Jump to content

Zeddrick

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • backer_title
    Contributor
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Zeddrick's Achievements

  1. OK, so IMO a wipe back to 0.23 would be a huge mistake. It's true that 0.23 put a lot of players off playing, but that was some time ago now and those players have probably gone off to do other things. The game was not perfect before 0.23 in any case, it just hadn't run for long enough for things like infinite production and skills that reduce material requirements for crafting to really bite (IMO anyway). It's not guaranteed (or even particularly likely) that many of the players who quit at 0.23 would even come back again if the game were to be reset. What is pretty much guaranteed though is a large chunk of players who have been persevering and playing since 0.23 would be really annoyed to see their efforts rolled back. Some people *started* playing since then and would be reduced back to day 1 while others would suddenly be put in a position of power/richness again despite not being around for the last 6 months. So, IMO, what would most likely happen is yet another drop in the player base. As to some of your detail, I agree that stuff like the schematic giveaway was really annoying (and it made me quit for a while), but it happened and it's going to be really hard to unpick now. I think we just have to accept that some people got lucky there and got handed a chunk of cash. But with missions and asteroids, it's not giving them the unassailable advantage that it did before -- grinding for cash is a lot easier than it once was and it is possible to catch up to the ones who got cheap schematics now. NQ have been pretty good recently, new features are coming out regularly and things like the 'core death' discussion show that people are being listened to. Perhaps we should just let whatever mistakes happened months ago slide and look forwards. Also I think you're very wrong about asteroids being for groups only. It is true that there are a bunch of starved PvP players looking to shoot everyone who tries to mine one, but there are ways to deal with that (in particular, go to an old asteroid rather than discovering a new one). There are also ways to do it solo, mitigate the loss levels when you get shot at, etc. You definitely can mine the higher tier ores solo and get the ore back to the safezone enough times to make it very worthwhile. And it's fun. Why not give it a try ...
  2. The problem with removing schematics now is that they've left it too long. A lot of people have done a lot of grinding to buy into them now and have made large time/effort investments. Getting rid of them now might well cause another bunch of players to quit because they spent many many hours getting into a good position in production and now everyone else can have the same thing without the effort. Even giving back the money paid for the schematics might not help -- everyone has a lot of money now anyway because missions ...
  3. Put on a shield and at least one gun.
  4. Isn't that how we ended up with people stealing ships? Could you put a remote pilot on the container construct, move tool it onto the parent, activate remote pilot and dock it?
  5. I'd be happier with schematics if there were bot buy orders for, say, 80% of the sale price to match the bot sell orders. So it's a capital investment rather than an expense.
  6. So I think the easiest way to deal with alts is to accept that people will use alts, but make it so nobody can ever play for free with an alt (i.e. don't put in anything like eve's PLEX). Anything PLEX like (I think it was going to be called the DAC?) would be, say, a 50% discount on a sub (or whatever the amount) but not a complete free sub. That way people can still fund their alts with quanta to an extent but if someone wants to make a whole army of alts they have to pay a significant monthly bill. And if they want to NQ can impose limits on how many alts a player can have and can identify players by their payment method.
  7. But would that unit count be per tile (in which case how do you deal with multiple players on a tile, how do you have cities, etc?) or is it per core (in which case how do you stop someone dumping down 200 cores)?
  8. OK, so that's a completely different problem. Energy for brake walls, etc then sure (some things might need a rebalance to be useful, XL brakes, wings, etc). Although I'm a huge fan of brake walls myself but I'd adapt. But I don't think it would work for industry on static constructs because it would be too easy to overlay a bunch of static cores on top of one another and get around it.
  9. That's just changing the production cost of an item (the cost of whatever fuel is consumed is just extra input materials). It won't really fix anything. If you could find a way to scale up the cost per unit by the number of elements in use it could work. If people couldn't just make lots of constructs next to each other and split the load that way. Just limiting production directly seems more sensible to me though.
  10. That's interesting, *why* are people asking for energy management (at the risk of derailing the thread)? What do people hope it will achieve? I've spent many years writing software and often users ask for things they shouldn't want because they think it will do something it won't do ...
  11. Not all MMOs work like that. I come from Eve which had a fully functioning player market and production which actually worked for many years before introducing any of the sorts of mechanics you describe above (which do exist now in eve but are a minority thing which sits alongside the markets). OK, I'll propose something. The way to limit production is quite simple (as I have said a few times before) -- just put a limit on how many industry machines a player can have running at once (where a machine in maintain counts as running). Make it something small like 20 to begin with, trainable to something like 200 if someone invests 3 months of talent training into it. Also change the talents which currently reduce materials required for production so instead they make production happen faster (because reducing input materials stops more casual players from entering the market as they have to train to 4 before they can make a profit). Doing that would mean that people could still operate mega-factories, but they would need an actual organisation with lots of people working together, just like you would in the real world to operate a mega factory. People would also need to decide what they want to buy in and what they want to make in the production chain, which would add value to things like pures, screws and fixings, etc which currently people just make but which collectively cost a fair number of production lines in a factory. Then they can easily balance the game -- assume there are X players, make a basket of the typical expected monthly consumption of things for a player (or several for different player types), work out how many things the economy will make, assume how many players will bother to do industry and to what degree and then set the production times/material requirements accordingly to give entry level opportunities for everyone (perhaps refining right off the automated miners?) and better opportunities for everyone else. With the right balance things will ebb and flow so some items will be overproduced, resulting in others being underproduced. Finally schematics -- I'd make these optional and make them give a bonus to the production speed of an item (quite a big one). So everyone can make things, but if you seriously want to make a lot of money you eventually need the schematic to speed your production up.
  12. But there *is* at least some demand. And if demand were to suddenly skyrocket, things would look good for a little while but inevitably the demand would tail off again at a higher level (because you can't keep increasing demand forever). At that point production would inevitably catch up again because we have unlimited production capability and the period of growth would incentivise more production to be developed. Inevitably the economy would end up back where it is now with bargain-price stacks lingering on the market and nobody who didn't 'go big' able to compete with the ultra-low prices. And at that point there would be people on here saying 'what we need in order to solve this problem is more consumption'.
  13. No, if it creates a massive inconvenience for loads of players while not actually solving the problems then it's not better than nothing. Was the 0.23 patch better than nothing?
×
×
  • Create New...