It will also eliminate the need for tokens between universes. Just open from your locations list.
3 Likes
Just create a debuff unique to creative portals that limits how many you can use once you cross over to survival servers. Seems to be the far less invasive solution if people are concerned about economics.
1 Like
Thatâs exactly my point though. I donât think an economic (game) decision should be influenced by people throwing real money at the game to the advantage of people willing to pay real money for a boost.
for what itâs worth I would probably get more portals and more footfall overall if a bunch of people got free portals. That doesnât mean I think itâs the right decision for the gameâs success. Iâm open to my mind being changed though.
Personally, to me BL is already on the edge of what I consider p2w. Basically anything where you can use real money to buy actual progress in the game I consider p2w. This includes buying plots and skill pages and alts for real money. Buying cosmetics I have no problem with - and I go out of my way to support games that offer non-p2w cosmetics and zero p2w options. This includes Overwatch, CoD, Fortnite and fall guys. If people who pay money are getting free portals, that would be a big step into âunacceptable p2wâ in my view, and if I werenât so invested in the game, would make me want to switch to another game on principle. Iâm sure there are other people who find p2w similarly abhorrent.
If a few people donât buy creative worlds because they are upset they donât get free portals (even though nobody has ever gotten free portals before, and the people arguing for free portals know perfectly well how to get oort), that doesnât seem like a big loss to me, no offense. Theyâll still be around. We can even hang out and be friends! Everyone is always welcome at DK mall. I even invited Krasniy to open up a shop there if he ever wanted to open one. Iâm always willing to be friends with anyone, even those I disagree with.
If existing players quit because theyâre furious about p2w, and steam gets plastered with p2w claims that are actually true for once, that DOES seem like a big loss.
Iâm a fan of the de buff idea.
Also while weâre talking about all this access via warps and sanctum and returning to survival via sanctum (one way portals), FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE REDUCE THE 10 second timer on returning to sanctum
2 Likes
Already happening with the imaginary lootboxes. And if playing on planet you rent and having access to it is pay to win then the same players are going to complain when someone rents a gem planet and restricts access to themselves or just their friends. . P2W So are you arguing they should not allow Sovereign planets also? How about the complaints from players that spent real money and cannot get to their planets? Do you not think this is going to create issues?
I think that depends on the reviews these players leave . You can review and trash the game without leaving the game after all. Or they may leave the game and all you do is further erode a stagnant player base. Great Idea
I think if this is the route they go, they should have a minimum of one official creative server, that anyone can connect to then you can either link portals to privately owned ones or just set your home on your planet and forget the public one is a thing.
I think there will be issues either way.
I personally donât think you should be able to buy a gem planet and restrict it to friends only, btw.
Itâs easier for everyone to discuss and respect each other without the snark IMO. Your ideas arenât bad. But the snark doesnât help with a healthy discussion, nor does it advance your agenda IMO.
What if their home is set in the creative side of things and the player NEVER set up any home in the survival side of things?
I believe that bitâs been worked out
With regards to the issue of hub placement:
Interaction with @Stretchious earlier in this thread brought this to my attention.
Without trying to read anything into what James says here, but going on what we currently know about these two systems, this breaks the currently popular model of self-serve portal hubs.
You wonât be able to take a token or your oort shards to creative. And you canât open or fuel a portal from the hub side unless you have permissions on the hub.
Iâm guessing that the more focused a player is on creative mode, the more theyâre going to want their portals to be in easily accessed, high traffic locations, right? HubsâŚ
I run a hub, and while Iâd be willing to install an advanced lock for a player this still requires them to trust me (and anyone else I give permissions) with keeping their portal open, and all of their fuel.
Any other great ideas for addressing this, besides the already mentioned âbuild your own portal and location in survivalâ?
Maybe a slightly more distributed hub model with individually plotted 1x1s? If you have 6 plots and 10k prestige worth of blocks on survival you can make a 1x1x6 and actually earn some footfall, if you can attract traffic.
Since portal hubs are player-driven emergent gameplay, do we even ask the devs to try and develop around this?
2 Likes
Then they cannot go to the survival side. If they had the ability to setup a portal or a warp from creative to survival, then they are going to have to have a beacon on the survival side if they do not want it to regen. And a portal cannot be opened on unclaimed ground (from what I remember). If they decide not to make the beacon their home then they will not be able to get back to the survival without paying for a warp. If they make the beacon that has their warp a home then they can always warp there for free.
What if they have a friend whom they trust to give them perms on a beacon in survival? They can then still set up a portal but not have a beacon of their own. Unless you are inferring that thereâs a new restriction where portal conduits can only be placed in beacons the player owns and not just beacons they have perms on?
That is fine, but if they place a beacon in survival and make it their home, even if it regens it is still considered a home. it does not have to be where the link to their planet is, but they might want to make it close.
I was not meaning to infer that portal conduits cannot be placed where you have permissions. Just that they have to be placed on claimed ground.
1 Like
You seem to be dead-set on requiring everyone to at least play in survival when there may be some people that simply does not want to, but still want to allow easier access to their creative planet for people to come visit, check out their builds, and the likes. Iâm sorry, but your logic here is flawed.
Sorry if this is kind of an aside to your question about making a portal.
At some point, in entering survival, you currently have to have a landing spot, which I believe is set as your âhome beaconâ for default purposes until you place an actual beacon and set it to home.
Iâm not exactly clear on whether you could bypass this by renting a creative world before you ever even log in, going directly to it without ever stepping into survival, then being warped to survival by a friend.
This is a real question for @james Whether or not itâs possible and what the consequence might be.
Actually I would be fine if they allowed all the portals creative players want anywhere they want them. The developers are not supporting this so what is the solution that provides the least impact to the creative player? That is what I am trying to come up with.
1 Like
Iâd not even considered this. It might be that any creative players orbiting the same survival planet may be better off creating their own little hubs
In the first wave at least, most or all of the creative planets will be owned by established survival players. I wonder if it would be worth creating a hub that is built around single plot spaces.
This would still require the creative owner to source their own portal conduits and survival plots, but completing the tutorial would give them enough resources for this.
If the model took off then this would help a primarily creative player source a little bit of footfall, too. Helping with long term fuel costs or whatever.
This still leaves the issue of fuel sourcing but itâs not primary here itâs an issue either way. Achieving 10k prestige is not going to happen in the tutorial either, but it can easily be done with handcrafted tools and natural blocks.
1 Like
Well unless you get the developers to change their minds, this seems like a done deal. It allows players to bypass the gem planets where other players have plotted hotspots. It provides more areas where certain resources can spawn even if the spawn points in the public universe become more plotted. it provides high level hunting planets for players, since they will need to create and fuel portals to get to their survival; planet. It provides more color options.
The main difference I see in your âfree portalâ argument which I would have called âenforced grindâ to access your planet is that on a survival planet you can remove resources and bring them into the public part of the universe. Since this could be Oort, gems, gleam, or any other resource, of course you have to fuel the beacon. You have direct interaction and affect on the public universe depending on what you do and bring into the public universe. You can earn coin, get footfall and gain xp on your survival planet. On a creative planet you cannot take anything with you. You cannot earn coin or xp. Your action in creative have zero affect on the survival universe. So why should you have to fuel access to a planet where you not only already pay for the planet, but your time spent there does nothing to help cover the cost of access?
Since this (renting gem planets) is a done deal (apparently), I am not sure why not forcing a certain gameplay style on a creative player is any different.
3 Likes
Honestly, until recent discussions this was exactly what Iâd expected and was in some ways looking forward to. Seems to me that keeping them connected just creates loads of problems you could not bother to solve in the first place by keeping them off in their own creative space.
1 Like
Just because we agree private, restricted gem worlds is a bad idea doesnât mean we should support other bad ideas too using that âlogicâ IMO
I donât think you should be able to harvest gems or lucents on a world where the public canât mine. Anything else should be fair game.
Also, to put it out there, I think sovereign worlds should have lower resource counts than the best of the public worlds. Seems obvious to me.
1 Like