As I understand it, Dust had a mechanic for this. Low level gear was free, but the higher tier stuff had to be built by players… just like in eve.
I’m in favor of this coming to Vanguard as well, as long as it’s implemented properly.
As Destiny inferred, if Vanguard just becomes a quick match shooter, there will be less favor shown toward perma loss mechanics. But if it leans into the mmo aspect, there will be more favorability toward it.
Also, small things should remain cheap so they can be replaced frequently. It would be silly to have a side arm be as expensive as a tank… even if that tank is the base level tank.
And if the markets between Vanguard and EVE merge, It would be stupid for Vanguard kits to compete with the cost of starships. Purely from an immersion standpoint.
But then, I’d be in favor of giving Vanguard players access to small starships in the future (CCP has that Valkyrie code afterall) as long as the game is successful and further development makes sense.
It can’t, because the engine doesn’t support that level of scale.
That’s essentially what I mean; no loss of progress, no matter how small. Basically the same as your conventional Battlefield or comparable team-based FPS title. Likewise it would mean there’s no accumulation either aside from the regular up-ranking common to the genre.
Supposedly Ashes of Creation is on UE5 and that will be an entirely seamless open world. The upcoming ArcheAge 2 will also use the engine, which if the previous game is anything to go on, also had a seamless open world.
That said, it’s interesting CCP didn’t just use Pearl Abyss’ Engine from BDO, since the company’s acquisition happened a year or two before Nova was canceled. Then again, maybe that engine didn’t have the graphic fidelity and friendliness toward procedural map generation they were looking for.
UE5 has built-in map partitioning - it loads only portion of the bigger map. Combined with (also built-in) procedural generation (landmass included, checked that with tutorials and documentation) the map can be planet sized and the map file as big as the code/blueprints for UE5 proc gen plus graphic assets size.
The number of players (if collision hulls are simple spheres) UE5 can handle on the screen simultaneously without efficiency drop was said to be 500. Source: UE Dev post from 2023 on UE forums
Vanguard collision mesh is definattelly more complex than spheres - it can detect what body part was hit arms, legs, torso, head. So i guess either CCP London limits number of polygons for collision detection or change it for spheres to increase player counts.
You know I sometimes wish I could target specific parts of ships in EVE, like engines or turrets instead of using EWAR to hinder their performance but I know it would mean I play a different game
That sounds like a cool concept, until it’s put in practice. It sucks having your engines shot off by some npcs, and having to go back to a station to buy a new part. Black Prophecy had a system like that and it didn’t take them long during the closed beta before they changed it.
The rest of that sounds pretty cool though.
I did watch someone who was streaming the game test the hit boxing (it wasn’t something I considered doing during my time playing the game,) and it was pixel perfect. I assume they’re using hit scan tech rather than using a physics engine to simulate projectiles.
I know EVE ships hitbox is a sphere and it will stay that. That’s why i added that “playing other game” part
I don’t really ask for it, I just kind of “came out” I secretly wished for it
And I wonder if Vanguard needs it’s hitbox be so complex if it is going to support massive number of players in the same “room” at once
Funny idea came up in my mind to the tune of above theme.
How would you feel if EVE Vanguard had exactly same battle mechanics as EVE Online has? To the point of the single sphere hitbox and need of target locking before shooting and the HP hit being some chance based number same as in space?
When I think of it it feels a little “goofy” to say the least but at the same time unique and intriguing That target locking might be unnecessary for direct line of sight weapons like rifles, pistols or melee but maybe rocket lounchers should need it…
There was a mech game that used the same Engine EVE uses years ago. I never played it, but there might be some youtube footage still around. Sadly, I don’t recall the name of the game.
No Man’s Sky does not compare to EVE Online or Vanguard. More to Starfield with added multiplayer for 32 simultaneous players …in one solar system. They do not operate a server that simulates the whole 256 galaxies with all those unfathomable number of planets. Just a database server for registering new anomalies, discoveries and tracking Expeditions progress. The cost is probably nil compared to sales. But you can sell only so much copies of the game. One day the revenue stream will start to dry, HG knows it and begun preparing for paid service of Light No Fire using NMS game engine.
Also tell me how the launch of the game played out? All went well? Everyone was happy? It took them like 2 years to iron out most of the wrinkles…
I started playing NMS with Next update and played it until Frontiers update. Logged ~500+ hours.
Vanguard is not even in the stage NMS was at it’s launch. It’s not even at the stage DUST 514 (played it) was at it’s launch or shutdown. Vanguard barely started.
I had NMS on pre-order and I’ve played it ever since. Plus they release updates on a regular basis along with expeditions.
How many years has it been since we had any new missions in EVE?
As for 500+hours, lol. I deleted saves with close to 800 hours on them and used a new expedition save a few times.
Same with the first couple of years, how did EVE do? CCP still can’t get everything right and they’ve had well over twice as long to work things out with a ton more staff. 37 for Hello Games (35 game devs, 2 admin). 337 staff for CCP. So EVE should have so much more content than it currently has it’s ridiculous, but with £50m turnover last year who am I to judge?
This new attempt will fail same as the other attempts, they should stick to EVE and fix stuff.
Yet they charged for access for those without Omega and removed the weekend pack to make room for a few days.
People really need to get this through their heads. Vanguard is in a prealpha state.
So what if they’re requiring Omega for access? It’s to keep people who are unfamiliar with the game away from it for the time being.
I think the main thing that is throwing people off about this, is the fact that what they have so far actually looks pretty good. It doesn’t look like a prealpha game. CCP probably should have just released what they had with a warframe mastery test map to quell some of the hate.
But, people are stupid, so they probably would have still thought it wasn’t a prealpha. Even with clearly wip graphics.
And yes, they’re selling packs for omega access specifically for the Vanguard tests. So what? Some people want to take part and are willing to pay for it. I call that a win on CCP’s part. It’s still a prealpha.
Most of those are absolutely terrible suggestions.
A lot of the rewards are poor anyway and you want to make them worse?
Do we really want a mission board where everything relatively worth running goes in the first few seconds of being posted?
No thanks, I want missions to be more or less exactly as they are now with the same scaling of rewards. But after over 20 years I’ll always question why there’s not another hundred at every level, in fact 100 is a low figure with the staff and storyline writers they have available.
100 works out at 5 per year scaled from level 1 to 4 with maybe a few level 5’s thrown in.
They already have all the models etc in place, it just needs someone to be willing to say yes.