Jump to content

Creator

Recommended Posts

This Treaty is in the Progress of being built... and all players are invited to participate in its development.

Please view the 2.0 Demetor Treaty document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15tXSv1XQf-ImUwaqBE8TFmwnQXjo_x4L5GlvE1vjx1c/edit?usp=sharing

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Original Post ( Legacy):

I don't know if this will work, but nothing so far seems to get through to the dev's.
To bring peace to the territories of the UEF, and quell the anger and upset across the colonies, I would like to propose the following.

Resolution #1: Alioth Moon 1 or Alioth Moon 4 be terraformed into Sanctuary 2.
1. All structures on the terraformed moon would be magic BP'ed back to their owners.
2. We keep our current Sanctuary TU, as compensation to veterans for their time and efforts to help establish the colonies in Helios.
3. All current and new players be provided a new single Sanctuary TU that can be picked up and moved once a year, and used only on Sanctuary 2.
4. All Sanctuary 2 Tiles give 200L of each T1 ore, (require no taxes), and can run industry. (Partially Met)
5. All original Sanctuary TU's not placed by update that are in inventory could be depreciated.

Sanctuary 2 can be a direct duplicate of Sanctuary 1, ( by lore standards the terraforming process created the same outcome via programmatic algorithm)

What this would do:
1. Provide a clean start for new players where their Sanctuary tiles isn't 30km+ away due to dead tiles by inactive players on current Sanctuary.
2. Allow casuals and builders to form cities/communities together with their single tile to collaborate, move if needed/desired later.
3. Provide 200L of each T1 to help new players survive and build on top of the 150k a day stipend. (Partially met)
4. Provide a small income boost to current players impacted by the ore market crash.

Resolution #2: Make a single HQ tile able to run industry and use mining units without tax

 
What this would do:
1. Would allows us to live at a place of our choosing with very little developer effort.
2. We can pick a tile with the mineral configuration we like.
3. We can pick a tile with the scenery that we like.

4. Us as players could then move these tiles together to form and coordinate our player built cities.
 

Resolution #3: Portible Mining & Industry Units

 
What this would do:
1. Allow the player a ship they can use to mine without territory, could require the ship be still just like territory scanner.
2. No good reason to make industry only work on static constructs.
3. Would allow players to play in a nomadic style if they so choose, which would be highly appealing to some.

4. Reduce the pain induced by tile taxes for casuals as we could just fly our ship around and mine, which would feel great having this freedom!

I know someone won't like this either, but at least it helps the builders and casuals getting screwed atm, and is pretty much a copy paste job for NQ to implement with VERY minimal dev resources. Definitely want to get thoughts, ideas for modification here from other people on the forums, but wanted this to serve a start to mending the issue vs. just burning the forums down every day.

 

@NQ-Pann @NQ-Sesch @NQ-Deckard @NQ-Wave @NQ-Naerais @NQ-Nicodemus @NQ-Rubicon...

Edited by Creator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This fixes some issues but I think any new sanctuary moon should be postponed for the official release. Things are still changing right now and the players that join during official release would likely prefer a new untouched place to call their home.

 

Personal opinions aside, here is my objective feedback on your proposal. Hope it helps.

 

1) From a pure development stance, it would be much easier to just create a second sanctuary moon rather than going through the hassle of repurposing an existing location. What is the benefit of using a preexisting location?

 

3) One of the reasons you can not move your sanctuary unit is to preserve the purity of unused tiles for new players (ie avoid: abandoned constructs, terraformed runways, tunnels, etc). If you want NQ to consider your proposal then you should include suggestions on how to address this issue.

 

4) These proposed changes are easy to implement but some strongly affect game balance. Remember sanctuary is the new/casual player zone. There needs to be some limitation on what you can do on a sanctuary tile to encourage and reward players for leaving it. For example, a player who builds a remote factory in the pvp zone should have some advantage in order to preserve risk vs reward gameplay. What limits would you impose to accomplish this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the solution is to allow players to build and mine in unowned territories.
Players using unowned territories would have to share resources, space and would not have any protection against attacks (pvp zones) or someone buying the territory with a TCU.
If the territory becomes owned, the player will have X days to remove their stuff or it becomes abandoned.

This creates an alternative for casual players and new players, while allowing pros to adquire territories and being protected that way.
This would also go in the direction of "stealth mechanics" as players could opt to not own a territory, not showing in map. (NQ would have to do something about radar detection of cores)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Msoul said:

This fixes some issues but I think any new sanctuary moon should be postponed for the official release. Things are still changing right now and the players that join during official release would likely prefer a new untouched place to call their home.

 

Personal opinions aside, here is my objective feedback on your proposal. Hope it helps.

 

1) From a pure development stance, it would be much easier to just create a second sanctuary moon rather than going through the hassle of repurposing an existing location. What is the benefit of using a preexisting location?

 

3) One of the reasons you can not move your sanctuary unit is to preserve the purity of unused tiles for new players (ie avoid: abandoned constructs, terraformed runways, tunnels, etc). If you want NQ to consider your proposal then you should include suggestions on how to address this issue.

 

4) These proposed changes are easy to implement but some strongly affect game balance. Remember sanctuary is the new/casual player zone. There needs to be some limitation on what you can do on a sanctuary tile to encourage and reward players for leaving it. For example, a player who builds a remote factory in the pvp zone should have some advantage in order to preserve risk vs reward gameplay. What limits would you impose to accomplish this?


1. So the dev's have a hard line stance against making the old Sanctuary TU's moveable for your listed reason.

A.) You keep your old tile where your base is.
B.) You can still harvest resources tax free from previous tile. 
C.) Dev's keep at least one of their promises for once.

2. where did two go? XD

3. A couple of ways that can be handled...

A.) Turn off the ability to terraform on that planet to leave it natural.
B.) Let them have both old/new Sanct TU, or make them choose which is most important to them.
C.) Create a system that restores the terrain to the previous snapshot for that tile if the TU is picked up, cleans it of all constructs. ( personal favorite.)

4. Here are my thoughts on this...

A.) Well the New Sanct TU can only be placed on Sanctuary 2.
B.) Current Sanctuary tile would have have basically the same functionality as an Original Sanctuary tile, just moveable.
C.)  200L of each T1, wouldn't sustain a large factory or allow any player to compete the same way as if they left that tile. But it would allow a casual player/builder some small stock pile of resources to sell or use for basic honeycomb.

D.) Keep in mind it includes no T2-T5 resources.
E.) It is located in same relative location to Alioth.

F.) I would argue, that the game needs stronger incentive to leave Alioth and the safe zone period. Right now gameplay lacks enticement for adventurous players, and the Dev's idea of this balance is to punish builders/casuals that will likely never compete at that level of gameplay you are probably worried about.

G.) From a balance standpoint it is just a free tile without the 1Mh per week tax. So the balance difference is 1Mh weekly. It is small tax wise, but huge for the casual player/builder that doesn't want to org up, or play at a larger scale.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Creator said:

3. A couple of ways that can be handled...

A.) Turn off the ability to terraform on that planet to leave it natural.
B.) Let them have both old/new Sanct TU, or make them choose which is most important to them.
C.) Create a system that restores the terrain to the previous snapshot for that tile if the TU is picked up, cleans it of all constructs. ( personal favorite.)

 

I thin you should only be able to teraform inside a core. Either you can remove all the dirt or just let people only place down dirt in a core. SO that way if you want underground bases it takes chained cores to do it. When you pick them up it fills in the dirt or you cant pick up the core until you fulfill the blueprint of the pristine area befoe you dug it up as a condition. All it needs to to take a snapshot of the core right as you place it down and store the bp in the core till picked up again.

 

They just need to treate the voxels in the core like traditional voxels. Apparently gms have that tool to bore out cores.

 

But the game already tracks the pristine tile and the changes to it. I flattened out 7 tiles paper flat by leveling 3 mountains and a number of valleys to a flat sheet surface. I dont know how many times I would come into land and it looked like I never did anything or suddenly I fell into a gap that hadnt filled in yet and buried my ship as the system built back up the changes 20-30-50m tall changes. Having two copies of the live game also create a lot more lag as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Msoul said:

Things are still changing right now and the players that join during official release would likely prefer a new untouched place to call their home.

 

Many of us are certain NQ has plans to accomodate for that which do not require a new Sanctuary moon for new players coming in at launch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Creator changed the title to The Demeter Treaty 2.0

I have updated the treaty, and will be continuing to build this document as we discuss it. I will be proposing some solutions and welcome solutions, thoughts, feedback from others, as this won't work if it is only me. I also believe this could be significantly more effective than a series of forum threads raging about the issues. ( for which I am greatly guilty of much rage.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 11:33 PM, joaocordeiro said:

I still think the solution is to allow players to build and mine in unowned territories.

 

Originally it was possible to place static constructs on unclaimed tiles

NQ changed this to require the tile first be claimed because some woudl grief others by basically digging under and around such constructs and so NQ did what NQ does and took the easy way out by implementing a generally restrictive condition.

 

Being able to put down a static on unclaimed territory post Demeter would resolve a number of issues and so IMO should be at least reconsidered by NQ ..

 

@NQ-Deckard - any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, just one example of the many quick fixes that made little sense and did more damage then it fixed.

I.e. if a player build on an unclaimed tile, they fully knew the risks associated with that, just like when someone flies out into PvP space. So there essentially was no issue that needed a fix.

 

Same with the construct boarding shields as a more resent example of a quick fix. There are SOOOO many better ways to solve that problem, that dosn't come with all the problems and visual pollution that the shields cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a noble if quixotic effort.  The devs are wedded to  Terr ownership, taxes and terrestrial mining changes - tweaks will not fix.  However if the devs would peg the t1 bots @ 30-40 h/l that would help. Also bots should be set up for t1,2 at EVERY market in the game systemwide if that were implemented I might survive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

Same with the construct boarding shields as a more resent example of a quick fix. There are SOOOO many better ways to solve that problem, that dosn't come with all the problems and visual pollution that the shields cause.

 

Yeah fixing the extremely short spawn distance on doors, forcefields and landing gear, so that players can't just run into any construct very quickly (before the door actually spawns in), woudl be .. well an actual fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MajorMiner said:

Also bots should be set up for t1,2 at EVERY market in the game systemwide if that were implemented I might survive 


This resolution proposal has been added to the document with modifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jake Arver said:

 

Originally it was possible to place static constructs on unclaimed tiles

NQ changed this to require the tile first be claimed because some woudl grief others by basically digging under and around such constructs and so NQ did what NQ does and took the easy way out by implementing a generally restrictive condition.

 

Being able to put down a static on unclaimed territory post Demeter would resolve a number of issues and so IMO should be at least reconsidered by NQ ..

 

@NQ-Deckard - any thoughts?

 

I think that Dynamic mining costructs vs requiring static constructs should be viable.

 

For the most part its less messy perm wise if someone claims the tile and the tile has structures on it vs a ship that could be moved from a newly claimed tile. It makes more sense to have a ship that could mine somewhat like the old system of being able to mine anywhere but at the same time fitting into the new mining system where different ores have different rates and you still need to start the machines with charges.

 

SO allowing for mining ships with the mining units makes more sense and if you do it right you could used them like the scanners and mine 3 tiles at once with different units, tier ores, etc that require multiple mining units to be on board in case you come across higher tiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MajorMiner said:

@Creator  thanks for adopt suggestions.   Devs gotta open other mkts.   As it is now every player is descending on mkt 6. Stoopid


Np, just hoping this is more productive than engaging in arguments with each other from one thread to the next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 1:04 AM, Msoul said:

players that join during official release would likely prefer a new untouched place to call their home.

Yea and that's why the whole solar system will be made "new & untouched". Sorry for your stuff.

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...