Jump to content

Developer team reply to Core Slots limitation v2 Community feedback - discussion thread


NQ-Nyzaltar

Recommended Posts

Nobody asked why you are choosing random construct abandonment, because nobody cares. The only issue is the plainly objective fact that this solution is vastly unacceptable, and you need to find another one. All the narcissistic batshit insane troll logic in the world won't make that fact go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Juvenius Drakonius said:

Do we have a transition period or is it cold turkey? for the organization and personal core limitations

 

Have you read ... anything? Even the disastrous first version of this made it clear there was at least a month before stuff started getting destroyed, and now it's 2-3 months at least, in the very post you're replying to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you NQ for keeping us in the loop.

 

Have you considered a system with which a legate or super legate could use the construct list to see elements/materials on any given org construct? It would assist them in making an informed decision as to what they should chose to remotely abandon in the event they found themselves needing to do so in order to cut the core count down before the random-abandon deadline.

 

It might also help if org-constructs and private constructs had their own folders on the construct list (and if org constructs were separated in to sub-folders by org).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thunderblaze said:

Thank you guys for listening to our concerns and following through. Good post.

 

Can we have more like these the first go around next time? Loving the new community manager.

Nyzaltar is one of the original CM’s
 

Good post Nyz. Keyboard must be smoking right now ?

 

Honestly reading through I surprisingly felt like NQ was caring too much. Don’t add to many bubble wrap layers otherwise some players may try to take advantage of the OTT good will you are presenting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the communications! It I'm s much appreciated. still find it odd that most of your hurdles seem to be from how your own mechanic works. Seems like an overly complicated solution that you are fighting to fit the design/balance need. 

 

My hope is one day the dev team has the opportunity to revisit this from an org talent perspective. It is very odd to me that an org's limitations are defined by the talents and actions of individuals including non org members. This will be weaponized no matter how inconvenient it is. You can't give non members that type of power without it being abused. 

 

Also, I hope there are plans to do something more nuanced and strategic with nations/alliances/cities in the future. There has been no mention or seemingly no consideration of this in the game design so far. Seems like the org system functionality is currently very limited but it is being used as a core pillar of balance.

 

If there is a larger plan for the game where balance actions are taken in Panacea to fit the larger game design the players have virtually no visibility into that process. Speaking to how balance and mechanics play into the long-term design may help us understand your decision making. What is the harm in showing your thought process and work in progress design ideas? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NQ, 2 questions:

 

1) You mention that only player with RDMS right will be able to place cores for the org. Currently is not the case, any of org members can assign constructs to the organisation. So, this behaviour will be changed, right?

 

2) Limit about 5 orgs max per player... So, if I understand correctly, starting from Panacea update there will be no such limit more? As now you can't be the member of more the 5 orgs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Communication. Details. Answers. Finally. Good.

 

Thank you, Nyz and the dev team. Now we can plan for the future in entente cordiale.

 

Every game has its growing pains. Weird to see DU gets theirs from shrinking inside their own skin, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post !

The first part should have been there with the first iteration of core limitation. it would been make less noise.
But anyway, even if i think it is a little bit to much 100 personal core, and 100 core organization, i can understand builders who make big things.

You talk about the roadmap and some tools to facilitate the disassembling a construct but we don't have yet the new roadmap :D

And, this will be my only one question: Can we consider the limitation of 100 personals + 100 org core are a final decision ? or the limite still could change in the short term ?

Edited by Kanamechan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know how many talents points / days are required to train the Organization Construct Management talents, which determine the maximum number of cores that can be donated to an org. This has been requested/mentioned many times, but never clearly described in a way that will allow us to plan accordingly.

 

You are refunding points currently spent in the tree, which is great.

 

You are expanding the benefits of re-training the same tree, for the Legates/Super Legates that choose to do so. (up to 1,625).

 

But at what cost?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Why chosing core units abandonment randomly?

We understand it might seem a strange decision at first glance, but we think it's a necessary measure to prevent some players to abuse the system (like inflating temporarily the number of core unit slots before a war and fill them with junk or "can afford to lose" ships). We did consider ways of selecting which type of constructs should be abandoned first, but in the end we found none exempt from loophole. 

 

What about letting some number of cores be designated as important, akin to setting a Territory as Headquarters.

So if leadership of an organization is taking a break, and people leave (and take their core slots with them), then the org isn't punished by potentially/randomly losing some of their most important assets. For instance a huge factory, or something like that. The limit could be set really low, like 10 cores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mncdk1 said:

What about letting some number of cores be designated as important, akin to setting a Territory as Headquarters.

 

Frankly, as is the case in any busineess (or organisation), you account for shrinkage, which means you never use all your resources to be able to accomodate some not being available or being lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sawafa said:

1) You mention that only player with RDMS right will be able to place cores for the org. Currently is not the case, any of org members can assign constructs to the organisation. So, this behaviour will be changed, right?

 

Following some research we found that a lot of smaller organizations tend to assign legates quite liberally. We believe that could be in part due to the inability to deploy constructs in name of an organization directly. However we found there are some inconsistencies and a new right dedicated to the allocation of constructs to organizations seemed to be the right choice.

So with that, you are correct, this is a new RDMS right we will be implementing. That gives organizations the ability to grant construct assignment capability to members.

This will cover both tokenization and deployment of new cores in the name of the organization. 

 

4 hours ago, Sawafa said:

2) Limit about 5 orgs max per player... So, if I understand correctly, starting from Panacea update there will be no such limit more? As now you can't be the member of more the 5 orgs...

 

This is indeed currently the case, with the ability to create sub orgs branching from the primary orgs to extend beyond that. And thus this was also part of the problem we faced.

As such we are still reviewing this at this time, and will likely monitor the impact of construct slots before any changes to the maximum player org membership are considered.

 

4 hours ago, Kanamechan said:

Can we consider the limitation of 100 personals + 100 org core are a final decision ?

 

Things can always change in the future. However currently, for Panacea, these numbers won't change.

 

3 hours ago, Tional said:

I'd really like to know how many talents points / days are required to train the Organization Construct Management talents, which determine the maximum number of cores that can be donated to an org. This has been requested/mentioned many times, but never clearly described in a way that will allow us to plan accordingly.

 

You are refunding points currently spent in the tree, which is great.

 

You are expanding the benefits of re-training the same tree, for the Legates/Super Legates that choose to do so. (up to 1,625).

 

But at what cost?

 

As I've heard some confusion about this in a few places, I'd like to take a moment to reiterate that the old organization talents that we will be refunding, do not grant you slots.

They simply act as an overarching limit to the absolute maximum amount of constructs permitted inside a single organization.

 

These talents will remain the same in terms of talent point investment cost, however the bonus they apply has been scaled up significantly.

Only the legate with the highest talent benefit apply, and the organization starts with a limit of 0 constructs.

  • The first tier of talents awards an increase of the organizations limit by 25 per level, brining the maximum up to 125 at 5 talent levels invested.
  • The second tier of talents awards an increase of the organizations limit by 75 per level, brining the maximum up to 500 at 5 talent levels invested.
  • The third tier of talents awards an increase of the organizations limit by 225 per level, bringing the maximum up to 1625 at 5 talent levels invested.

 

So bringing your second tier talent to level 2, will effectively set your organizations limit up to the pre-Panacea maximum limit.

 

I hope this answers most of your questions about the upcoming changes and brings you all more understanding. :)

 

- Deckard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:

Following some research we found that a lot of smaller organizations tend to assign legates quite liberally. We believe that could be in part due to the inability to deploy constructs in name of an organization directly.

 

While this may be off topic for this thread, I believe NQ is missing something here. Many orgs will "promote" members to legate becasue there is NO OTHER rank that would give a member extended options/rights within the org. We really need to have a better org structure as in, have different roles that allow different options in orgs beyond what RDMS can provide.

But this really is a discussion for a different topic.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
  • In rare cases where it wouldn’t be enough, the Novaquark team is willing to help players who have large community projects, assuming they don’t gain any particular profit from them, and they’ve been in the limit of “one player personal cores + organization cores limit of one organization (which is 275 pre-Panacea)” and for whom the limit of 200 cores per player is not enough. We know those cases will be quite rare as there are currently less than 40 organizations going beyond the 200 Core limitation.

 

I'm happy to see this consideration. I think it will take some time for NQ to flesh out a good way to accommodate this, but good that it is being recognized as a concerns that needs to be addressed,

 

I do also think that it would not be unreasonable to attach conditions to such allowances, like additional (in game) payment or taxes on the relevant territories as well as locking the cores to said territories. The additional cost could be absorbed by the org or they could charge a fee or "membership" to avail of the projects facilities (races can have entry fees, part of which goes towards paying for the allowance).. This in turn makes the game have more gameplay options, especially in roleplay and player interaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many locations where we need to preserve the great creative work, to be not looted and destroyed. 

My proposal is this: 
To create new status for territory units and constructs. 
It could be something like: CCC (Community Created Content) 
CCC:s could be treated same way as Aphelia owned tiles and constructs. 
CCC status would be assigned by NQ staff only. 

If a dedicated player or group of players wants to continue creating/developing their CCC content NQ could set RDMS to allow it. 
However, if players quit or something else bad happen, CCC tiles and constructs won't disappear, they would stay in Game-world as a public buildings or other common constructs. 

 
Other, maybe even easier solution could be a possibility to tokenize construct and hand it over to “Aphelia”/NQ 

This way we could preserve many great buildings and ships to future generations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, kulkija said:

There are many locations where we need to preserve the great creative work, to be not looted and destroyed. 

My proposal is this: 
To create new status for territory units and constructs. 
It could be something like: CCC (Community Created Content) 
CCC:s could be treated same way as Aphelia owned tiles and constructs. 
CCC status would be assigned by NQ staff only. 

If a dedicated player or group of players wants to continue creating/developing their CCC content NQ could set RDMS to allow it. 
However, if players quit or something else bad happen, CCC tiles and constructs won't disappear, they would stay in Game-world as a public buildings or other common constructs. 

 
Other, maybe even easier solution could be a possibility to tokenize construct and hand it over to “Aphelia”/NQ 

This way we could preserve many great buildings and ships to future generations. 

 

Great minds seems to think alike 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NQ-Deckard said:

 

Following some research we found that a lot of smaller organizations tend to assign legates quite liberally. We believe that could be in part due to the inability to deploy constructs in name of an organization directly. However we found there are some inconsistencies and a new right dedicated to the allocation of constructs to organizations seemed to be the right choice.

It would be also cool to have RDMS right that makes constructs visible for the actors. By visible I mean visible in F4 -> Constructs list. Curently, only legates can see the constructs location. So, if you have "use element" right you can control the ship but you can't find it's location other than ask from the owner (or legate) of the ship or if you are registerd at ship's ressurection node. That is also one of the reason why in a small org legates are "assigned quite liberaly".

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...