Re: Ore relocation

Arga wrote:

"Main effect" does not mean "massive effect".

As I've restated numerous times in this thread, run some though experiments yourself to see where the change will impact.

In the short term, with so few players, I doubt the change will really have much of any change to STC/NEBS. Other than maybe having to mine on (2) Islands to bounce the ores back and forth, but even then it would probably just be colixum... but that's just best guess since I have no idea who, how, or where anyone is currently mining.



This is exactly the wrong reason to make a change.

2nd Top Killer 2012
02: 061 -- 353 -- 292 : Xadhoom


"Annihilator no fix for crashes when fighting burial/merkle/xadhoom ?"

Re: Ore relocation

I would disagree...

I think it would have a much greater impact at low pop than with a high population. With a low pop, a higher percentage of the overall mining done is done on the only 2 actively inhabited gamma islands. This means those 2 islands will be emptied the quickest as there is very little mining going on elsewhere to repopulate the fields on those 2 islands.

When the population gets higher, there will be many more islands getting mined. Causing ore replenishment to be much more evenly spread out. And if that is the case, then as long as the pop stays up. There will still be infinite ore, or close to.

And if that is the case, then what would have been the point of this ore change at all, other than to hinder the only active corps left in this game currently?

I am not opposed to a change to the ore/mining mechanics if it is needed, this just seems like a long way around only to end up in the same place...

Those of you lucky enough to have your lives, take them with you. However, leave the mods you've lost. They belong to me now.

Scarab Kill Count:2

128

Re: Ore relocation

Xadhoom wrote:
Arga wrote:

"Main effect" does not mean "massive effect".

As I've restated numerous times in this thread, run some though experiments yourself to see where the change will impact.

In the short term, with so few players, I doubt the change will really have much of any change to STC/NEBS. Other than maybe having to mine on (2) Islands to bounce the ores back and forth, but even then it would probably just be colixum... but that's just best guess since I have no idea who, how, or where anyone is currently mining.



This is exactly the wrong reason to make a change.

I agree this is not a reason, its a request to think, I've stated reasons elsewhere however.

129

Re: Ore relocation

Shadowmine wrote:

I am not opposed to a change to the ore/mining mechanics if it is needed, this just seems like a long way around only to end up in the same place...

This however, is a valid point.

The difference is the point about the configurable 'delay' in respawn. The reason I asked for the devs to be able to adjust it, is because of the impact the delay would have when the population is low.

However, I did make a point in the tower thread that I think mining should be faster, but shouldn't result in higher average daily yeilds. The problem with limiting yeilds is it can't be done on a per account basis, because players would then feel compelled to have multiple accounts to continue mining.

So, that leaves only one issue, is to not have anything to mine. Being somewhat OCD, if there's a red square, I'm going to mine it.

Re: Ore relocation

Arga wrote:

... players would then feel compelled to have multiple accounts ...

I wouldn't go as far as compulsion but like it or not the desirability of multiple accounts is part of the business model.

131

Re: Ore relocation

Ludlow Bursar wrote:
Arga wrote:

... players would then feel compelled to have multiple accounts ...

I wouldn't go as far as compulsion but like it or not the desirability of multiple accounts is part of the business model.

As someone that had (5) active high EP accounts, I can't disagree with that. What I really wanted to get across though, is that if a change does get implemented (even if it doesn't look anything like what we are now discussing) that it shouldn't be on a per account basis. So it's good you bring this out now, we if they do make an account limitation we can call them out on it.

Re: Ore relocation

Shadowmine wrote:

When the population gets higher, there will be many more islands getting mined. Causing ore replenishment to be much more evenly spread out. And if that is the case, then as long as the pop stays up. There will still be infinite ore, or close to.

Exactly. This is a change just for the sake of change.

RIP PERPETUUM

133

Re: Ore relocation

Celebro wrote:
Shadowmine wrote:

When the population gets higher, there will be many more islands getting mined. Causing ore replenishment to be much more evenly spread out. And if that is the case, then as long as the pop stays up. There will still be infinite ore, or close to.

Exactly. This is a change just for the sake of change.

A configurable delay timer allows it the impact on ore relocation to be adjusted for population.

A game designed for a 1000+ players isn't going to work if there are only 100, and vice-versa. The devs need to be able to tweak the game as it grows or shrinks; Nia is just a simulation, it's not real, so it WILL need human input to keep it balanced.

I suppose they could tie the timer to total volume of resource gathered per 24/hours, so that it wouldn't have to be manually controlled, but they would still have to make some decisions about how much of a delay to add or remove; and there should still be a base min delay of 24 hours and have it extend beyond that dynamically.

Re: Ore relocation

Or you can keep it the same, with zero reconfiguration, and next to little Dev Input, and working for all sets of population rise and fall.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Ore relocation

Ludlow Bursar wrote:

Bots all have the ability to teleport ANYWHERE within a certain range (including interzone) but can't if they are either flagged or locked.

Think about it ...


I like this smile

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Ore relocation

Not a bad idea at all yes.

Re: Ore relocation

Celebro wrote:
Ludlow Bursar wrote:

Bots all have the ability to teleport ANYWHERE within a certain range (including interzone) but can't if they are either flagged or locked.

Think about it ...

I like this smile

Glad someone does. Not the reaction I usually get to that suggestion. smile

As I see it there are only two things that the mechanics of such a system would need to be sure of providing. One, a squad jumping within range of another squad (e.g. miners) and the ambushed squad not having a balanced chance of escape. Two, Squad A seeing Squad B, realising the battle is likely to end in defeat and escaping without Squad A having a balanced chance of catching them.

I believe such a mechanic is actually quite simple but maybe thats a subject for an FD&R thread of its own.

138 (edited by Goffer 2013-06-24 07:28:40)

Re: Ore relocation

While I see the fun in overall idea, I see 2 major flaws that need to be discussed.
- A bot without the abillity to destroy enemy (EWAR, Haul, miner....) can be harassed forever by getting locked but not shoot. 
- WIth this, it would be impossible to avoid enemy jumping into your nora field with sequer and either drop their bomb, or just wait till turrets blow sequer causing sever damage. The same mechanic could be used to overcome each defense.

Re: Ore relocation

Goffer wrote:

While I see the fun in overall idea, I see 2 major flaws that need to be discussed.
- A bot without the abillity to destroy enemy (EWAR, Haul, miner....) can be harassed forever by getting locked but not shoot. 
- WIth this, it would be impossible to avoid enemy jumping into your nora field with sequer and either drop their bomb, or just wait till turrets blow sequer causing sever damage. The same mechanic could be used to overcome each defense.

The first flaw could be annoying if you didn't have a mobile tele. Maybe it could still be possible to charge your on board teleport whilst targeted just at a much slower rate. O the second one that would indeed be annoying but I didn't envisage the OBT being 100% accurate - you might land 200m away from the Nora and be blasted there.

There, I started a new topic: http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/post/82119/#p82119

Re: Ore relocation

Going back to the original topic subject.

When one mines in Perp you go out to mine Epriton, or Titan or Liquizit. Occasionally you might find a couple of fields close to each other but not often.

How about raw material deposits consist of a bit of everything in various proportions and sizes according to what type of island they're on. The old area charges could tell you how much of each raw material is under your feet, only one type of directional would be needed to find it and each deposit would despawn and respawn somewhere else every, say 7 days, if it wasn't fully exhausted. Each island has a certain number of deposits at any one time.

Re: Ore relocation

Ludlow Bursar wrote:

Going back to the original topic subject.

When one mines in Perp you go out to mine Epriton, or Titan or Liquizit. Occasionally you might find a couple of fields close to each other but not often.

How about raw material deposits consist of a bit of everything in various proportions and sizes according to what type of island they're on. The old area charges could tell you how much of each raw material is under your feet, only one type of directional would be needed to find it and each deposit would despawn and respawn somewhere else every, say 7 days, if it wasn't fully exhausted. Each island has a certain number of deposits at any one time.

I suggested this already http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … ld-system/

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Ore relocation

Celebro wrote:

I suggested this already http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … ld-system/

So you did. A bit more radical than what I had in mind but similar enough in principle when it comes to distribution.

Re: Ore relocation

somewhere deep in this topic, Tux had a very good post, highlighting the actual problem, that wouldn't be solved by anything else suggested in here.

binding ore spawns to certain islands would work, if you wouldn't just need every ore for almost everything you build. the attempt to change that last year, miserably failed.

also, for a constant demand on market, the game simply lacks any kind of PvE activity that removes material through permanent loss.

the PvP part of the game will NEVER be enough to exhaust the self-production of any active pvp corp with own production, while the production capacity of the market will never be able to build enough to provide an active pvp corp with sufficient quantity of high-tier equipment - and if it would be able to, those PvP corps have zero income without grinding... and then they can build the stuff more efficiently on their own.

you can continue blaming low population for it, but i haven't seen any difference when the population was much higher.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Ore relocation

[reposting under suggestion from a thread I just started]

I had an interesting conversation just before this latest hotfix, concerning the fact that resources are pretty homogenized and static in general.  Though they shift, rare materials are pretty consistent across the nullsec islands (sorry, I'll use Eve Online parlance a bit).  This leads to a stagnation between the powers as they squat on a zone and hold their resource stockpiles under lock and turret.  There is less need to fight because everyone has [relatively] equal access to those materials so long as they can maintain their outpost.  The player I was chatting with found this to be counterproductive to the game as people squat and turtle up and the only fighting happens not over land but just... because people want to squabble and nothing more.

So, I propose a slight adjustment.  This will require additional 'rare' resources beyond the (3?) currently limited to gamma, and perhaps a couple more that are only available on beta to encourage trade.  There should be a total of 1 rare type per gamma island, or perhaps per 2 islands.
Each rare would have one specific reaction result that cannot be attained by recycling drops.  Likewise with the beta island resources in the form of a more complex reaction using rare resources.

Now, these resources are generally constant as far as availability, but their quantity in any given area is finite.  So, let's say island A has 100m units of Epitron, and all of the others have 10m each.  This will give the residents on those islands some Epi to work with, but not a great deal.  But as the residents of island A mine their 100m units, it replenishes *very* slowly if at all.  Meanwhile it is increasing on another island entirely, while those residents are busy accessing their more prevalent resource... let's just say it's HDT for this example.
As resource balances shift the residents will experience a feast of one or two types, but a famine on most of the others.  Over time these balances shift, entirely at random, and suddenly those who feast are finding famine.

A slow shifting of resource balance will lead to conflict between islands trying to find the next big strike of a given resource, or protect a resource that they're suddenly finding more prevalent in their zone.

This will also require one additional geoscanner charge:  General Area Scanner.  This will tell the user exactly what is in the area they just scanned, but not how much.  For that they'll have to use individual resource type charges.  This charge scans a circular area about 3 times the size of a focused area charge (which scans in square blocks), so knowing what's in a scanned circle may not be so easy to pin down with smaller square scan charges.  Type specific directional charges would help narrow the search, as usual.

This would help prevent the Dysporium (sp?) moon problems that Eve had when those moons were available primarily on one particular region and the big power blocks pretty much locked it down to monopolize the resource.  This forced CCP to implement many changes to give the less powerful at least some sustainable access to the most rare resources.

145

Re: Ore relocation

This will either lead to one corporation (or alliance) controlling all rare resources, or simply an equilibrium since all resources are needed by all. Even in games with a sufficient population, trying to get people to fight over resources has proven to be extremely counter-productive; they will for example form cartels. It's odd you don't come to same conclusion, you seem to at least have heard of Steve's Technetium monopoly (and consequently, with the outbreak of relative peace in the universe, the OTEC cartel).

In general, destroying the market before it's even established (i.e. by violating most principles of perfect competition) is not good game design. Just saying.

Re: Ore relocation

That's why resources need to move; to disrupt the status quo, the squatters and monopolies that find the prime locations (be it a specific spot or a region) and lock them down.

If (say) Epi is only found in any great quantity on one island at a time, but moved rather randomly from island to island, people would always be hunting for it... even if that meant encroaching on other territories and fighting over it.  Cartels could not effectively manage the access to such resources unless they could completely lock down the methods of getting to the islands themselves (and, the way Perp has the access points set up, this WILL happen eventually).

147 (edited by Celebro 2013-07-27 09:47:30)

Re: Ore relocation

Dark Fenris wrote:

people would always be hunting for it...


Doubt it. This all sounds good in theory , in practice it's a completely different matter if people find it too hard or time consuming they will just walk off and leave, so some balance is needed. Ore distribution is not a mayor problem as it is right now, trying to fix that, could make it even worse.


I think the problem lies is the way we gather resources 1 field has only 1 ore type, so players can just mine what they need without any excess ore to sell on the market or trade. Same problem happened when they removed titan from Beta, players just mined it on alpha, and transported their materials.

Unify the mining fields: http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … ld-system/

RIP PERPETUUM

148 (edited by Ludlow Bursar 2013-07-27 10:45:02)

Re: Ore relocation

Celebro's idea has legs. I like it.

I'd do it slightly differently than he proposed (see post 140 above). That is mainly because I think it would not require too much development time to implement. Time which we know is scarce. Also it is because I am apprehensive about balance when players end up with excesses in certain raw materials beyond their requirements (similar to recent concerns raised over new kernals) - much better imo to let players choose exactly what they want to mine.

Re: Ore relocation

Whatever,I just want a grinding system that gets the Bots/items without becoming a second Job, like Eve is.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Ore relocation

Do a unified system and switch lasers to AOE.  (Thinking 3*3) Then boost there range slightly. 

A great system.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13