Your more worth 100 lucent, 20k coin, and 10 earth yams!
1 Like
Or you pay me 150 'k you will get all the things I collected too
doesn’t matter if it’s 1 hour or 2 hour
2 Likes
The amount of Oort feels fine to me; I’ve got about 380 ore stocked, slowly draining it on my one portal from my settlement to the RTG hub on Dzassak. 
I do sell some every now and then, though.
2 Likes
I need 1200 per week. 
…for what?! Damn.
Oort is in plentiful supply if you run a few portals. People like an excessive amount of huge portals for convenience though. Maybe it’s time the community constricted its Oort use. Portals are almost addiction status. We don’t need a very large majority of the portals that are open. But people are also obsessed with their footfall so I guess we will never get away from anything that encourages mass traffic like large portal networks.
Has anything changed on this front? Is it less resource intensive to manage portals for Wonderstruck? Unless something has changed here I don’t see much happening in the way of oort/amalgam changes.
That whole thread from early 2018 is pretty educational honestly. A lot of design decisions since then make sense, amalgams included, especially if they haven’t reduced the resource cost of hosting portals.
3 Likes
I’ve got a hub, and connections to most T5 and T6 planets, a few farms and a few mines. I haven’t finished the T5 and T6 network because it’s so Oort hungry already!
1 Like
I never see my coin go down when exploring places-where does footfall coin come from? Since it’s not costing me coins I pitter patter the heck out if places 
I’m poor as hell but went with Glee Club b/c Boundless is exactly the addiction I need to escape into and keeps my dreamy side lubricated. I might get back to dressmaking now that my hand-me-down cloth stash of mostly partly plastic blends is less uncomfortable in the half year of snowbound here :*)
So, new player, special needs, spends discretionary on supporting arts & animals & video game therapy 
2 Likes
It has nothing to do with you or I giving footfall or caring who we give footfall to. Supposedly the only way the huge networks stay operational is because of the footfall they generate, so if they arent generating enough then they complain or have to reinvent their hub which some don’t want/like to do. As more hubs come online to try to compete for footfall*, it causes an oort supply issue, and other conflict.
*I love to explore but I can’t and won’t visit every hub every day, some I wont ever visit, some I only visit once a week. This is where the competition of footfall comes in for those who are neck deep in it. If they dont get our footfall they cant buy their oortstones. Conflict. Competition.
1 Like
It would be nice if you could pay $ to keep your portal open. Not everybody’s cup of tea, but what’s the harm for those who are into that sort of thing? Especially if it was kept private, with nobody being able to tell by looking at your portal. Maybe it still has a timer but magically fills up again at certain times?
So long as the model isn’t trying to sucker people into paying $ for portals.
2 Likes
Time to purchase oortstone for money? 
2 Likes
Maybe I could quit my job and start selling Oort for $$$ 
4 Likes
I can see people’s views but more and more I am against this idea to buy Oort or keep portals open for real money.
3 Likes
I was joking, tons of people would hate it. I know I would pay, though.
If I was actively playing I would too. But I also would be buying more plots and getting more people playing too. I was going to buy a few copies and give them away to friends and viewers of a few friends streams but then that lighting update hit
1 Like
Although I understand the upset it might cause some (and like I said, I REALLY don’t see this as different than plots), I really do see potentially a LOT of benefit. Convenience and an alternative path for players, more revenue for the devs. I don’t need to buy cubits but I’d certainly pay for some premium shards here and there if they lasted as long as I suggested and were around that price I mentioned.
Though adding GC levels or improving efficiency for GC members would be great too, I think the benefit to buying shards would be you could do it in tiny amounts here and there if you didn’t want GC, and frankly, I think it would be better to generate revenue - not sure how many people would add GC who don’t have it already for that benefit? Or maybe some of both, a little increased efficiency for GC and the premium shards for sale as an extra option. Though it is clearly a labor of love they are also still a business and need to make money too, and I’m for things of different sorts they can add to do that… this, cosmetics, ect. all good to me as long as it isn’t true loot boxes/gambling mechanics which I’ve read they won’t do. Would more than a very small number possibly actually quit if this were added, or would it dissuade someone from buying who would have bought if it wasn’t there? If “no” then I’d say go for it devs! - But that is just me, one opinion, and I know I could be totally wrong on this but like to toss out ideas even if in retrospect even I am like, “What WAS I thinking there?”
The main difference I see is that plots are passive, they’re going to be there whether they are reserved, beaconed, or wild.
Portals are an active load on the servers. This may be more of an issue regarding how much they should cost, than whether or not it’s a viable product, though.
Only a dev knows how many portals a planet can support without lagging to a halt on their current infrastructure. I don’t have any idea what percentage of players buy gleam club, but I’m pretty sure this would increase it.
I’ve posted before my thoughts on why I don’t like it. I still think it’s better that portals be an indicator of player activity and nobody is allowed to create zero maintenance permanent networks. I can see where some don’t care / disagree though.
1 Like
Yeah, for sure there would be a trick in the balance - it would have to be expensive enough so that it couldn’t be spammed (unless you’re a whale or have a big group going in on it - and those cases would work out to be a positive for the devs I’d think, if shelling out that much and there weren’t too many of them?). I think the price point of a penny USD a shard (a long-lasting one!) would be a pretty good balance, but could definitely be wrong.
Totally understand your side of it too. I have to think it is useful for the devs for us to at least discuss this stuff, have these conversations, so good to hear everybody’s thoughts here.
Yes, for clarity this would require raising the Gleam Club price nearly 50% ($7.20 per 30 days) to support a single 1x2 with regular oort shards.
I’m not exactly sure what you have in mind regarding (a long lasting one). From an earlier post I can gather you’re suggesting something nearly twice as dense as Oort Amalgam.
I just don’t know, the viability is something that only the devs have statistics to support.