Upcoming Org Changes

[Zeddrick]

I think this change is definitely going in the correct direction, more limits in the game are needed in order to make it a proper MMO rather than a game with a small number of players with huge assets which nobody can compete with.  And having infinite orgs as a way to circumvent limits was just silly. 

 

I think one superlegate role per player is perhaps going a bit far though.  Something like 3 or 5 (you can only ever be in 5 orgs) seems more sensible to me because it would allow for experimentation, community projects, etc and then just balance the game around that?  Or perhaps we could have a special category of 'sub-org' which has a parent org as a legate but which shares whatever counters NQ don't want to scale infinitely (shared new territory cost, etc).

 

Also NQ if you're reading this, what will you do about unsubbed accounts?  Will players lose their stuff after unsubbing because their personal org got disbanded or will we still be able to have as many orgs as we want and manage them as a tree like we do now so long as we create an army of unsubbed alts to sit in the superlegate role of each one?  If the latter the IRL money cost of, say, 20 one month subs to make 20 unsubbed alts would really make the game pay to win -- some people will be able to easily afford that while others will just have to put up with one account.  Or do you have a cunning plan to fix this problem?

[Aaron Cain]

Well, the problem is not so much that they do this, the problem is they do this now with it being a feature from day 1 community page till few days ago. Ofc. they can do this but to keep the option to make a lot of orgs open for years and years and then after rdms and properties and everything is incorporated, orgs are building up, organizing etc etc, Then you come with this BS just to Again stop the few abusers and still dont act against abuse but hurt all others.

Its abit the same as when you give the whole class an ice cream but they need to stand in a row, now one asshole kid stand at the beginning and then leaves the row and joins in the rear to get a second icecream. Now the teachers see that and they smack 1 icecream from everyones hands, and say its fair. In the end only the asshole got 1 icecream, the rest ice on their shoes. Thats the way NQ solves issues

[Zarcata]

Is there a joint exchange with NQ somewhere here on the subject in the meantime or do we players only write with ourselves?

[Zarcata]

On 6/19/2021 at 4:03 PM, Zeddrick said:

If the latter costs IRL money, say 20 one-month subs to make 20 unubbed alts, would the game really pay to win -- some people will be able to afford that easily, while others will just have to take an account. Or do you have a clever plan to fix this problem?

One could offer a normal subscription and a premium subscription.

The premium subscription gets purely cosmetic upgrades, e.g. simply more cores that you can set. (Independent of an org, but related to the player).

This could certainly be expanded with other cosmetics, but none of these should represent a real advantage in the game at any time.

[SirJohn85]

30 minutes ago, Zarcata said:

One could offer a normal subscription and a premium subscription.

The premium subscription gets purely cosmetic upgrades, e.g. simply more cores that you can set. (Independent of an org, but related to the player).

This could certainly be expanded with other cosmetics, but none of these should represent a real advantage in the game at any time.

 

Cosmetic has a completely different meaning here than what you describe. I think you are confusing things here.

 

Investing more money and gaining an advantage, in your example setting more cores than the player with the "normal" subscription, is no longer cosmetic but pay 2 win. Literally, you buy the power to claim more space with cores to place elements like industry stuff.

 

The term "cosmetic" in its word, would basically mean that it has no influence on the game world and only the appearance, be it for elements or player skin, determines how he is seen by others. This is not the case in your example.

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by SirJohn85
Fixed some wording

[Zarcata]

That depends on how the energy system is inserted into the game. If it is purely tile-related, the number would be uninteresting; if the energy is related to each core, then it is really an advantage.

[Zeddrick]

1 hour ago, Zarcata said:

One could offer a normal subscription and a premium subscription.

The premium subscription gets purely cosmetic upgrades, e.g. simply more cores that you can set. (Independent of an org, but related to the player).

This could certainly be expanded with other cosmetics, but none of these should represent a real advantage in the game at any time.

Sure, but that's not the point of what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is orgs are being limited to one org per player to limit the amount of territory that can be claimed by one person (among other things).  But if all you have to do is subscribe for 1 month, create an org, claim territory then unsub and you keep that territory forever then the people with the most money can have the most territory, which is the definition of pay to win.  

I'm not saying if you have real money items, micropayments, etc it will always be pay to win.  There are plenty of examples of games which manage to sell things and not fall into that trap (although personally I find it immersion breaking in eve, for example, when a t-shirt or paint job for a ship costs 1000x more than a 1km long dreadnought because of the real money items).  I'm just saying that this particular idea of NQs risks falling into the pay to win trap.

[Zarcata]

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. The number of cores has nothing to do with how many tiles an org can occupy. These are two completely different things. An organisation can still take very many tiles, but they become extremely expensive with the number.
What players need more of is the number of cores to build nice things. It was already limited to 275 per org with the last update and will soon be drastically reduced again with the org limit per player to one org.

Before:
1 player: 1000 cores per org x 5 orgs = 5000 cores to build on.

Current: 
1 player: 275 cores per org = 1375 cores to build on.

Soon:
1 player 275 core in one Org = 275 cores to build on.

In 3 scenarios alone, there are also the handful of cores that a player may have himself.

 

[Zeddrick]

1 hour ago, Zarcata said:

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. The number of cores has nothing to do with how many tiles an org can occupy. These are two completely different things. An organisation can still take very many tiles, but they become extremely expensive with the number.
What players need more of is the number of cores to build nice things. It was already limited to 275 per org with the last update and will soon be drastically reduced again with the org limit per player to one org.

Before:
1 player: 1000 cores per org x 5 orgs = 5000 cores to build on.

Current: 
1 player: 275 cores per org = 1375 cores to build on.

Soon:
1 player 275 core in one Org = 275 cores to build on.

In 3 scenarios alone, there are also the handful of cores that a player may have himself.

 

I don't think the org changes are anything to do with the number of cores.  I think they're trying to achieve balance for their upcoming mining changes where you have these clash-of-clans style units that you just put down then collect the stuff out of on a regular basis.  More tiles = more units = more money per day.  So it's all about the territory really.

Also it's silly that there are a lot of players who could literally claim entire moons and the only barrier would be the time taken to do it.

In terms of number of cores, each player can effectively have hundreds of cores by making their own org.  I personally will still be able to have 400 cores after the org changes.  There will be no effective limit to the number of cores as the difference between 200 cores per player and 2,000 cores is essentially meaningless.  Nobody will make that many cores as there will never be any benefit to doing so.  There are definitely individuals with 100s of tiles claimed right now though.

[Zeddrick]

5 hours ago, Zarcata said:

Is there a joint exchange with NQ somewhere here on the subject in the meantime or do we players only write with ourselves?

That's a very good question.  This is the official forum so you'd hope someone reads it. 

 

How about someone from NQ like or reply this post so we know you're listening?

[Noddles]

6 hours ago, Zarcata said:

Is there a joint exchange with NQ somewhere here on the subject in the meantime or do we players only write with ourselves?

There is not. I made this thread specifically because NQ made no discussion thread about these changes. You think having the leaders of 3 of the largest orgs post about the changes would get their attention, but it appears not.

[blundertwink]

4 hours ago, Zeddrick said:

I'm just saying that this particular idea of NQs risks falling into the pay to win trap.

 

It might not be viewed as a trap, though.

 

NQ knows that a very small group of players is making huge, huge amounts of content -- and costing them 1,000s of times more than those 'average' players that dumped their speeder at a market and never logged in again. 

 

They likely want a model where people have to pay more to have more territory...

 

I believe NQ is trying to gear up for their second big marketing push -- they (somehow) believe that the changes they've made since open beta will mean less churn and more profit...but only if they can properly monetize those outlier players that want to build a lot or own a lot of territory. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more restrictions coming. 

[Aaron Cain]

Ingame yesterday they said that they are looking into the suggestions made and how to make things better (in short)

[Zarcata]

On 6/22/2021 at 2:51 PM, Zeddrick said:

In terms of number of cores, each player can effectively have hundreds of cores by making their own org.  I personally will still be able to have 400 cores after the org changes.  There will be no effective limit to the number of cores as the difference between 200 cores per player and 2,000 cores is essentially meaningless.  Nobody will make that many cores as there will never be any benefit to doing so.  There are definitely individuals with 100s of tiles claimed right now though.

I'm sorry, but these very changes are coming soon, less than a month and a player just can't have multiple organisations as head of the org countless cores anymore.

So the changes are in line with that:

1 player has maximum 1 main org with 275 cores and the player's own core count. After that is the end.
You can only get around this limit if you buy other accounts or find players who renounce their own organisation for you and are trustworthy at the same time.

 

23 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

Ingame yesterday they said that they are looking into the suggestions made and how to make things better (in short)

 

 

Many players have already made changes or are in the process of changing everything so as not to lose everything with the patch. If, on the other hand, there should be further changes, it would be great if this information came as soon as possible and was not postponed.

 

[Zeddrick]

6 hours ago, Zarcata said:

I'm sorry, but these very changes are coming soon, less than a month and a player just can't have multiple organisations as head of the org countless cores anymore.

So the changes are in line with that:

1 player has maximum 1 main org with 275 cores and the player's own core count. After that is the end.
You can only get around this limit if you buy other accounts or find players who renounce their own organisation for you and are trustworthy at the same time.

 

 

Well, it depends how many characters you have doesn't it?  If you have 2 because, say, you are an alpha backer then you can have 2 orgs.  And a lot of backers have 5 subscription-free accounts at the moment I think ...

 

400 for me is with 2 orgs, one on each character.  But, again, that's not the point I was making.

[Aaron Cain]

Well the plot thickens.

If i recall correctly we are all gone have 3 alts per account as this was stated previously by NQ.

Best would be to implement that prior to these changes just to help some community leaders with project orgs like tortuga.

What is the use of first killing off all this orgs and stuff and then few months later introducing the alts per account.  Waste of time, money and effort of some of the greatest community leaders.

@NQ-Admin When can we expect to get the 3 chars per account? and would it not be wise to implement that prior to the destruction of organizations?

 

Also if we now do the calculation again, do it times 3 and you get about 1000 cores per player. abit much dont you think so? then some have alt accounts and then it goes up rapidly

[Zarcata]

i play with one Account since september 2020. Unfortunately I didn't know anything about the game or the Kickstarter programme beforehand.

[GraXXoR]

7 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

Well the plot thickens.

If i recall correctly we are all gone have 3 alts per account as this was stated previously by NQ.

Best would be to implement that prior to these changes just to help some community leaders with project orgs like tortuga.

What is the use of first killing off all this orgs and stuff and then few months later introducing the alts per account.  Waste of time, money and effort of some of the greatest community leaders.

@NQ-Admin When can we expect to get the 3 chars per account? and would it not be wise to implement that prior to the destruction of organizations?

 

Also if we now do the calculation again, do it times 3 and you get about 1000 cores per player. abit much dont you think so? then some have alt accounts and then it goes up rapidly

3 alts per account? I know we have beta keys but was not aware we were going to be "gifted" with alts...

When you say 3 Alts, do u mean 3 total or 3 Alts for a total of 4? I usually consider myself to have 1 main account and 4 alts which I log in to to apply their skills to various builds/industry.

[Aaron Cain]

Think it was 3 total, but dont ask me where to find it back.

[CoyoteNZ]

2 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

Think it was 3 total, but dont ask me where to find it back.

I think it was stated in the original kickstarter description?

[Knight-Sevy]

Too much abuse with the current organizational system, this change is necessary. Unfortunately the organizational system is also to be reviewed. It is inconceivable that we cannot manage our assets like a state to protect against betrayal and player turnover ...

 

But do you have big ambition? It's all about using resources that match your ambitions.

Do you need thousands of cores? Buy additional accounts!

Don't want to buy a secondary? Lower your ambitions.

[Zarcata]

1 hour ago, Knight-Sevy said:

Too much abuse with the current organizational system, this change is necessary. Unfortunately the organizational system is also to be reviewed. It is inconceivable that we cannot manage our assets like a state to protect against betrayal and player turnover ...

 

But do you have big ambition? It's all about using resources that match your ambitions.

Do you need thousands of cores? Buy additional accounts!

Don't want to buy a secondary? Lower your ambitions.

That is really very shallow thinking!
One could also aim for the same thing with a "premium account". If you want more cores-> then buy the premium subscription. Why should you buy many more accounts that have to be logged in and out again and again, and that make for more workload overall? It won't make the game any fuller or livelier.

And again: What does this game offer apart from infinite building? The PvP is atrocious at the moment, there is no sign of balance far and wide.
So what else is there? A little economy through the markets and the industrial plants, totally long-term motivating...or not, because you can automate almost everything, as long as enough ores are available....you don't even have to fly to the markets yourself or fetch goods back, you can run them as orders. So is DU mutating into an ingame browser or are we still allowed to play ourselves...?

I can understand why JC made the decisions he did, I think he can't do what he originally wanted to do with the game anymore.

 

[Knight-Sevy]

41 minutes ago, Zarcata said:

That is really very shallow thinking!
One could also aim for the same thing with a "premium account". If you want more cores-> then buy the premium subscription. Why should you buy many more accounts that have to be logged in and out again and again, and that make for more workload overall? It won't make the game any fuller or livelier.

And again: What does this game offer apart from infinite building? The PvP is atrocious at the moment, there is no sign of balance far and wide.
So what else is there? A little economy through the markets and the industrial plants, totally long-term motivating...or not, because you can automate almost everything, as long as enough ores are available....you don't even have to fly to the markets yourself or fetch goods back, you can run them as orders. So is DU mutating into an ingame browser or are we still allowed to play ourselves...?

I can understand why JC made the decisions he did, I think he can't do what he originally wanted to do with the game anymore.

 

 

In alpha, we have had a limitation of barely ten core units per perssonage.
It was a limiation of NQ already purely economic at the time.

We are now at over 250 cores per perssonage.

 

The upgrade was really substantial. But NQ screwed up again and let players exploit flaws in their mechanics and abused. 

And of course we see you all coming to cry today. It is not your fault but that of NQ we agree. Except that it is so. 

This limitation appears to be mandatory.

 

You have to stop being selfish.
If it costs too much for NQ there will just be no more play. So yes you have to pay for your ambitions. This is how the economic system will work.