Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

State of the Universe Address 2017

jambon said:
I'll never understand peoples logic... so with that same thought won't compet be seen as the same thing? :scratch2:

I find it funny though, blocked cause it looks like it could be considered gambling. Meanwhile, yet another person blows $15,000 on virtual power-ups in My Little Pony App Adventure (or similar tripe) without any hope of getting anything of value for that money and that's ok - yup, seems legit.
Click to expand...

No, compet in its current form is more like freemium games.
 
atomicstorm said:
Steam rejected monria attempt. They looked at it like a gambling game although technically it isnt.
Click to expand...

i mean... i do think it's harder to make the "not gambling" argument since EP BP release. other than that, definitely not gambling, just a different choice in play style.
 
jambon said:
I'll never understand peoples logic... so with that same thought won't compet be seen as the same thing? :scratch2:

I find it funny though, blocked cause it looks like it could be considered gambling. Meanwhile, yet another person blows $15,000 on virtual power-ups in My Little Pony App Adventure (or similar tripe) without any hope of getting anything of value for that money and that's ok - yup, seems legit.
Click to expand...

or buys $4000 in boxes on CSGO to gamble for skins to sell on the interwebz... kinda hypocritical move by valve.
 
Mods, shouldn't this thread be locked for discussing Compet? Compet has it's own forum, as I've been informed when trying to discuss Compet deeds (which actually exist inside this game).

If we can't talk about an item in EU called Compet deeds, surely we can't talk about the other game itself here.
 
Actually I’m quite interested in this “Battle Simulator”. You get ammo weapon etc on entry and hunt for the best time.

This might mean you pay a small fee to have some fun, with the chance to win a prize…..I like it.
The real big question is what will MA charge to enter? If’s it’s 10 or 20 ped….yay!!! (or 5 ped lol).

It has the ability to open the game up to millions of potential customers.

The problem with EU is you need to buy a fruit machine before you even put coins in the slot to start enjoying it.
i.e. buy armour, weapons, plates, rings, …before you buy ammo. We have none of that with Battle simulator.

Sure people could argue; what about all those years you invested in your ava already, don’t you care?
Well no I don’t. It didn’t pay out a massive glory loot in 10 years, so why should I believe it will in the next ten years.
Take it on the chin, and go for fun and cheap cost.

Besides nothing is lost, and skills will get added to your ava anyway at the end of each simulator run.

As I say will MA price it right? That is the big question.

Rick
 
Scurvy Sityl said:
Mods, shouldn't this thread be locked for discussing Compet? Compet has it's own forum, as I've been informed when trying to discuss Compet deeds (which actually exist inside this game).

If we can't talk about an item in EU called Compet deeds, surely we can't talk about the other game itself here.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised we can't talk about deeds... first I'm hearing about this.. compet deeds are clearly a physical item within EU that yields ped.. discussion of compets should be disallowed, but blocking the deeds makes no sense lol. :scratch2:
 
Scurvy Sityl said:
Mods, shouldn't this thread be locked for discussing Compet? Compet has it's own forum, as I've been informed when trying to discuss Compet deeds (which actually exist inside this game).

If we can't talk about an item in EU called Compet deeds, surely we can't talk about the other game itself here.
Click to expand...

MA tried hard to distance the two games; although since they've had a change of heart and now want to have an active closer relationship between both platforms including trading, perhaps Caly forum should reopen the compet section.

Times have moved on.

Rick
 
SoReal said:
MA , not impressed at all :(

In your state of the universe 2016 you stated

Space

Later in the year, we will turn our primary focus to the development of content and systems for space. Some of the space projects on our radar include:

Galactic transport & space missions.

Space vessels - improved balance, modules, upgrades and new ship classes.
PVE space content, including new space creatures.
Improved PVP space gameplay and balance.

http://www.entropiauniverse.com/bulletin/buzz/2016/02/24/State-of-the-Universe-Address-2016.xml

"Later in the year" means later in the year 2016 does it not ?


So now we have :

Our immediate plans for 2017 include the recently announced Battle Simulator, a new platform-wide system geared toward short bursts of fast-paced gameplay. For more details about this exciting new addition to Entropia Universe, be sure to follow the Entropia Buzz page.


This was not mentioned in the 2016 state of the universe so you have now added this which will now divert your attention away from what you promised ( dont forget also Mothership owners who have been waiting 6 years for promised upgrades on their ships as well )

Space has a mention :

MindArk also plans to address many of the existing issues affecting interplanetary Space gameplay, specifically ship balance and travel. Once those important balance issues are resolved, we look forward to implemented new and previously planned features, such as galactic transport.


Lots of open words there , like "plans" , "Once" and "look foward"

So really what we have is the next VU end of this month where you will release this battle simulator thing then next VU will probably be June.

Why dont you at least be more open with us who love space and have sent you numerous support cases and advices on how it can be improved with some sort of decent timeframe information , stop slotting in stuff that is going to cause more bugs , fix the bugs that are already there and stop treating us like twats.
Click to expand...

I got to agree here, it sucks big time to get a few lines with promises regarding space each year which never are followed up - not even the 'primary development focus' is where it was promised to be.
Its not just 1,2 or 3 years that we have waited its close to 6 years !
All made promises can be viewed here -> https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?282864-Space-State-of-the-Universe-an-overview-and-outlook-of-past-and-future
You cant just keep selling spaceships every few years with the promise of space/space content which is then never delivered - the sales 'success' of firebirds will show you that this wont work.
Only uninformed players will purchase a firebird for 50k if there are multiple equus not selling at 40kish...
 
RickEngland said:
MA tried hard to distance the two games; although since they've had a change of heart and now want to have an active closer relationship between both platforms including trading, perhaps Caly forum should reopen the compet section.
Click to expand...
Definitely not. I think you got it a little backwards.

MA started out with ComPets right here on the PCF. It was the protests from the players that got it removed. Why were ppl against it? We (me included) considered this as a betrayal of the existing player base and wasting our money (MA has no other income than EU) on a meaningless new project.

You can agree with this sentiment, or not but that was the reason why MA retreated and "evacuated" ComPets from PCF. If they actually integrate the two games in the future then I agree, we might consider "taking them in" on the EU forums too. Until then, let em stand in the corner, 'cuz so far this other game has nothing to do with EU.
 
The problem with demanding a space update, is when that arrives it will need to provide a return to pay for development.
Generally this will mean a “quick” return, which surely means new space assets for sale (it’s foolish to think otherwise).

So they will throw a ton more ships at us, better ships with more power. The next generation of motherships maybe along with a fleet of other type of vessels.

How would you feel about that, space people? I honestly believe the best you can hope for is equality in ship rating against something new.

What MA might do, is create “the space economy first”, that will raise ship prices. Then watch to see how many existing ships take up the new space options, because most are just sitting there collecting space dust.
If MA did that, I’m sure they would add some disclaimer that future ships are coming. That gives you a limited window to sell your existing ship (if you wanted too), and hope to buy a better one….a gamble of course, but choices choices.

Maybe that’s a win-win situation to bring in new ships and satisfy existing owners.

Although if I was MA and battle simulator was very successful, I would “might” consider putting effort into thinking about a battle simulator for space instead.
Or some sort of instances where you jump across into another area of space, with lots of different instances having mini-space–games.

Rick
 
ZPF said:
!!!! :wtg:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-k6PEb93Q

:wise:
Click to expand...

Wasn't actually serious with my comment but we have a few butt hurt folks on this forum for pointing out that 5.6% growth is actually much higher than actually any of the last 8 years if you skip all the game playing like unemployment statistics. There was a reason for cash for clunker program.. it was a fake giveaway to avoid the definition of an economy going into a depression. Because of that 1 quarter with that program, the "timer" reset. Anyway, that's another conversation entirely.
 
RickEngland said:
The problem with demanding a space update, is when that arrives it will need to provide a return to pay for development.
Generally this will mean a “quick” return, which surely means new space assets for sale (it’s foolish to think otherwise).

So they will throw a ton more ships at us, better ships with more power. The next generation of motherships maybe along with a fleet of other type of vessels.

How would you feel about that, space people? I honestly believe the best you can hope for is equality in ship rating against something new.

What MA might do, is create “the space economy first”, that will raise ship prices. Then watch to see how many existing ships take up the new space options, because most are just sitting there collecting space dust.
If MA did that, I’m sure they would add some disclaimer that future ships are coming. That gives you a limited window to sell your existing ship (if you wanted too), and hope to buy a better one….a gamble of course, but choices choices.

Maybe that’s a win-win situation to bring in new ships and satisfy existing owners.

Although if I was MA and battle simulator was very successful, I would “might” consider putting effort into thinking about a battle simulator for space instead.
Or some sort of instances where you jump across into another area of space, with lots of different instances having mini-space–games.

Rick
Click to expand...

Well, they are already making more ships but they all cost more than a privateer for little protection. I expect privateers and Ms to still be king. There will just be a lot more warp capable ships... based on the current trend.
 
Fifth said:
Definitely not. I think you got it a little backwards.

MA started out with ComPets right here on the PCF. It was the protests from the players that got it removed. Why were ppl against it? We (me included) considered this as a betrayal of the existing player base and wasting our money (MA has no other income than EU) on a meaningless new project.

You can agree with this sentiment, or not but that was the reason why MA retreated and "evacuated" ComPets from PCF. If they actually integrate the two games in the future then I agree, we might consider "taking them in" on the EU forums too. Until then, let em stand in the corner, 'cuz so far this other game has nothing to do with EU.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with your first paragraph. I was playing the political card, it's a lot easier to win back community support, if you don't blame the players.....lol...smiles

Here's something to chew over. If MA sell battle Simulator via deeds, will the community turn against that too?
Our minds can play tricks, what if it was the deeds that made people think Compet was suddenly a competitor for peds rather than an alliance of communities.

Interesting ehh.


Rick
 
RickEngland said:
The problem with demanding a space update, is when that arrives it will need to provide a return to pay for development.
Generally this will mean a “quick” return, which surely means new space assets for sale (it’s foolish to think otherwise).

So they will throw a ton more ships at us, better ships with more power. The next generation of motherships maybe along with a fleet of other type of vessels.

How would you feel about that, space people? I honestly believe the best you can hope for is equality in ship rating against something new.

What MA might do, is create “the space economy first”, that will raise ship prices. Then watch to see how many existing ships take up the new space options, because most are just sitting there collecting space dust.
If MA did that, I’m sure they would add some disclaimer that future ships are coming. That gives you a limited window to sell your existing ship (if you wanted too), and hope to buy a better one….a gamble of course, but choices choices.

Maybe that’s a win-win situation to bring in new ships and satisfy existing owners.

Although if I was MA and battle simulator was very successful, I would “might” consider putting effort into thinking about a battle simulator for space instead.
Or some sort of instances where you jump across into another area of space, with lots of different instances having mini-space–games.

Rick
Click to expand...

The ships to finance space were already sold twice (motherships and then equus) and a transport fee for items was introduced in auction which also 'payed' for it and now the third time (firebirds).
Mindark is trying so hard to sell a few ships for a set price into a saturated market considering how much more easy it would be to sell alot of ships for good value if the content and opportunities for them were provided 'first'.
 
John B Knight said:
The ships to finance space were already sold twice (motherships and then equus) and a transport fee for items was introduced in auction which also 'payed' for it and now the third time (firebirds).
Mindark is trying so hard to sell a few ships for a set price into a saturated market considering how much more easy it would be to sell alot of ships for good value if the content and opportunities for them were provided 'first'.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I suggested...smiles.
 
So basically MA is going to focus on a few things, like we wanted rather then promise a lot.

I just hope to see some more plot content soon, as well as the new player content. Hopefully they will work with my ped earning site a little more as that does really help retention a lot.
 
Last edited:
RickEngland said:
Exactly what I suggested...smiles.
Click to expand...

One would think it goes without saying - then again this is a world with adult coloring books, safe spaces, selective tolerance "collective free " screeching, pronouns and cave drawings i mean emotes replacing text. I have abandoned psychology (not) and opted for skilling smoke signalling and grunting instead, so that i may be able to communicate with future generations ;)

The way of the world ...............*flies back into realist, now "alien bubble" world*
 
Last edited:
atomicstorm said:
Steam rejected monria attempt. They looked at it like a gambling game although technically it isnt.
Click to expand...

I was told that Steam wanted a small cut for every deposit that was made through the steam platform and Mind Ark rejected it.


It makes sense though, I can add wallet funds to steam and use that on webshop for other games on steam.
Also Compet on steam doesn't seem to have the PED feature.

Is it really about the gamble or just a money issue?
 
Nunoko said:
I was told that Steam wanted a small cut for every deposit that was made through the steam platform and Mind Ark rejected it.


It makes sense though, I can add wallet funds to steam and use that on webshop for other games on steam.
Also Compet on steam doesn't seem to have the PED feature.

Is it really about the gamble or just a money issue?
Click to expand...

Seems like we have conflicting information then.
 
Bertha Bot;3556180 [h=4 said:
What Lies Ahead[/h]
MindArk also plans to address many of the existing issues affecting interplanetary Space gameplay, specifically ship balance and travel. Once those important balance issues are resolved, we look forward to implemented new and previously planned features, such as galactic transport.
Click to expand...

So what does that mean? What are the existing issues with interplanetary Space gameplay with specific reference to ship balance and travel?

14 Motherships
70 Privateers
5 UL QUADs
25 UL Equus QUADs
25 pending UL Firebird Dropships...

I would expect to see SubWarp drives MkII-V?
Maybe pilot skills reflecting what ship you can use?
New warp/wormhole routes?
Navigation skills?

The dynamic mystery :)
 
Few Scars said:
So what does that mean? What are the existing issues with interplanetary Space gameplay with specific reference to ship balance and travel?

14 Motherships
70 Privateers
5 UL QUADs
25 UL Equus QUADs
25 pending UL Firebird Dropships...

I would expect to see SubWarp drives MkII-V?
Maybe pilot skills reflecting what ship you can use?
New warp/wormhole routes?
Navigation skills?

The dynamic mystery :)
Click to expand...

At the very basic, i would hope that a rebalance considers gunning range of all vessels and how to balance speed against range as well as tracking speed of turrets, to put the gunner profession back into use and apply it on turrets (turret requirements have been set to lvl0 from previously lvl40ish about 2 and a half years ago).
Also pvp cost to make battles between upgraded ships viable - if mindark wants us to fight over cargo missions they have to assure that the cost for the winner is lower then the possible reward of the mission or there wont be any fights.
Another point would be to include the features which were promised, as a rebalancing only makes sense if the ships which are rebalanced actually receive what they are supposed to have (in case of motherships this means torpedo launchers and more active gun turrets as well as shields for both motherships and privateers).
And of course - all targets in space need to offer a form of reward - so there needs to be a component in each battle were either side has something to loose - only then we will see real and regular fights.

Upgrading of spacecrafts also needs to be kept in balance, atm it costs only half the peds to increase privateer si per section compared to motherships (due to them having twice as many sections) while both repairpoints for privateers are located right next to each other and on motherships you have running times - this gives privateers a strong advantage in defence capabilities on a limited budget.

Many other points have been raised in suggestions over the years.
 
It will be funny to see State of the Planet Address from some of the PP :laugh:

2017 - waiting for MA
2016 - waiting for MA
2015 - waiting for some system form MA
 
Remember when they claimed auction transfer fees would be used to fund space missions, and instead they just kept all the PED?

:(
 
Scurvy Sityl said:
Remember when they claimed auction transfer fees would be used to fund space missions, and instead they just kept all the PED?

:(
Click to expand...

sounds typical of any governing entity. Such as taxes being levied to fund the war effort bridge/road etc... Then they decided "hey we like getting free money from chumps... Let's keep doing it" long after its paid for its purpose 100 times over.
 
Scurvy Sityl said:
Remember when they claimed auction transfer fees would be used to fund space missions, and instead they just kept all the PED?

:(
Click to expand...

It's only retained until missions are live. The big problem is they have taken forever to implement those missions beyond what is acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top