Well, this sounds like a novel idea. I'm sure during beta and the first couple months after the game is launched it will be very interesting. However, as the "newness" wears off and players start leaving for their usual games the game will fail. Flying around in open space with no NPC's, no quests, no content except for empty planets and abandoned buildings would be very unappealing.
Agreed I think the project is somewhat doomed considering there is 54 million invested into Star Citizen right now. I personally have almost $2k invested.
Fortunately investors are business-minded and can easily see the forums of many games. MW:O and Transverse forums are relatively tame compared to, say, CoD or apparently Archeage if rumors are true. Investors will factor forum sentiment, but player vitriol is unlikely to weigh much on the balance. It is so common, everywhere, even for quite successful games, that it has little business significance. Forum cynicism is in fashion this season, but it is little more significant than body piercing.
PGI brought to reality a dream many of us had, but the realization isn't complete. They are working on Community Warfare and just thinking about what that will entail should give any well-informed interest pause rather, than inspire a spew of uninformed criticism.
Yes, it looks like the initial attempt to crowdfund on their own site didn't generate sufficient revenue to use that as their source of funding. Yet the idea looks sound. Their talent pool is small but respectable.
I think the game has a shot. I doubt it will be on the order of SC, but their proposed IP certainly looks viable.
What I think they need is to lead into the non-NPC universe (or Transverse if you will) with a well done introductory single-player game with a story teaching what players need to know about the transverse, and let that lead into the multiplayer environment rather along the same model as Chris Roberts is doing with Star Citizen (except Squadron 42 appears to be more ambitious than I would conscience recommending to PGI).
As for the fear that without PvE it will become a ganking wasteland: I think that pretty much depends on whether they design the game of the game to reward desirable behavior and disincentivise undesirable behavior. Player interaction sounds like the driver: if true then you do want to provide for the full range of possible interaction. I think Ryan Dancey of Pathfinder Online is very much on the right track for that, with the importance of in-game reputation to player advancement and even viability. Plus the shallow power curve will help, since there isn't a Level 60 no level 30 can defend against.
I think PGI did a decent job with Mechwarrior. I was hoping for space conquest and economy in that game however. This is why I'm a little skeptical of supporting them via crowd funding. I'd rather be sure that the features I want actually make it into the game.
I don't see how Transverse could have safe zones without NPCs and still remain a sandbox. I mean, will it just be a game mechanic that artificially stops PvP? And as others have said, true free-for-all PvP sandboxes end up being ganker, PK havens.
EVE doesn't have its UI and control system because it's great and everyone loves it, but rather because you don't get to have fleet battles with hundreds of players on each side without it. However simplified transverse is compared to Elite or Star Citizen, you're going to wind up with dozens at best, rather than hundreds and thousands. Maybe that's okay, but I wouldn't put myself between EVE and the other two, sacrificing the control of the newer games and never being able to approach the massively multiplayer of the champ.
Comments
Fortunately investors are business-minded and can easily see the forums of many games. MW:O and Transverse forums are relatively tame compared to, say, CoD or apparently Archeage if rumors are true. Investors will factor forum sentiment, but player vitriol is unlikely to weigh much on the balance. It is so common, everywhere, even for quite successful games, that it has little business significance. Forum cynicism is in fashion this season, but it is little more significant than body piercing.
PGI brought to reality a dream many of us had, but the realization isn't complete. They are working on Community Warfare and just thinking about what that will entail should give any well-informed interest pause rather, than inspire a spew of uninformed criticism.
Yes, it looks like the initial attempt to crowdfund on their own site didn't generate sufficient revenue to use that as their source of funding. Yet the idea looks sound. Their talent pool is small but respectable.
I think the game has a shot. I doubt it will be on the order of SC, but their proposed IP certainly looks viable.
What I think they need is to lead into the non-NPC universe (or Transverse if you will) with a well done introductory single-player game with a story teaching what players need to know about the transverse, and let that lead into the multiplayer environment rather along the same model as Chris Roberts is doing with Star Citizen (except Squadron 42 appears to be more ambitious than I would conscience recommending to PGI).
As for the fear that without PvE it will become a ganking wasteland: I think that pretty much depends on whether they design the game of the game to reward desirable behavior and disincentivise undesirable behavior. Player interaction sounds like the driver: if true then you do want to provide for the full range of possible interaction. I think Ryan Dancey of Pathfinder Online is very much on the right track for that, with the importance of in-game reputation to player advancement and even viability. Plus the shallow power curve will help, since there isn't a Level 60 no level 30 can defend against.
To dream, perhaps to be.
Two words I can use to describe how this will epically fail.
Pirahna Games.
They destroyed the Mechwarrior franchise and this will be their next victim.
I think PGI did a decent job with Mechwarrior. I was hoping for space conquest and economy in that game however. This is why I'm a little skeptical of supporting them via crowd funding. I'd rather be sure that the features I want actually make it into the game.
I don't see how Transverse could have safe zones without NPCs and still remain a sandbox. I mean, will it just be a game mechanic that artificially stops PvP? And as others have said, true free-for-all PvP sandboxes end up being ganker, PK havens.
EVE doesn't have its UI and control system because it's great and everyone loves it, but rather because you don't get to have fleet battles with hundreds of players on each side without it. However simplified transverse is compared to Elite or Star Citizen, you're going to wind up with dozens at best, rather than hundreds and thousands. Maybe that's okay, but I wouldn't put myself between EVE and the other two, sacrificing the control of the newer games and never being able to approach the massively multiplayer of the champ.
Rofl, why? "Beat Eve at it's own game"? Given what I saw in that trailer and the description Transverse doesn't stand a bloody chance against Eve.
Where's the any key?