The solution last I heard was for both Creative and Survival worlds. Until they release the final version I am not sure if they plan to change things.
I’m only trying to provide some details based on a conversation 2 months ago when I was trying to influence them to give us the ability to select the planet we were orbiting. Technical and game play issues were provided on why they weren’t inclined to follow the suggestion I was making.
After that discussion, I switched my view that region/tier RNG balance made sense. The health of the game is much more important that individual wants/needs in my view. Honestly I’m not going to be able to go into everything because I don’t have all the information to explain each scenario and why it makes sense to the Developers.
Yes planet orbit selection would recreate the issue we had around Finata and likely create a center of the Universe scenario just in another fashion.
I’m not sure how this would be an issue since they can scale out servers as needed. I’d assume it was for another reason or they would have removed it.
Here’s a simple idea : why not make the price of a sovereign/creative world oribiting a survival world more expensive depending on how many worlds are already there?
Just make sure there’s a min and max cap so that the lower price will always be the world with the least amount of sovereign/creative worlds in orbit, to act as an incentive for players.
I do not think it is a good idea to have a system that favors the players that are playing now over those that might start playing later. In particular when it is costing real money. I think we are just creating a bad situation where players compare prices and we get a lot of complaints.
This falls under pay to win for me and I think it is a horrible idea. Boundless is not a pay to win game and i don’t think its a good idea to bring that model into boundless as it would ruin the game.
I’d say the current players wanting their world(s) around their base is only a current player problem mostly. New players getting planets won’t be bothered as much as the current players are since they aren’t as established if at all
I mean, if you’re going with this logic, as it stands, you’ll be able to buy a world either way, and whether it’s in orbit of a well-visited world or not is all about luck.
Do you realize that this is fairly close to the concept of loot-boxes where you pay for something randomly generated? And you know how well this is currently going, right?
Allowing players to gain an advantage for more money is the quintessential deffinition of pay to win. I am in the process of putting my first game onto steam and the overall game development and player communities see that as pay to win.
Just because player a has the money to pay more than player b does to pay to get special treatment is the core concept behind pay to win.
You’re basically replying to the first three words of my previous message and ignoring the rest there, chief. ^^
My point is that in the context of a creative world where there is no footfall and no prestige, why should you care about the whole “it’s going to create footfall-wars”?
You should not. Hence, the whole “pay to win” thing falls flat.
Now for a sovereign world, you have a point.
In the meantime, either way, my point about this whole thing turning into a lootbox-like system still stands.
Actually chief I did read your entire post please don’t make assumptions about what I’ve done.
There is still a play to win concept whether you want to agree to that or not that is your choice And I respect Your opinion even though it may be contrary to what I think.
The point is my point is still valid for both. Even With creative it gives people who have the money to spend an advantage over people who don’t. This creates unbalanced game play and creates dissension within the community.
I get why you would want to but with the way that they have boundless structured I just think it would be a bad idea all the way around because you would give it for creative’s and then people with sovereigns would want it next and That’s the issue.
You have to look at the whole picture and down the road Sovereigns would want the same special treatment which at that point would destroy the entire balance of the game and shift its paradigm to pay to win.
I was mixing up sovereign and creative as the same thing when I had the discussion but do remember that creative weren’t finalized. I need to clarify since I shouldn’t have merged them and they decided on a different answer for creative – The Creative worlds can be attached to any world selected by the player (per James).
Ah well, finally some good news!
Thanks Xal.
There’s so much confusion about the whole thing, I was ready to say “not going to spend money on these”.
For a creative world, the owner should have full control over what he gets for what he pays.
Yeah, you’re right, but back then, I wasn’t aware of what Xal said above. What you quoted was, in context, not something I’m going to do, since we’ll apparently get more control than first advertized.
It “does” work like that, I dont understand where the notion that just using a warp from sanctum stops all creative bridges from working.
the rule is: If you warp from survival to creative, then creative bridges wont work.
any other kind of travel or warping has no effect; warping from one creative world to another, or returning to sanctum from a creative world and then warping to an entirely different creative world, or warping to a friend or beacon that is on the same or another creative world… as long as you dont go into survival on the way, creative bridges are not affected.
Why can creative players select the world they want theirs attached to and sovereign worlds can not?
Sovereign Worlds are paid for as well, why on earth would they not have more control about something they pay for?
If I rent a T2 in the EU, a sovereign, then there’s a small chance it gets attached to Finata which is 1 blinksec further away than the other EU T2 planets, I would not be a happy camper if this would happen, it would cost me more oort to keep portals open than is needed.
I’m ok if there’s a technical reason for this, but if there is then the same reason should also apply to creative worlds, would it not?
My first thought would be that it could have a HUGE impact on the survival economy, whereas a creative world has no impact since you can’t take anything from creative to survival and vice-versa.
The devs likely don’t want you to introduce in the Survival Universe something that you might have created to be an advantage to you economically.
Yes, but you must realize that a Sovereign world can impact everything, just like a normal survival world.
Meanwhile, the impact of a Creative world would be a far smaller.
UNTIL they (possibly) add scripting, people will likely get most of their coins from marketplaces on sovereign/survival worlds just like today.
At worst, it would be footfall on the survival side from people wanting to visit the Creative world.
Trust me, I know, my build is mostly like a creative zone, it’s all artsy and sh!t, but we basically sell close ot nothing, so we rarely get visitors. Oh, people love our place, for sure, but still, I kinda threw in the towel because I couldn’t handle the business part of Boundless to keep expanding my build, expense-wise.
I’d rather the Creative offers as few limits as possible when creating a world, rather than BOTH Creative and Sovereign having big limits, you know? Don’t ruin this for the Creative worlds. XD
Argue for both having as few limits as possible all you want, though.
But that’s what I want tho, if creative world renters get a choice of which perm planet to attach it to I feel that sovereign renters should get the same choice.
And about ruining things for creative, the whole addition of them rather ruined it for sovereign only renters due to the amount of time it took to add them…
