There is a lot of space. However, if you are looking for specific things, like tall tree forests with rivers or really nice scenic valleys, then you have a bunch of people looking for the exact same things. Its one of the reasons so many people have come and gone on biitula and how a ton of people moved to boori during release. Its one of the reasons I terraform everything now since its not worth dealing with the constant flux of people around the scenic areas and planets.
Lets be honest, segniakai is covered in baby poop colors. They look ok, but I have changed a lot of diapers lately and needed to terraform my entire beacon.
The problem with using a GM is exactly what happens now when the developers intervene. Players start screaming about them treating some players differently than others. You essentially are trying to get the developers to determine player motivation. Just because you expanded a town does not automatically mean your motivation is good. Personally if the mechanics are built into the game then every single player is treated exactly the same way. I think that is good if the game is going to grow and prosper.
This is a very good point. If the rules are built into the system then everyone is essentially under the same system. Makes it really easy to see if someone is purposely trying to bend the rules or exploiting a mechanic. Its hard to hold people accountable when the only way to tell if you are breaking the rules is to be told by a Dev.
(I donât quite understand the target of this comment - the sarcasm tag confuses me - so Iâll just respond to it flat because there seems to be a general tone that we want to add lots and lots of complicated rules and thatâs not Boundless.)
You can build anything and anyhow you want. The rules only exist to help a multitude of disconnected people coexist in the same world.
When other players donât exist (Creative + Private Worlds) then all the rules can go. You can maximise individual freedom.
When other players do exist then the rules are there to maximise collective freedom.
I would rip out all these rules - if we though players could cohabit to everyoneâs satisfaction.
Isnât this basically when the system does: compact beacons earn more footfall, compact beacons can expand?
I would agree with this except itâs being applied to current builds (not a new version or planet), and it wonât be evenly applied to everyone. Some will be ok at 0.50%, some at 0.25%, some at 0.03%. What is fair?
How long should someone be allowed to correct their build after the numbers are set? 1 week? 6 months? Does it matter if itâs a hut or a great city?
It will also not stop âsprawlâ or trolls - they will still have to be dealt with directly. They always find ways to cause problems
Honestly, its going to be tough for those who already have giant sprawling builds. And the rules have to apply to every planet in the live universe equally. And ultimately, fair is whatever the devâs set it at since it will be the same for everyone, though I think it will be something like .15-.2. If they set it below .1 then it wonât make much of a difference between not having it.
As far as I know the trolls arenât the focus of this, its only player feedback that is bringing that narrative to the forefront. This change is to fight the reservation exploit (which isnât trolling for the most part) and to give a rule set that is part of the game. If they release it, we will see how it turns out.
The fair argument while I do understand it is just where we are. The developers seem to be making fundamental changes to the game. They have changed lighting, prestige, recipes, and now are changing rules for plotting. In everyone of these cases there have been players more affected by the changes than others. Is this fair? As long as the new mechanics apply to everyone then you can argue they are fair. In this case you appear to be more affected than me. When the lighting was changed I had to rebuild my entire base in order to even see my machines and storage and other players had to make zero changes.
If the game stays as it is and the developers are unwilling to make changes that will affect the existing player base, then I feel the game will fail. There are not enough of us playing and I think the existing universe was intended to host more players than we have now. If the do not control sprawl while the player base is smaller, when do they do it? I think the game needs to change to be able to get new players and more importantly, retain them. I know I will not be happy with all of the changes, even not knowing what they may be, but I do know the motivation is to create a successful game and not to try to find ways to grief existing players.
We all want the game to do well and grow. Some changes can be good.
I have no problem personally with moving plots around to fit within the new rules. A lot of innocent players will be adversely affected and they werenât doing anything wrong.
I think, if you do not create a real incentive for players to change existing builds, like they are doing in reducing prestige to zero and therefore reducing footfall also to zero, players will not change their builds. So we get new players that are not even allowed to build this way, so we have the old versus the new arguments again. Just like we did with the 2 week head start when game launched for (if I remember correctly) EA and repurchase pc players.
Edit: unfortunately I think not using a punishment for breaking the new rule versus a reward for following the new rule will not work. If I am already making tens of thousands in footfall now, am I more likely to react to a reduction to zero or a 5% boost? I can cover the boost in volume by leaving the sprawl, but I have no way to compensate for it going to nothing.
Disincentive, hence the reason itâs being perceived as negative by a lot of players.
An incentive would be a small plot bonus given for players that stay above a certain compactness rating. This way you give more power to players staying within the rulesâŚand that would help grow/nourish a healthy community.
Yes as a punishment, disincentive or could be argued as a consequence of not following the rules and players will view that as a negative. But if you do not do that it allows the other players to continue their bad behavior and be rewarded for it. And I do not mean rewarded with a plot bonus, but rewarded because they get exactly what they get now.
