Suggestion for dynamic ore pools

[Talocan]

Static ore pools are, IMO, a threat to the longevity of DU. They ensure that the barrier to entry will constantly increase, and there's no meaningful way to take a territory from someone without their consent.

 

I would propose the following: As you mine a territory, it begins to deplete the available ore pool (fewer L/h will be available). As the amount you mine increases, the depletion increases quadratically. Mining units will be configurable to mine less than their base rate if you so choose. To prevent calibration cheesing, each tile will have a limited number of calibrations/day/resource that spawn rocks. This gives you the choice between mining slowly but being able to extract more profit overall from the territory, or mining as fast as you can and sucking the life out of the land and moving. Even at maximum mining draining a territory should be at least a two-week affair. As the ore amount decreases, it respawns elsewhere on a tile flagged as able to have ore of that tier. (I don't think we need to apply this system to t1 ore because it's not hard to find). Those tiles should include all tiles that currently have ore of that tier, plus a bunch of other random ones. Each depletion tick (maybe once a day), a few tiles that have ore of that tier are randomly selected and the lost ore is added to their pools. This ensures that we don't suffer a "heat death" of ores, where they end up distributed in a relatively even and low-profit configuration. This means that ore deposits will be harder to monopolize and scanning will be a perpetual affair, rather than just a two-week frenzy when a new planet is added.

[Gillwin]

The whole moving ore around idea is flawed and destroys 2 of the basic pillars this game is based on.
 

Who is going to want to build anything on a tile if the ore is not stable and moves around.  I build my large multicore factory on a tile because of the ore,  i am not going to move all those cores every 2 weeks to a new tile.  All my mining stations are fancy M core structures, which i again am not going to want to have to relocate every 2 weeks.  One of the main pillars in the game is building and you basically are wiping that away.  The only strategic place really left to build is in space.  I know some will build for the view on planets, but one of the main reasons for building a building with a purpose will be wiped away.

Second is territory warefare.  I know it is not in game now (or near future).  Who in there right mind will fight over a tile if all they have to do is wait 2 weeks and get it without a chance of major loss?  The purpose for future expansion of pvp will basically be wiped away.  I know some will fight just because they can, but a lot of players are willing to fight if there is a reason to fight, this takes away that reason.

 

I am not saying there is not a problem with ore distribution but people need to come up with a better solution that does not break just as many things as it may solves.

[Talocan]

8 minutes ago, Gillwin said:

The whole moving ore around idea is flawed and destroys 2 of the basic pillars this game is based on.
 

Who is going to want to build anything on a tile if the ore is not stable and moves around.  I build my large multicore factory on a tile because of the ore,  i am not going to move all those cores every 2 weeks to a new tile.  All my mining stations are fancy M core structures, which i again am not going to want to have to relocate every 2 weeks.  One of the main pillars in the game is building and you basically are wiping that away.  The only strategic place really left to build is in space.  I know some will build for the view on planets, but one of the main reasons for building a building with a purpose will be wiped away.

Second is territory warefare.  I know it is not in game now (or near future).  Who in there right mind will fight over a tile if all they have to do is wait 2 weeks and get it without a chance of major loss?  The purpose for future expansion of pvp will basically be wiped away.  I know some will fight just because they can, but a lot of players are willing to fight if there is a reason to fight, this takes away that reason.

 

I am not saying there is not a problem with ore distribution but people need to come up with a better solution that does not break just as many things as it may solves.

I appreciate your concerns, but as for 1 the only reason to build nice things is vanity. A box works just as well as a work of architecture. My miners on my calibration tiles are an XS core and a box hooked up to the mining unit. You can still build something beautiful on a HQ tile.

 

As for 2, I'd definitely be down to revisit this once TW comes out since it won't be needed if there's a way to change a tile's ownership without the owner's consent. This would be a stopgap until TW comes out.

[Gillwin]

This is a building game (at least as one of the main pillars), so lets come up with a better solution that does not break probably the best part of the game currently.  

[Kezzle]

I think the concern about people not building things any more if the ore moves around is overstated. If ore pools move around, and it's too onerous to keep taking down and rebuilding factories, we'll just have to get used to shipping ore around, whether from our own dispersed extraction facilities, or from the cheapest market. It could even be argued that it would be a good stimulus in the direction of people finding niches to occupy. It's important, I think, for those staying with this game, to understand that it's still an alpha, however NQ want to spin it, and even if a given pillar (like "building") is complete, its place in the gameworld has yet to be set in stone, because the rest of the pillars aren't done yet.

 

Still, there's always going to have to be something "static" that people need to have, in order to provide a focus for the mythical beast of TW. Until NQ officially give up on making Territorial Warfare, they'll build their game loops around static resources. If ore becomes a labile resource, they'll introduce something else that doesn't, and factories will cluster round that instead of ore flowers.

[kulkija]

15 hours ago, Talocan said:

if there's a way to change a tile's ownership without the owner's consent.

My English is bad, but does't this equal to steal other player tile??

[Kezzle]

40 minutes ago, kulkija said:

My English is bad, but does't this equal to steal other player tile??

 

Effectively, yes. That's what Territorial Warfare is all about: taking land that other people don't want you to have. TW has been an "intended design element" since the very beginning. The fact that its chances of materialising given the current approach of NQ to development, and the underlying problems with architecture and technology choices, are vanishingly small doesn't mean that people aren't thinking about it and hoping it one day comes to be a pillar of the game.

 

There's another bunch of people who are vehemently against TW ever being a thing in a game they're playing, who would rather walk away from the game than have their stuff taken in this manner, and their concerns are as valid as the concerns of those who see the "rough justice" of TW/FFA PvP as being the only way that exploiters and griefers will get their comeuppance. There will be safe zones, and TW will, if it ever happens, probably not really be concerned very much with the T1-5 ores, but rather with something else that can be set up outside the existing safe areas (including all planetary surfaces) as a new facet of the game. So, in the end, TW can't be relied on to be a fix for monopolies on T1-5 ores...

[Maxim Kammerer]

19 hours ago, Gillwin said:

Who is going to want to build anything on a tile if the ore is not stable and moves around.

[...]
Second is territory warefare.

 

Who is going to want to build anything on a tile if it can get lost in territory warefare? If the game survives the implementation of TW there will be no static constructs exept mining units on XS cores outside the remaining safe space. Thus, your main pillars are not only arguments against the idea of the OP - they even contratict each other.

[Kezzle]

6 hours ago, Maxim Kammerer said:

Who is going to want to build anything on a tile if it can get lost in territory warefare? If the game survives the implementation of TW there will be no static constructs exept mining units on XS cores outside the remaining safe space.

Big assertion that. Got any actual facts to back it up? I can conceive of plenty of ways that TW could be set up so that it won't be worth (either 'ever' or 'if people set up right', depending how it's done) anyone's while to assault a territory that's just "nice buildings". You may well be right, given the facile approach NQ have historically taken towards game loops, but it's not a certainty by any means. The problem with such prognostications is that we don't have any good idea how TW is actually going to work: what the costs of initiating and defending will be. This appears to be because NQ have no clear vision of how the underlying "permission to raze" mechanics might work. Which is sad, but not going to change any time soon. Cos if they floated a detailed picture of how they think it might work, it'll be pulled apart by the community and they don't seem to be able to cope with that.

[Maxim Kammerer]

3 hours ago, Kezzle said:

Got any actual facts to back it up?

 

Are there any space stations outside safe zone?

[Talocan]

1 hour ago, Maxim Kammerer said:

 

Are there any space stations outside safe zone?

No, because there's no good reason to build them. Even if they couldn't get blown up there's a low probability of them getting built simply by virtue of not needing to exist.

[Kezzle]

7 hours ago, Maxim Kammerer said:

Are there any space stations outside safe zone?

Are the TW rules going to be identical to the space station PvP rules?

 

I'll answer that for you: you don't know.

[Maxim Kammerer]

7 hours ago, Talocan said:

No, because there's no good reason to build them.

 

There you have it. With TW there would be no reason to build static constructs outside safe zone other than xs cores with mining units and a container.

[Maxim Kammerer]

2 hours ago, Kezzle said:

Are the TW rules going to be identical to the space station PvP rules?

 

It's DU. Of course they would (unless NQ finds something even worse). That's why we have no TW. It would kill the game.

[Kezzle]

17 minutes ago, Maxim Kammerer said:

 

It's DU. Of course they would (unless NQ finds something even worse). That's why we have no TW. It would kill the game.

No, we have no TW because it's too hard to program in their unfortunate tech environment. Since when have they not done something because it would kill the game?

[CptLoRes]

We don't have TW because anything but some turned based mini game for TW would be to costly to host, and implementing TW as a mini game would just further highlight how flawed their technology is.

 

Same with air combat and AvA, not possible with the technology in this game..

[Talocan]

14 hours ago, Maxim Kammerer said:

There you have it. With TW there would be no reason to build static constructs outside safe zone other than xs cores with mining units and a container.

With TW the safe zones would probably be massively reduced so you have no choice.

 

Right now there's no advantage to building in PvP. There are only disadvantages, not only that you can be shot at but you're further from Alioth M6. I'd like to see carrots for building in PvP because right now there's nothing but sticks.

[Maxim Kammerer]

12 hours ago, Talocan said:

With TW the safe zones would probably be massively reduced so you have no choice.

 

The safe and tax-free tiles on Haven and Sanctuary will always remain and that is a lot of space with the current core limit. Of course pooling all static constructs on just two moons would turn DU once more in a slide show, but that's what TW and a sufficient reduction of the safe zones would result in. That's why it is unlikely that the safe zones would be massively reduced. If TW comes at all I expect it to be like current PvP on asteroids (because it is the cheapest option) and to be implemented outside the current safe zone only.

 

12 hours ago, Talocan said:

Right now there's no advantage to building in PvP.

 

Without a miracle that makes NQ learn how to create engaging game mechanics this will never change.

[RugesV]

To sum in up without having to read further. Dynamic ore pools are not needed. 

 

 

 

Dynamic ore pools would just suck.  Managing mining units as it is, is already time consuming. But if you had to constantly scan,  take down old mining units, rebuild at new locations, get calibration up on those new miners,   Move your space elevator, move your space stations.  Create new bookmarks, distribute bookmarks to all your haulers.  Rinse Repeat every week. No thank you.  This would have the effect on miners, as it did to industrialist when schematics came out.  And  while a planet can be scanned down in hours, its not effortless.  Its actually allot of work. and if you had to constantly do that...... same with setting up a mining platform. 

 

Once all the planets come in. and more planets come in.  there will be plenty of ore for all who want it, and dynamic ore pools will not be needed. 

 

And then you also have to consider territory warfare. Whatever that is going to end up being, and where that is even going to be possible. 

 

 

[le_souriceau]

On 12/29/2022 at 9:55 PM, CptLoRes said:

We don't have TW because anything but some turned based mini game for TW would be to costly to host, and implementing TW as a mini game would just further highlight how flawed their technology is.

 

Same with air combat and AvA, not possible with the technology in this game..

 

TW and AvA are historicly greatest NQ con artist move (even to compare with JCs usual "millions of players this or that"), they just promised it I think without any idea how it actually can be implemented in techical terms. Initially to sqeeze fundraising and later it just sticked.

 

I still think its theoreticly possible with endless amount of concessions, like range, damage models and all kind of artificial limits to "rules of engagment" to keep it cheaper. But it will be sad spectacle indeed.

 

 

[Aaron Cain]

TW and AVA also with only 100 actives at any given time?

 

If they are smart they close shop, revamp the whole game, look at the drivers and reinvent DU to the promisses once made and after that do a 1 month Re-beta and a re-launch.

Else we lose DU in no time so discussions about the relaunch has a wipe would make no sense if we are going to loose everything else

 

Bit dramatic brought maybe but there is noway to adjust a running game without taking it down for grand revamp.

[blundertwink]

I personally think it's hilarious that AvA or TW are "too hard" for NQ....in a game with no NPCs, they don't have the bandwidth for player interactions.

 

There's no PVE eating server resources, but they don't have the resources to do PvP at scale...? 

 

When you take a step back and look at DU as it's designed, they've accomplished next to nothing in terms of making a game...

 

The only core facet that sort of works in a finished, production-ready way is building. That's literally it -- mining they still don't understand, PvP is obviously not complete, missions are a joke, and performance is somehow bad with no one playing and no PvE or PvP at scale. 

 

4 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

If they are smart they close shop, revamp the whole game, look at the drivers and reinvent DU to the promisses once made and after that do a 1 month Re-beta and a re-launch.

 

Honestly, we all know this isn't going to happen but there's so many core, core issues with DU and so little that's actually complete that this is likely the only way they could truly make a game that works. 

 

Of course, that assumes they've actually learned anything with the last 8 years of development on DU...I'm not convinced they have learned a single thing from their many bad choices in the design an development of DU and would expect essentially the same result.