Jump to content

DEVBLOG: CONSTRUCTION SLOTS AND STACKED ELEMENTS - discussion thread


NQ-Wanderer

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Thunderblaze said:

image.thumb.png.335aff17399859ac03bdc5ad814ff77c.png

I didn't vote on this.

The first question has a more nuanced answer than yes/no and NQ hasn't given us a response to our feedback.  They've made changes based on community feedback in the past, and I believe they will here.

The second question is irrelevant, based on unannounced info, and has a real negative inference when NQ hasn't even gotten a chance to make an official statement on it.  It's unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fridaywitch said:

I didn't vote on this.

The first question has a more nuanced answer than yes/no and NQ hasn't given us a response to our feedback.  They've made changes based on community feedback in the past, and I believe they will here.

The second question is irrelevant, based on unannounced info, and has a real negative inference when NQ hasn't even gotten a chance to make an official statement on it.  It's unfair.

 

Luckily your vote doesn't matter in more ways than one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.2d76b4ca5d480c390b7f5d9bed7c5735.png


Deckard...... we need atleast 50 slots..... atleast. 

instead of the pointless 120 talent points we get off of achivements what about a new constrcut slot or something of that manner. I think it would be a good way too limit players who dont need as much slots compared to those that doo. also would be cool if those slots could also be granted/revoked forming a economy of scale around construct cores.... IDK anything but 25, its not even enough to sustain the amount of charges you gave us last week.  The changes are starting to make no sense and NQ is loosing touch with there community, like idek if yall play the game, if you did you would understand the frustation people are having and you would be able to voice our concerns correctly, but currently this is worse than what politicians do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The limits proposed in this devblog are massively out-of-touch with how people want to play this game. It's sensible to place limits on things but these are much too low, excluding the total core count for orgs - that seems fine. 42 cores are just not enough for one player to have the play they want, and contribute to an org. Something more appropriate would be 50 for personal and 50 for org donation. What happens when you hit 42 and want to build something new - you can't so you don't. If you can't build and play, then why pay a sub? With 50/50 you'd have enough for respectable solo play and 50 to use on a larger project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PsychoSlaughter said:

The limits proposed in this devblog are massively out-of-touch with how people want to play this game. It's sensible to place limits on things but these are much too low, excluding the total core count for orgs - that seems fine. 42 cores are just not enough for one player to have the play they want, and contribute to an org. Something more appropriate would be 50 for personal and 50 for org donation. What happens when you hit 42 and want to build something new - you can't so you don't. If you can't build and play, then why pay a sub? With 50/50 you'd have enough for respectable solo play and 50 to use on a larger project.

This. It would also be nice for those of us that build a lot of stuff to get the advanced corp construct skill add 5 to 10% on top of that for those of us that would train it, even if it took a long time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a player that has been playing since the start of beta I consider myself fairly conservative in the amount of cores I have compared to many other long term players. I've accumulated multiple bases, a few player ran shops, space stations, and a few dozen ships. I also run quite a few mining  I am also apart of a few orgs that have very large projects (cities that are well over 200 cores). Most players that have been playing for more than a few months utilize a personal org where they are the Super Legate and have trained the talents to expand the amount of constructs they can have. Simply put the current limit of 17 personal slots is far too low. With the latest patch of Mining Units and those each requiring a core to mine I am well beyond what the proposed changes will allow even designating 100% of my allotted slots to my personal org and have none to donate to other orgs. This also includes the cores from my 1 alt account as well which would bring my total allotted cores to 74. At this point I would not only have to reduce the amount of cores I own currently, but would prevent me as a player progressing further in the game.  I believe that player contribution to an org could be a step in the right direction, but there should be a baseline of construct slots that an org has that can be increased through means of contributing players, but not at the cost of limiting that player. 

 

I completely understand that nesting orgs are a problem that need to be addressed. Currently, with T5 talents an org tops out at 275 constructs, and can essentially have infinite sub orgs resulting in there being no limit. First and foremost this need to be corrected instead of implementing a fix that will negatively effect all players, instead of just those that are abusing the current system. I believe a good way of doing this without eliminating sub orgs would be to make it so that Orgs that have another Org as a Super Legate are either not given any constructs by default, or given a very small amount.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahaha ... this is just comedy ...

 

I was already at the limit when I stopped playing because as a ship builder I did need many cores, for each ship I showcased, plus the base/showroom itself, then the bloody MUs ... but now ...

 

Anyway, I don't really care anymore ...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Suggestion to ease everyone's pain. Release an XL static and XXL static with this update. Wider than they are tall. A bigger copy paste area as well. I heard size of construct matters much less than the amount of constructs. Seems true from your solution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, choxie said:

So you don't even know if this is the case and yet everyone is losing their mind? Absolutely ridiculous playerbase.

 

Please NQ do not listen to these 1%ers who somehow can't get along with 1600 cores

Of course I know this is the case.  I can read and do basic arithmetic.  If each player can donate up to 25 cores, but you'll be lucky to get more than 10 from most, then 1600 (or whatever it is) needs to be made up from approx 150 players.  It's never going to be fewer than 1600/25, which is still 64 players.

How about we stick to useful comments about the feature rather than commenting on other peoples comments without reading them properly eh?

And NQ, can we have a 'dislike'/'Downvote' button here as well as the heart please so we can filter the fools out like you can on reddit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems, as I see them: 

  1. The proposed limits are too low.  This change ideally shouldn't affect the average player, but only the top 1% who have an excessive amount of constructs - but after the MU updates, most players probably have more than 42 cores already, just to maintain their MUs
  2. There is no incentive for a player to give their slots to an org, rather than keeping them (in their own solo org), which makes large community projects less feasible
  3. Having org slots and user slots come from the same pool discourages orgs as a whole; a user shouldn't have to sacrifice their solo play capabilities in order to participate in an org, and if nobody donates, orgs won't be able to ... do anything
  4. There is abuse potential if users can arbitrarily revoke core slots they've given

 

What this is supposed to solve: 

  1. Currently, any given player can create an infinite number of constructs, by creating and nesting orgs with only one member - this isn't feasible for a persistent world, or for servers, and doesn't encourage community projects since a solo player could do it on their own

 

What could be done instead: 

  1. Fix sub-orgs in any way
    • Just fix the 4 orgs per player, to actually only allow 4 orgs per player, even if they created them

I was going to come up with a lot of possible solutions but once I hit on that one... 

 

It's a longstanding bug, I don't think it was ever intended that players could be in more than 4 orgs, and if that alone was fixed, solo players no longer have infinite constructs.

 

The current system is quite good, encourages users to make and join orgs because everyone benefits from it, and thus encourages community projects.  If you can solve the problem of players being able to join unlimited orgs, then the core counts just need to be tuned, not remade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have more to say on the core limits (and on removing cores in general) but will think on it more first.  In the meantime, why is there now an arbitrary distinction between 'personal' and 'org' cores?  A lot of players now have multiple accounts and for those players personal cores are going to be a huge pain, so most probably create an org and put all their cores into that for convenience (make all your characters legates and never have to mess about with RDMS).  I'm sure I'm not the only one doing this.

For players with a personal org, the player-specific core slots seem a bit redundant.  I certainly don't/won't use mine because it's too annoying to need to use a specific character for specific things.  But I'm sure there is another category of player who has just one account and no personal org.  For them the org-specific core slots are probably just as redundant and annoying to use.

 

So why have we got two different pools of construct slots at all?  Why not just have one set of skills for a character which says how many cores they can have, then they can donate some of those to orgs and whatever is left over is for the character's personal constructs.

Perhaps use multiple skills and make it go higher.  It could go up to 100 with a series of skills which have longer and longer training times so in order to actually get 100 constructs on a character you need to devote several months of training.  That would act as a brake to stop *everyone* from having a lot of cores but those who really need them will train them.

 

Also with this change I think it's naive to think that most orgs will get any slots from their members at all.  Slots are going to be at a real premium and I imagine it will be possible to rent them out to other players for a monthly fee.  Orgs will probably have to pay their players for slots ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I echo the sentiments of many here relating to the core count changes. The proposed numbers are way too low in a game with a primary pillar of creative building with "their imagination being their limit". Personal core count with maxed talents has always been way too low, which led players to create personal organizations in order to continue with their creativity beyond those tight constraints. This has been compounded by the changes with mining that drove an increase in core usage in order to get materials for building (or for something to sell in order to purchase materials).

 

I do understand the need for limits and the drivers behind this proposed change. However, this is far too extreme. I would suggest at least doubling but ideally tripling both personal and organization core counts. Tripling the current personal core count on the existing personal talents would grant a max of 45 trained plus the 2 free for a total of 47 personal cores allowed. Likewise, tripling the proposed organization count would provide 45 base core slots that could be donated, with an additional 30 if the proper skills are trained. It would be fine to retain the same proposed maximum possible cores for an organization, but would give players more flexibility in donating slots to organizations and using slots themselves. It would also give creators the ability to still scale their core count a bit higher with a personal organization (but still below the current maxed-talent levels under the Organization Construct Management tree).

 

Alternately, you could skip these changes altogether and tie a single new role to organizations in general. This role would be one specific designated individual to be the "core master" for an organization. Players could only be the "core master" for a single organization and apply their Organization Construct Management skills to that organization. This would eliminate the need to do anything else, as all organizations would need their own unique "core master" to benefit from the talents in that tree to provide cores for the organization. (While there is an impact to an organization if this player leaves the role, any organization that plans to grow and thrive could and should be prepared for this by having others in the organization who have planned for this by training the proper skills that could be assigned this role if that occurred.)

 

Thanks for your consideration in reviewing this input.

 

GT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reposting this from the vote page here to make sure my voice is heard.

 

"I'm just absolutely astounded at the proposed core limit.  Assuming you have your talents maxed for org constructs, you get 25 plus your 15 personal.  I had guessed something like this was coming, but I imagined maybe a 100 core limit for orgs and only one personal org per player.  This is just astounding.  I really feel like I should be mad, but I'm so burnt out on taking what changes we are given and working around them that I just cannot muster anything other than shocked laughter." 

 

It's not my intention to be disrespectful of NQ, though I get that it comes across harsh when said in the heat of emotion.

 

I am disappointed with this idea. 

 

I have roughly 50 cores.  I can consolidate some cores, put static hallway displays and statues on the static grid. I don't have alts and I only have one org.  To be told I'm over max cores immediately is stressful and the immediate reaction to that is to be angry. 

 

People would say that the point is to join organizations, but frankly I don't trust people very easily and I'm not looking to join a group that treats me as a source of ore, or now as a source of core slots, ignoring my priorities in game.  There will be people who don't want to play in groups and they shouldn't be excluded or limited in play.  

 

I would have been ok with maybe a 100 core total limit.  I could easily cut down my core count but I think the proposed limit is far too harsh, if not for myself then for other players who have built larger installations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feedback? I'll give you feedback...

 

The Demiter patch drove away the miners and others who remember grinding WoW's daily quests and didn't want to play that stupid calibration minigame all the time. The builders and ship collectors stayed because they could still build and collect.

Now this? This will drive them away as well.

 

Now... there are two aspects to this change. One is from a game design perspective and one is from a server cost perspective.

If you're doing this for a cost saving perspective, you're literally shooting yourself in the foot. I'm certain this will lose you a good chunk of paying subscribers. I doubt you're going to attract anyone who has already left to come back. And people looking for a new game to play generally consider a declining playerbase as a bit of a red flag.

 

From a game design perspective, I can somewhat understand the change. There is too much junk everywhere. Maybe you want there to be more players involved in massive construction projects? Whatever the reason, this change is too much too fast. (non-ship) Builders don't just want to build stuff and tear it down. They want to see that they have made a lasting mark on the world. Currently this requires cores. Oh so many cores. This change shrinks the possibilities from virtually infinite to finite. You can only do so much before you're "done". Then what?

 

Ship builders want to build ships. They might have several in progress at any one time and work on whichever one strikes their fancy at the time. They might be working in parallel on multiple commissions? They probably want to put their ships up for display. Not that it's going to matter much because:

 

Collectors. I'd guess that collectors are the only real driving elements of the current economy. They are the ones that buys ships form the ship builders. They are the ones that like to keep their collections around so that they may enjoy the view. This keeps ship elements out of circulation and creates demand for new ones. I think this is the category that will be hit hardest by this change. They can't blueprint their collections because DRM. That leaves selling them or stripping them down for parts (or just up and quit, I guess). This will flood the market for ships and parts. Since collectors won't be able to buy stuff ship and part sales will go down -my guess- drastically.

 

So... my suggestions:

1) Increase the number of slots. Roughly keep what you are currently suggesting per player for org slots, but with the following addition

  • a PLAYER legate or super legate adds 20 slots
  • a PLAYER member adds 5 slots
  • an ORG legate or member adds 0 slots

This is in addition to what has already been proposed. I do like the idea of giving players the option to support projects they like or boost their org's ability to field cores, but I feel this will be extremely rare if players feel they need their org cores for themselves

 

2) Hold off with the initial abandonment of constructs for longer. 30 days is not enough. Save it for next patch, if it is still needed

 

3a) For dynamic constructs, give us the option to "park" it. Making it non-interactable, but also not requiring a slot. This could be a solution for collectors and ship builders to still have a display without needing to spend excessive cores on it 

 

3b) For dynamic constructs, give us a "limited" unrestricted ability to "pocket" a construct. By limited I mean that it could be done with a industry machine, only placeable on a static construct and the resulting "blueprint" could be a non-item that resides in the machine until it is redeployed. Key point is being able to pack/store/archive a ship without tearing it apart

 

 

Random rant questions:

What in the name of your deity of choice was the reasoning behind requiring 3 cores to be placed to auto mine 3 territories when a single larger one would do? How well do you feel this synergies with the new proposed changes?

 

There seems to be a disconnect between devs and players on how many cores is reasonable per player. How many cores with mining units do NQ expect players to have? How many ships? How big bases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it ironic that we are going to nerf active players and take away their end game activities when  the game is full of constructs from inactive players.  Let's get those cleaned up first and then, assuming that the number of players start increasing again, address this later is a more measured manner.  Under no circumstances should an organizations constructs randomly abandon.  Freezing the ability to build more as it is today is more appropriate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thunderblaze said:

With this change, Sanctuary can now have abandoned cores.

 

What happened to Sanctuary always being safe NQ?

This is a really good point actually.  Despawning constructs in other places might technically be OK because nobody ever said they were safe, but this is exactly what sanctuary was for.  I remember when it was introduced there was a video where JC explained that this was going to be a place where you could put your things and they would be safe until you came back into the game.

Now there are two ways to lose your sanctuary constructs -- they can be owned by one character and parked on the tile belonging to another of your characters or they can be yours but your org now has too few slots to hold them, possibly *because you are unsubbed and so cannot put back the org construct talents and assign the slots to your org*.

IMO this goes directly against what was said before, and some players may well have unsubscribed after moving everything to sanctuary based on the assurances given previously about that being a safe way to leave things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 8driver said:

I find it ironic that we are going to nerf active players and take away their end game activities when  the game is full of constructs from inactive players.  Let's get those cleaned up first and then, assuming that the number of players start increasing again, address this later is a more measured manner.  Under no circumstances should an organizations constructs randomly abandon.  Freezing the ability to build more as it is today is more appropriate.

 

But surely you can see the problem with that?  I have 25 slots to give.  I give it to org A.  I put 25 constructs into A.  I take it away and give it to org B.  I put 25 more constructs into B, and so on.

Of course it could be that the constructs get frozen somehow (like they do when tokenized) instead of being abandoned.  But then a lot of constructs like runways, landing pads, showrooms, etc would probably still work as intended when frozen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English (deepl used)

Personally, I have never reached the limit of 17 cores. I have a compact ship in my inventory and otherwise only ships that I am building are registered on my avatar. All other constructs belong to my organisations. Therefore, the number of cores of 25 is not sufficient, even if you put all ships that are not in use in containers and as a blueprint (PreAlpha max. 5 cores). Therefore, the number of cores for organisations should be increased to at least 50.

Otherwise, I think the concept is good, especially the allocation of cores to organisations to which one does not belong.

 

 

Quote

 

German (original)

Persönlich bin ich nie an die Grenze von 17 Kernen gekommen. Ich habe ein Kompaktschiff im Inventar und sonst nur Schiffe die ich gerade baue auf meinen Avatar angemeldet. Alle andere Konstrukte gehören meinen Organisationen. Daher ist die Kernanzahl von 25 nicht ausreichen, auch dann nicht wenn man alle Schiffe die nicht in Benutzung sind in Containern und als Blueprint ablegt (PreAlpha max. 5 Kerne). Daher sollte die Anzahl an Kernen für Organisationen auf mindestens 50 erhöht werden.

Ansonsten finde ich das Konzept gut, insbesondere die Vergabe an Kerne zu Organisationen denen man nicht angehört.

 

 

Die Waldfee
 

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...