Jump to content

Should someone no longer subscribed keep their tiles forever, regardless?


Megabosslord

Recommended Posts

A question for everyone:

One of the guys next to my tile (I've tried contacting all of them, none are active in-game) is no longer subscribed. I know this, because he's the only one who answered my Discord messages - when he asked me to pay him, to sell me his tile, then pulled out of the negotiation saying he'd changed his mind, that it was too hard because he'd have to subscribe again to come in and hand it over. (Yes, I also offered to gift him game time to do it.) How many of the other tiles in DU are owned by people who are no longer subscribed, and not interested in logging back in ever? And should they be left that way, blocking us from expanding our bases forever and ever and ever? Stopping new players from getting good base locations. And stopping anyone from ever mining those resources till the end of time? Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Megabosslord said:

A question for everyone:

One of the guys next to my tile (I've tried contacting all of them, none are active in-game) is no longer subscribed. I know this, because he's the only one who answered my Discord messages - when he asked me to pay him, to sell me his tile, then pulled out of the negotiation saying he'd changed his mind, that it was too hard because he'd have to subscribe again to come in and hand it over. (Yes, I also offered to gift him game time to do it.) How many of the other tiles in DU are owned by people who are no longer subscribed, and not interested in logging back in ever? And should they be left that way, blocking us from expanding our bases forever and ever and ever? Stopping new players from getting good base locations. And stopping anyone from ever mining those resources till the end of time? Your thoughts?

Allowing people to hold tiles forever is a bad idea.  At a minimum there should be some sort of upkeep for them (outside of sanctuary moon).  Perhaps that's coming with the territory changes?

 

There are quite a few players now who can claim whole moons (IIRC it would cost a little over 1 billion to claim the smallest moon which is about a week of mission running for some people) and then they could go AFK forever and leave massive chunks of the game unusable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently, one should not want to take anything away from anyone. There are a lot of players who have played Alpha/Beta and built something there, but are now waiting for the game to get to a better version. So should we punish players for not enduring the current beta? There are so many beautiful buildings in the game, it would be a shame if they disappeared, especially as I'm sure a great many players would come back later.
We should not forget that it is a beta version that is more like an alpha, so it is understandable that not every player finds this version bearable or even wants to endure it for weeks or months. What should you do for months in the game, players want to have fun and experience something in their free time. If I didn't have my building projects, I would be just as bored and would look at other games in the meantime. So if someone took away everything I had built, I would have no reason to come back.
It's also important to remember that the solar system is very big and is still being expanded, so we're still a long way from introducing some kind of tidying up. It's simply unnecessary and only seems to serve as a reason for vultures to look for corpses - disgusting behaviour to me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this isn't really about taking smth from someone - this is a fundamental issue.

 

Atmo warfare / AVA / CVC / CVA will regulate territory in the PVP zone. If someone wants a tile, they can take it.

 

But this is a problem in the safezone - so surely, this has to be adressed by NQ at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost like this idea is something extremely fundamental when understanding how the game scales as an MMO...something that should have been understood ~7 years ago maybe...? 

 

It's absolutely a catch-22 for them.

 

If you churn, there's still a good chance you'll reconvert and sub again someday in the future. If you rejoin the game to find your shit gone? Probably won't continue your sub, especially if you were a hardcore player that invested a lot of time developing a safe zone home. Reconverting churned users is vital for a sub-based MMO. 

 

On the other hand....if you're a new player trying to get set up on one of the safezone worlds, the extra travel time and absurdity of so many dead and mined-out hexes will be a massive turn-off that only becomes worse over time. 

 

IMO the only "everyone wins" solution is to increase the size of game world -- add more systems and planets.

 

Either they have to scale the game world or they need to become an instanced MMO.

 

MMO instancing was designed to solve these design issues, but they didn't want to do that...which is great, if they had considered how to scale the game world to do what instancing does in traditional MMOs.

 

It isn't the only concept where NQ "wanted to be different" without bothering to understand why traditional MMOs use the design they do.

 

In this case, instanced servers -- but also for NPCs, game engine, server platform...each of these they picked something "different" without weighing why the industry standard is what it is and adjusting their design accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...