There is nothing equitable about Eve’s society.

I like the idea of Eve but I: A) already have friends, you know, in real life; B) already have a job working for a corporation; C) don’t feel the need to replace both of the former with an online variant. When a similar-themed game comes out without the need for the ultra-raiding time commitment, I will be there.

By: Mist

Mist — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:25:36 +0000

I don’t think they ignored the feedback. I think they are just fundamentally incapable of coding a decent interface ontop of the framework they have set up for the game. The forum software runs directly off of their central game database server, and they’re just NOW getting around to fixing that fact. They obviously coded themselves into corners they just can’t code themselves out of early on in the development of the game.