True, in your example. However, from what I understand and what I’ve empirically experienced, all the red gleam on Volpto is currently monopolized.
Also, given the fact that this is a single individual, a group of people will have almost no problem monopolizing a rare resource on a small planet… given the current game dynamic. Regardless, it sounds like there are ways being discussed of changing the code to prevent this tactic… at least I certainly hope that’s the case.
Precisely. Just because you have certain priorities does not mean they are the only priorities. Other players need to be able to play the game the way that they want as long as it falls within the rules of the game… which is the goal of this discussion.
Should monopolization be allowed? In my opinion, no. Being able to control the majority of a resource? Sure. But absolute monopoly, with no alternative way to acquire the resource? No. Again, just because it isn’t important to you personally doesn’t mean it isn’t important.
My apologies for missing some of the spawns on an entire planet and not being able to verify all the information. Regardless, you’ve already mentioned that you’re against monopolization. The major issue at the moment is the fact that this is a world issue and a problem involving static spawns. I think it goes without saying that this problem has Illustrated what would ultimately become a game breaking problem after open release.
Also, impossible. Given that red gleam is the only block in the game that is both considered valuable and does not follow resource redistribution rules, it is only possible to be monopolized in the current build. Any other resource is impossible to monopolize due to redistribution mechanics. Therefore, as @james has repeated numerous times, if the distribution of gleam is made as plentiful as say, CREAM gleam, then it is ineffective and counterproductive to attempt to monopolize it. This issue has been solved for a long time, people. Lets move on…
On this, everybody agrees. That being said, it would be nonsense and unjustified to enact any sort of punishment or action in response to what ultimately is intended gameplay.
@Havok40k If it was stated somewhere in this thread that this particular piece of code and game dynamic was not going to be included in open release then I missed it.
PS. Where did I suggest a punishment?
Well, the gist of the issue here is that a block that is only obtained from a rare prefab is too sparsely distributed across a single planet, creating the scarcity issue. Eliminate the scarcity, and eliminate the problem. Code and game dynamics are not at fault here, it’s scarcity and scarcity alone.
P.s. apologies, I was not suggesting that you had suggested a punishment, merely addressing the topic at large that makes the claim that this situation is greifing. I’m in no way accussing you of making that statement yourself.
Incorrect. Scarcity is not the problem at all. Game code and dynamics are the problem, as static spawns alone allow monopolization to take place. Create dynamic spawns instead a of static ones and the problem is immediately solved.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a very rare resource. It adds a ton to the game. Some things need to be very rare. However, when those things spawn in rare static positions that can be held that creates a major problem.
Prefabs can not be dynamically spawned, but rare resources can be removed from the prefabs. Gleam can be spawned in only two ways- as a strata like seen with cream gleam, or as a part of prefabs like red gleam. Trees are an example of an abundant prefab. If gleam was used in prefabs as abundant as trees (removing scarcity) the problem would be solved.
Wait, so trees never respawn in any way? A planet can be entirely deforested?
Prefabs respawn, but only in fixed locations and only if not beaconed 
No, that’s not true. But they do not redistribute. They regenerate back to their natural state.
In fairness to @james I think he has been pretty clear on how he is defining what is acceptable and not in the game according to this resource. I support the line he is drawing because he can’t do everything and make a perfect system against online jerky actions. The reality is the development team cannot protect everyone from people being jerks and doing things like this while staying enough inside the “rules” that allow such actions. Even a “charter” will not stop people from doing things that seem questionable to others. (e.g. there is a group building a huge walkway across Berlyn. While some might think it is an eye sore, others can respect the work they are putting into it.)
Personally I think the most important thing out of the red gleam issue is that the development team has noticed that red gleam is TOO restrictive in the spawn rate and will adjust the ratio. Then on that next update if the community as a whole thinks red gleam is too important to lose then I am sure they should donate plots and help protect the resource for everyone to mine… just like in the real world. If you care enough then step up and do something about it.
This is going to happen in a million ways in this game because of the nature of the design so we just need to help show examples and give the developers a chance to try to balance it the best they can while not getting so restrictive that no one wants to play. Because honestly even though it was a jerk move to lock the resrouce down for some, I am sure Nature feels completely within his/her rights to stop the travesty that is Red gleam across the universe! For some it is an offensive color…
Yes, they regenerate as well, but only if they are not beaconed.
I think there is a confusion between the words redistribute and regenerate.
Everything in game regenerates. Only resources (not including gleam as a resource) also redistribute.
@Xaldafax I completely agree on all counts. However, my issue isn’t with eyesores, etc. I don’t particularly view those as game breaking.
My concern was (and still is) with the fact that I haven’t seen any definitive answer saying that this type of monopolization is going to be allowed, and that static spawns are going to be removed or changed. One way or the other, it’d be cool to get some kind of answer. That’s honestly my entire goal in posting.
If I missed a definitive answer then I’m sorry. I’m a busy guy, and can’t read every single line of the thread. It’s easy to have something slip between the cracks. I’m sitting here waiting for a student to walk in now, and find myself trying to get my mind of silly gleam spawns and game mechanics.
I’ve played enough games in beta to know that these dynamics are the kinds of things that crop up in beta. That’s the entire goal of that phase. It’s not upsetting to see this now. The only things that’s bothersome to me personally is the remaining question of whether this kind of mechanic is going to make it to final release. I absolutely love this game, and would hate to see something as obviously problematic be an acceptable part of the game.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification, Havok.
It’s no problem! I the confusion is quite understandable.
Hmm, especially if a plot is a source of a rare block, increase the minimum prestige required to keep it a part of a settlement. Too much alien presence, probably scared everyone away and slowly ate their plots…
So what your saying is all the red spawns gleam in the universe are monopolized by 2 different people. I cannot claim a red gleam location for myself.