Discovery Gaming Community

Perhaps we can reach a mutual agreement.

(01-24-2018, 02:40 PM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: [ -> ]Snak3 is right. Leave that to Kishiro.

That's a pretty painful blow you just delivered Sombra.

And Thy... Where's the Omicrons on those maps? Because that lack of Gamma and Alpha disturbs me.

(01-24-2018, 02:49 PM)Jadon King Wrote: [ -> ]That's a pretty painful blow you just delivered Sombra.

Whilst I was memeing, I really don't see why such things should be left to Kishiro entirely alone. If people want to do the RP, why not?

Stuff magically appearing is bad for roleplay.

(01-24-2018, 02:49 PM)Jadon King Wrote: [ -> ]And Thy... Where's the Omicrons on those maps? Because that lack of Gamma and Alpha disturbs me.

(01-24-2018, 01:34 AM)Spectre Wrote: [ -> ]The primary reason why there are so many connections are mainly so that we don't get useless systems, like the old guard ones, Yukon, Humboldt, Salisbury (best name btw), among others.

There is no way we can increase player interactions without draining certain systems of activity for the benefit of other systems. "Avoiding useless systems" is on of the policies that made interactions increasingly rare. By changing jump holes instead of removing systems, we save a lot of dev work, leave existing content to explore. There is also no IRP reason why there shouldnt be lonely or backwater systems.

(01-24-2018, 01:34 AM)Spectre Wrote: [ -> ]The reworks you've made to the map also conflict with the lore, as the backdoor from Tau to Lorraine is written in, and would otherwise make the minefield in both systems absolutely useless. With no connection from Tau to Gallia, the ease of access from Alpha to the Gallic border worlds goes away, and that there only adds to the growing uselessness of Gallia.

I have the feeling that I can count the number of people who ever read that infocard about Tau Lorraine on my fingers.

Gallia is more useful with 10 people playing in the same system, than 5 people flying alone through all of them.

(01-24-2018, 01:34 AM)Spectre Wrote: [ -> ]There's a reason Gallia was given so many connections, like Tau-44 and Lyonnais to Rishiri, so that people didn't have to brave the Maltese homeland or the Tau-23 corridor to bring magnets to their favorite Kusari tentacle shop. Give it a revamp, but not a total overhaul.

People "not having to brave other players" in certain corridors is exactly what lowers interactions, and activity.

(01-24-2018, 01:34 AM)Spectre Wrote: [ -> ]Your re-imagining of the Omegas and Omicrons is also.. like.. I just.. why?

To focus their activity into certain places (mainly freeports which should IRP be busy) and out of remote/hidden places, while making certain long distance travel routes faster and more attractive, so people have an easier time finding "company".

(01-24-2018, 02:29 AM)Lythrilux Wrote: [ -> ]Because it requires a lot of effort. I really do think that should be challenged though. Travel distances are horrible these days.

Removing systems and re-balancing trade so activity isnt too focused (which is BAD at this point) takes a lot of effort. As does changing gates connected to lanes, although less.

Just changing jump hole connections doesnt take a lot of effort.

(01-24-2018, 02:45 AM)Vulkhard Muller Wrote: [ -> ]Turning on the Xi Beta connection would transports makes a nice choke point for Smugglers coming from Hispania into Rheinland. I was very excited when I saw that, then they turned it off. So, turning it back on for transports could be a step in the right direction.

I'm assuming you mean that the Xi Beta connection can only be flown by snubs and caps but not transports?

What exact trade routes would that benefit?

(01-24-2018, 03:01 AM)Cyber Byte Wrote: [ -> ]While your ideal map is nowhere close to mine, you've got the right idea: Traffic should be a bit more straightforward. However, I don't think too many connections should be shifted. Instead, why not make the preferred routes for interaction quicker to travel on than others? That might help with player interaction, as most of us take the easy path, but only occasionally use the back path.

Just adding connections without removing any still leaves too many travel options that spread out players imo, and would leave us with too many jump holes that will be hard to memorize and navigate without the interactive map. I try to change links intead of creating new ones, although its not always possible.

(01-24-2018, 01:01 PM)Antonio Wrote: [ -> ]I fully agree with 's concept, but I'd take it a step further by making a clear list of sectors. I made a picture to demonstrate and explain how the concept would work:

1. No traffic can go in or out of a sector without going from the sector center through the red lines (transit systems) to another sector center.
2. Transit systems connect only to sector centers or other transit systems and there can be a maximum of two transit systems between two sectors.
3. Minor local systems can connect only with systems within the sector they're in.
4. All mining fields must be in transit systems, sector center or a system adjacent to the center. Some centers would, based on their position, already be mining centers (O3, T23), while others would get their mining bonuses in the systems that are adjacent to the center depending on the origin of the faction.

How would the sectors look exactly? There are two methods - one is making the center have a lot of connections with all parts of the sector which sounds alright but could make escaping the center just as easy, while the other is making a few local centers that connect to the main one and everything else. It'd decentralize the main center, but slow down travel and increase travel time. Both are reasonable, but I'll make an example with the former (Delta sector):

The sector abides by the rules listed above. We have a few local activity hubs which are not far away from the center, major faction systems next to them and other systems that are either semi-guard or pure exploration ones placed inbetween. Transit systems in this case do not contain mining fields since all the centers between them do, so it's unnecessary. We could go even more extreme and force the minor hub (Kappa) into Delta, but I'd rather do it slowly at first than immediately making a very limited amount of hubs (I.E. only sector centers).

What does this give us overall? Clearly defined activity centers, passages between them, mining areas that are on the way and a much higher chance of meeting a player by just travelling between sectors. Those who want to explore and play the "discovery" role will still be able to do so since all other systems would be local ones without hindering main routes - especially unique systems such as Omicron Chi or Omicron Major.

Regardless, I'd like to see any kind of an overhaul with similar intentions to the concept I wrote since it'd be a step in the right direction.

(01-24-2018, 11:32 AM)Ghostazarashi Wrote: [ -> ]Mass removing system from the mod requires a lot of planning, effort and time that would most likely generate more problems than there are now. We are currently planning to remove more system as time goes by, notably with the removal of Omega-9 in this update.

Only the most redundant systems in the game would have to be removed, which let's be honest isn't a lot of work. Moving jumpholes isn't that hard either, although I understand there'd be a ton of moving to do. I never said it'd be easy, but it's necessary. The toughest part would be rebalancing the economy.

What you described is the concept I'm trying to implement, but asking others to imagine the exact way to do it for you isnt going to work or take enormous amounts of time, unless you help.

Please use the proposed interactive navmap and mark your sectors in that instead of making concept sketches, and make concrete proposals for the addition/removal of jump hole connections (those are the easiest to change) to achieve what you describe.

The thing needs to be done NOW, not in the months or years that a complete mining/lane/trade rebalance would take.