+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Developers Forum (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=183)
+--- Thread: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds (/showthread.php?tid=126831)
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - AceofSpades - 03-02-2015
(03-02-2015, 06:00 PM)Pancakes Wrote: EDIT: Also, you are asking that server development will be done by PoB locations. I should remind you that unlike normal bases, PoBs aren't a constant. Lets say that the field stays as is, and tomorrow Saltese is destroyed by a fleet of Marduks, a server development was halted for a non-constant object.
More like asking that gameplay development [a POB location] that was generated on account of a server development [mining field placement] not be altered without compensation when it has resulted in years of work.
POB's arent a constant, objects in space traditionally have been. The vice-versa is occurring here.
If tomorrow Saltese is destroyed by a fleet of Marducks... thatd still even make a hell of a lot more sense then a bunch of Ore fields magically disappearing from around Saltese/the entire system
Faction leadership aside, moving Ore fields into a "home system" would generate infinite tears if done so in the opposite manner (to Puerto Rico) but of course is perfectly acceptable when done otherwise.
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - larzac - 03-02-2015
(03-02-2015, 06:00 PM)Pancakes Wrote: EDIT: Also, you are asking that server development will be done by PoB locations. I should remind you that unlike normal bases, PoBs aren't a constant. Lets say that the field stays as is, and tomorrow Saltese is destroyed by a fleet of Marduks, a server development was halted for a non-constant object.I never asked that, i just stated that it is really strange to see an ore field in a home system. The fact that saltese exist in this field since almost 2 years now is just a "bonus"
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - SnakThree - 03-02-2015
(03-02-2015, 06:08 PM)AceofSpades Wrote:(03-02-2015, 06:00 PM)Pancakes Wrote: EDIT: Also, you are asking that server development will be done by PoB locations. I should remind you that unlike normal bases, PoBs aren't a constant. Lets say that the field stays as is, and tomorrow Saltese is destroyed by a fleet of Marduks, a server development was halted for a non-constant object.
More like asking that gameplay development [a POB location] that was generated on account of a server development [mining field placement] not be altered without compensation when it has resulted in years of work.
POB's arent a constant, objects in space traditionally have been. The vice-versa is occurring here.
If tomorrow Saltese is destroyed by a fleet of Marducks... thatd still even make a hell of a lot more sense then a bunch of Ore fields magically disappearing from around Saltese/the entire system
Faction leadership aside, moving Ore fields into a "home system" would generate infinite tears if done so in the opposite manner (to Puerto Rico) but of course is perfectly acceptable when done otherwise.
Humboldt ore fields are exhausted due to heavy mining.
New mining fields are located in Vespucci.
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - Pancakes - 03-02-2015
(03-02-2015, 06:08 PM)AceofSpades Wrote:(03-02-2015, 06:00 PM)Pancakes Wrote: EDIT: Also, you are asking that server development will be done by PoB locations. I should remind you that unlike normal bases, PoBs aren't a constant. Lets say that the field stays as is, and tomorrow Saltese is destroyed by a fleet of Marduks, a server development was halted for a non-constant object.
More like asking that gameplay development [a POB location] that was generated on account of a server development [mining field placement] not be altered without compensation when it has resulted in years of work.
POB's arent a constant, objects in space traditionally have been. The vice-versa is occurring here.
If tomorrow Saltese is destroyed by a fleet of Marducks... thatd still even make a hell of a lot more sense then a bunch of Ore fields magically disappearing from around Saltese/the entire system
Not quite, more than once objects have been moved in space regardless of the PoB at their location, such one example is the Omega-49 jump hole, that was moved with the redoing of Dublin. Also, try to reach to the administration team - perhaps the PoB can be moved to the location of the new field?
Again, it's called development of the mod, many systems are being removed or repurposed since we have currently more systems than players.
EDIT: Actually, looking at the map Vespucci fields aren't being changed. They are just being activated, while Humboldt as a whole is being deleted.
(03-02-2015, 06:09 PM)larzac Wrote:(03-02-2015, 06:00 PM)Pancakes Wrote: EDIT: Also, you are asking that server development will be done by PoB locations. I should remind you that unlike normal bases, PoBs aren't a constant. Lets say that the field stays as is, and tomorrow Saltese is destroyed by a fleet of Marduks, a server development was halted for a non-constant object.I never asked that, i just stated that it is really strange to see an ore field in a home system. The fact that saltese exist in this field since almost 2 years now is just a "bonus"
As far as I know, Vespucci is being opened up, so it's no longer a "Guard System" tier. As for being the home system of a certain faction - I think it doesn't matter that much as long as:
A) The mining fields are accessible to pirates/hostiles.
B) There is no stationary battleships in proximity of 30k of the mining field (even though I believe that's the distance from Essex to the gold ore fields in Dublin).
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - AceofSpades - 03-02-2015
but... there's a Battleship in proximity to one of the inbound jumphole?
It's one thing to move an Ore field a few klicks, versus moving it into a hostile system.
Not to mention, and I know this is exhausting to even hear over and over, but living it is ever more tiresome:
-Junkers just got their resources booted from Sigma-13 last time around [.87].
-Now this time Humboldt [.88].
-Before, it was the loss of Alloys [at a Smelter lolwut??] for .86, which created massive hours of mindless supply trucking, instead of supplying quickly in PR and moving on to better gameplay quicker.
There aren't alot/any other entities that have to so extensively reconsider their gameplay every update.
Inverness, already desolate enough, is now being turned into a cul-de-sac.. with the only hope for any remaining traffic within it being that a rebalance of commodity pricing there will introduce at least one viable item to be sold from the area.
Gameplay-conducive changes are what we seek.
That being said, wouldn't be here voicing an opinion if we hadn't already tried to quietly and maturely make changes from within.
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - Pancakes - 03-02-2015
(03-02-2015, 06:27 PM)AceofSpades Wrote: but... there's a Battleship in proximity to one of the inbound jumphole?First of all, those who are capable of mining in there, are DSE/other corporations, not Junkers, thus moving the fields to a hostile system is only on the junker perspective.
It's one thing to move an Ore field a few klicks, versus moving it into a hostile system.
Not to mention, and I know this is exhausting to even hear over and over, but living it is ever more tiresome:
-Junkers just got their resources booted from Sigma-13 last time around [.87].
-Now this time Humboldt [.88].
-Before, it was the loss of Alloys [at a Smelter lolwut??] for .86, which created massive hours of mindless supply trucking, instead of supplying quickly in PR and moving on to better gameplay quicker.
There aren't alot/any other entities that have to so extensively reconsider their gameplay every update.
That being said, wouldn't be here voicing an opinion if we hadn't already tried to quietly and maturely make changes from within.
As for Ravager, I guess it could be moved anther 500m further, so the distance to the JH would be 2k. Though even at the current range I had no issue getting in Vespucci with characters that are hostile to HF, it's not much more dangerous than police stations, you'll probably only lose shields.
Also - Junkers weren't "booted" from Humboldt, if anything it's Rogues that should be complaining since they actually had a base in that system.
As for Junkers being "nerfed" - with the introduction of Premium scrap I doubt anyone can complain any longer, with Junkers being able to "mine" an ore tire commodity with a 3.3ker (unlike 2.75k for all other factions) that also has gunboat weapons.
I agree though that Junkers should have retained their base in Sigma-13 for smuggling purposes, even though their "official goal" of cleaning the field was done.
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - SnakThree - 03-02-2015
(03-02-2015, 06:36 PM)Pancakes Wrote: As for Ravager, I guess it could be moved anther 500m further, so the distance to the JH would be 2k. Though even at the current range I had no issue getting in Vespucci with characters that are hostile to HF, it's not much more dangerous than police stations, you'll probably only lose shields.I doubt you tried entering it with anything other than snubcrafts then.
Imagine Hegemons or Salvagers getting knocked down considerably.
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - Pancakes - 03-02-2015
(03-02-2015, 06:40 PM)Snak3 Wrote:(03-02-2015, 06:36 PM)Pancakes Wrote: As for Ravager, I guess it could be moved anther 500m further, so the distance to the JH would be 2k. Though even at the current range I had no issue getting in Vespucci with characters that are hostile to HF, it's not much more dangerous than police stations, you'll probably only lose shields.I doubt you tried entering it with anything other than snubcrafts then.
Imagine Hegemons or Salvagers getting knocked down considerably.
Again, as I said - the system is losing its Guard Tier and becomes a more open one, Junkers might have an issue entering, but as far as I am aware civilian miners won't.
I also entered it with my Pirate Train several times, I usually lost my shields and ~10-20 bots. And as I said, moving it slightly further should solve the issue.
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - AceofSpades - 03-02-2015
Right, its just that the Junkers and DSE went through lengths of roleplay to create said diplomacy for use of such fields.
I can see your point though, its not as if the fields within Vespucci change will not be viable to all parties.
It seems however that the changes made are often without regard for gameplay-sense or prior roleplay involvement, and are consistently degrading the viability of a 'group'.
Which in turn, hasn't created the satisfactory result or affected the quantity of said factions activity, only instead the manner and quality in which it is carried out.
It is a damning, and self-fulfilling prophecy.
If we want to mitigate the scope of Junkers and balance out the server im all for it, but theres a proper constructive way to do it, and then there is not.
RE: Systems Update Feedback: Independent Worlds - Hawksmoor - 03-02-2015
There's a reason you don't put ore fields in home systems, it's so one faction does not have the monopoly over the fields. I do not understand the reasoning for putting the ore fields in Vespucci at all, it makes no sense. Legion does not get any mining bonus. You want to make it accessible to any miner, transport and pirate imo. No other faction in the game has ore fields in their home system..... this is very confusing.