Hi Devs, can we please have tis platform on top of market 6 removed

[Warlander]

35 minutes ago, NQ-Deckard said:

Hello everyone,

 

To be very clear, this is not the right place to report constructs.

We have a new in-game reporting feature which you can use to simply right-click on a construct and report it, that goes directly to the GM's.

 

I hope this clear this up.

- Deckard

 

Its not like you are actually doing anything about them. Should we report all the constructs at the markets then?

 

Do you guys enjoy doing all this pointless work? There should be a tool to do this so you guys can actually make a game.

[Atmosph3rik]

43 minutes ago, NQ-Deckard said:

Hello everyone,

 

To be very clear, this is not the right place to report constructs.

We have a new in-game reporting feature which you can use to simply right-click on a construct and report it, that goes directly to the GM's.

 

I hope this clear this up.

- Deckard

 

The in game reporting feature only has categories for offensive names/shapes/screen content.  Should we be using it for situations like this, or other griefing/exploit type situations?

 

If so could more categories be added?

[Gottchar]

17 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

There is more then one structure up there.

And ironically I am unable the rapport them because the shield thing is preventing me from landing and selecting the "Rapport abuse" option.

 

1 hour ago, NQ-Deckard said:

To be very clear, this is not the right place to report constructs.

We have a new in-game reporting feature which you can use to simply right-click on a construct and report it, that goes directly to the GM's.

 

[antanox]

1 hour ago, NQ-Deckard said:

Hello everyone,

 

To be very clear, this is not the right place to report constructs.

We have a new in-game reporting feature which you can use to simply right-click on a construct and report it, that goes directly to the GM's.

 

I hope this clear this up.

- Deckard

as cptLoRes stated its not possible to report, since the boarding rejection is preventing to get close enough to do so

[Warlander]

3 minutes ago, antanox said:

as cptLoRes stated its not possible to report, since the boarding rejection is preventing to get close enough to do so

 

Gotta love that they dont even know their own mechanics.

[antanox]

5 minutes ago, Warlander said:

 

Gotta love that they dont even know their own mechanics.

well to be fair, i asume they do, but its kind of an edge case, is asume landing on a construct to use the popup menu might have been an overlooked test case

 

reporting might be possible sacrificing the ship used to fly up there and jumping over.....

[Creator]

5 minutes ago, Warlander said:

 

Gotta love that they dont even know their own mechanics.

I think these types of situations are exactly why we don't see NQ on very much... cause it looks bad for them.

[Creator]

1 minute ago, antanox said:

reporting might be possible sacrificing the ship used to fly up there and jumping over.....

If that construct was a hoop, one could say you are literally jumping through hoops to report abuse now... ?

[NQ-Deckard]

22 hours ago, antanox said:

well to be fair, i asume they do, but its kind of an edge case, is asume landing on a construct to use the popup menu might have been an overlooked test case

 

reporting might be possible sacrificing the ship used to fly up there and jumping over.....

You would indeed be correct in that it is an edge case,

 

However, even from the ground you have the ability to file a generic report if you feel you need to.

For example:

 

 

- Deckard

[Anopheles]

On 12/5/2021 at 6:34 PM, Zeddrick said:

OK, so moving on collision would only apply to ships not in contact with the ground.  

Although 'district 6 bowling' would be a hilarious way to keep it clean of junk.

Actually sweeping the constructs off a market's forecourts at midnight every 48 hours is a beautifully simple and elegant solution, if paired with a naturalistic scavenging system.  Jawa economics?

[Novean-32184]

18 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:

You would indeed be correct in that it is an edge case,

 

In my opinion it is an edge case only because NQ allows it to be.

 

Players should not be allowed to leave constructs around markets beyond a reasonable time needed to be there. And in that respect 24 hours seems more than reasonable.

 

SO:

• If a construct is stationary on or over a market tile for more than 24 hours, despawn the construct and store a magic blueprint of it at the "Aphalia Impound Office" which could be set up at the tutorial building at the ARK ship.
• A fee is charged for retrieval, this fee is incremental both related to the number of times a player leaves constructs at markets and the duration it is left in impound
• After a reasonable amount of time, say 14 days, the magic blueprint is either destroyed or offered up for sale on an "Impound Auction"

 

Simple, clear rules using existing system in game so little dev resource cost.

 

 

The above, or similar, has been suggested way back to before "Beta". NQ has not ever provided any sort of arguments why this woudl not be feasible. Instead NQ has takes a number of actiosn which will have been far more costly in dev time and resourcees, none of which have really had a significant effect. Following the last set of "rules" it's quite clear  players do not follow them an dthey are not enforced in any way. The passive and inconsistent behaviour by NQ in this regard is what creates the "egde cases".

[CptLoRes]

1 hour ago, Jake Arver said:

• If a construct is stationary on or over a market tile for more than 24 hours, despawn the construct and store a magic blueprint of it at the "Aphalia Impound Office" which could be set up at the tutorial building at the ARK ship.
• A fee is charged for retrieval, this fee is incremental both related to the number of times a player leaves constructs at markets and the duration it is left in impound
• After a reasonable amount of time, say 14 days, the magic blueprint is either destroyed or offered up for sale on an "Impound Auction"

Simple, clear rules using existing system in game so little dev resource cost.

 

This is a simplification of the parking fee solution. And while this version would solve the specific problem with district spam, I still think they should implement a more complete parking fee system instead. And the reason for that is that we need a system that not not only works for districts, but for player tiles also.

 

[Anopheles]

12 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

 

This is a simplification of the parking fee solution. And while this version would solve the specific problem with district spam, I still think they should implement a more complete parking fee system instead. And the reason for that is that we need a system that not not only works for districts, but for player tiles also.

 

You should also be able to levy parking fees (oh let's be nice and give a 48hr window after issuing to remove Constructs) on your own hex.  Maybe even ley players compete with market parking for an income stream.  

 

After 48 hrs, you own the construct on your hex.  This is an easy alternative to players insuring their ships against salvaging

[CptLoRes]

Exactly. And is it this type of functionality together with player driven markets and the ability to largely dictate the rules for a tile you own, that is needed to get any type of real player driven content/economy and player centralization in the game. And it is what the game was supposed to be from the beginning. NQ made the tools, and the players made content. But without the tools, the players never had a chance..

 

[Warlander]

On 12/7/2021 at 9:14 AM, NQ-Deckard said:

You would indeed be correct in that it is an edge case,

 

However, even from the ground you have the ability to file a generic report if you feel you need to.

For example:

 

 

- Deckard

 

There is a point to where adding a system to report constructs becomes a tedious unnecessary use of your support staff or dev staff to have to go and do all of this manually. These types of systems are often abused more then what they are intended to do. In a sense you could now report everything at the market and someone in your team has to go and check it out. It seems like a chore and a waste of time.

 

There has always been a need for parking fees or fines and now you built a tax system. Apply that to all constructs at the market by tier. L cores are 1mil a piece, M cores 750k, S cores 500k, and XS cores 250k a day to park per week or half that per day. If you dont pay up by the end of the week your ship gets booted to where you cant move it or fly it without paying. If you dont pay by next week then your ship is salvageable. 

 

Or you could charge per day and charge based on a players total exp pool the construct is attached to. If for instance someone has 50mil exp they could afford the 500k per day parking fee. vs a new player with 4mil being charged a lot less.

 

Something has to give this this Deckard as you guys dont need to be doing all this work and everyone needs cleared out markets you can use without all the lag, scripts, and insanity that is and has always been the markets.

 

And on top of that NQ really needs to come up with a sepperate system for those who want to store items at the market with some kind of personal/org storage locker system so you dont need hundreds of containers clogging up the bottoms of markets.

 

NQ also needs to add another ship dealership market at markets to where you can sell ships by turning them into a golden blueprint at the ship dealership market terminals that allows you to select a ship, see the stats, render the ship model like a modern car selling website to where you can rotate the 3D model to see what it looks like and zoom in and just buy a ship from the market and spawn the golden BP at the same market tile and fly it off the lot. There is no reason to let people sell ships at markets.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Warlander