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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I’m thinking this would be totally separate from GC (though having a GC benefit on top would be nice too!) - so even without GC, you could spend $9 USD to get 900 shards and fuel a 1X2 for around five months at the balance I suggested (one premium goes 5x as long). Allow buying small amounts, maybe even as little as 100 at a time, so a buck here or there for those who want just a little for convenience or whatever.
… The technical viability, yeah, that I have no clue on of course, how much they could support.
If they don’t want to increase it too much, have TOO many more portals out there for technical reasons, and/or if they don’t want to extend the time portals can be fueled across the board, maybe it is technically feasible to make an exception for a smaller number - and then people going away for a bit or who just don’t want to mess with it have a convenience option, like with GC and beacons. Or, say you’re running a bunch, gaming time is limited - you’ve got enough to fuel some, could get more Oort but would rather spend the time or coin on something else. It gives another option.
Something better for some, in some circumstances… others might not want to touch it. But some for sure would get benefit, and the devs would get some revenue from it. The big question is the technical one and balance - how much demand at what price and how much can be supported, how much they WANT to support even if it can be done.
For me, though I understand some would be upset, I just don’t have any problems personally - could still get regular fuel the same way. If some want to pay - GREAT! I may be using their portals, after all. And like I said, I’d buy occasionally - especially when vacation time comes around. And I want the devs to get that money if they can. I just don’t see this as a “win” type of situation. We’ll have portals to get where we need regardless, so what if someone else pays for a few more, so long as it can be supported?
I’d really like to just spend my irl $ on a rental world/moon/club/region and cosmetics: outfits, tattoos, vehicles, special blueprints, pets, exclusives, merch, etc.
I kinda wish GC wasn’t tied to plots/land/beacons at all. I feel like it has the devs painted into a corner as to what they can do now or as the game grows. I think beacons & plots should be tied to player progress only. (besides rental planets)
2 to 3 meteors on a tier 3 planet get about 18 rough oort! Thats mass crafted to 250 shards. Thats about a week worth of fuel for 1x2 portal. Can be done with a under level player that finds a shop with a golden fist for sale at 400 to 500c. Or an iron sling bow. Even if one dies abandon or dormant meteors can get a player 1 to 3 rough oort per nab! Seems easy enough to get oort on own. Fine we go easier. Just tag along on a hunt. Perhaps bring some heals or revives. An hour your set for months.
Is there some other way that warping/portals could be coded so that we can do a worm hole thing instead of basic portals for everything? I’d much rather the servers/bandwidth/etc be used for content/blocks instead of a zillion portals.
We should remember the many in the community did not agree or ask for Beacon’s being fueled automatically. That decision went against all conversation and larger agreements of the community that if you were going to have a beacon you needed to play the game. Yes the decision changed things but very many were not happy it happened even though maybe we all just accept it now even though it was not a requirement at all.
So a 1x2 runs for 5 weeks without the need to fuel. Additionally, you can throw an advanced lock on it and allow any friend or guild or guild mate to fuel it. I still don’t see the value add. Worse case, if you are not playing the game you can easily close the portal and turn it back on when you get back.
No offense meant, but it seems more like another attempt to get the developers to give those running large amounts of portals or huge ones another way to keep them from having to fuel the situation they created.
I can see how it makes sense to some people but I really believe it is the wrong approach. We already have people worried about some Oort crisis where there is clearly none. Added to that we have plenty of people that are tired of using meteors for the only option of Oort or having griefing problems during hunts. It just seems more sense to solve the problem across the board by giving us other ways to get Oort outside of people having to pay for it. I think if we solved that problem first and then maybe thought about paying for Oort it could be ok, but in the end we need to solve things in the game without requiring outside money.
There has been a lot of conjecture and assumptions on a whole host of details around “server load,” “revenue,” etc. So people are really making suggestions when they don’t even know if there is a problem. We have not seen any nerf on portal amounts so we should be assuming that there are not problems instead of just making ones up out of the blue because we have a subconscious objective to try to get more Oort for our Portal addictions.
I don’t see how giving out Oort is any different than giving out anything that was paid money for. They all are the same breaking of the game by using outside money. In the plot context it was because of a decision that they needed backers, while the “mask” and other things we can buy in the store are for look customization. I don’t see any “coin” or anything that is an in game resource by paying money. Oort would be the first and is definitely pushing even more into a P2W scenario.
People have warp conduits and plenty of locations to do this. Plus I don’t see any recent developer comment or posting that says they are in a dangerous server/bandwidth/etc scenario and that the community must help them solve that problem. It is a made up issue right now.
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?” 
