| Author |
Upgrading buildings = same as scrapping? |
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
|  Posted: 2010-10-02 08:38
I spent 1 1/2 hours rebuilding a few planets in Eri. 1 1/2 hours. Had to upgrade some buildings, move others. scrap some and build others in their place. You know, planet tweaking.
1 1/2 hrs tweaking netted me 45 pres lost overall.
what the hell is that?
Why is there no deconstruction option for a building that takes the building off and replaces the res to the planet? This could be scored the same as construction points with a similar time required for deconstruction to happen. I mean, you have a player actively playing, attempting to help his team, he should get something for it. Who except for a very high ranked player is going to bother, and why should that player lose prestige for doing what he knows needs to be done?
Downgrading was a nice option until it was removed. It allowed you to at least make up some points before you ultimately had to scrap something. But that has apparently been disabled. BAD MOVE!
Please! Stop punishing players for playing the game!
_________________
bucket link
|
Alcedo
Chief Marshal
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: June 03, 2010
Posts: 136
| Posted: 2010-10-02 08:47
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-02 08:38, Azreal wrote:
Why is there no deconstruction option for a building that takes the building off and replaces the res to the planet? This could be scored the same as construction points with a similar time required for deconstruction to happen. I mean, you have a player actively playing, attempting to help his team, he should get something for it. Who except for a very high ranked player is going to bother, and why should that player lose prestige for doing what he knows needs to be done?
Downgrading was a nice option until it was removed. It allowed you to at least make up some points before you ultimately had to scrap something. But that has apparently been disabled. BAD MOVE!
Please! Stop punishing players for playing the game!
|
|
Azreal, I agree with you 100% on this point.
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2010-10-02 09:24
The main reason was because of its obvious ability to abused. Oh look, I can just build inexpensive stuff repeatedly! And then delete! And repeat! Easy farming prestige.
I don't agree that building prestige should go so unrewarded, but theres not really many good alternatives.
-Ent
_________________
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2010-10-02 09:57
guess thats why hardly few people build planets right anymore
_________________
|
Doran
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 29, 2003
Posts: 4032
From: The Gideon Unit
| Posted: 2010-10-02 11:23
dont know what to tell you, so ill fall back on ye olde standby: you're doing it wrong (or if you prefer: you're wrong and im right)
command dread(one drone)
replaced a sensor base with an antisensor base. lose 1.5 points, gained it back building the antisensor base. net 0.
level1 research lab, replaced with level 2, lost 3.7 points initially, gained it back. net 0 again. same level 2, replaced with level 3, acutally gained 7.4 points, unless i miscalculated.
solar gen to variance(3), lost 2.3 points initially, but netted a half a point.
level 1 farm -> lvl2, lost .7, gained .8 back. 2->3, lost 1.5, gained it all back and another 1.5 points on top.
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2010-10-02 12:08
yep. sounds good. until u find planets that have wrong buildings. 115 tech and a sy on a barren in eri. If I could deconstruct the extra research and the sy, then Im not losing all the pres in order to "fix" the planet where it should be.
and really? 7.4 for upgrading to a cortex? Wow! amazing pres gain. Because you are effectively scrapping the level 2 res base, you lose the points. If you build a cortex on a barren slot w/o scapping you get more pts. Why does the game count it as a scrap? Why not just count it as upgrading? Why does a negative have to be given for PLAYING THE GAME PROPERLY? I have never seen this in any other game I can think of, and I cut my teeth on a Pong paddle.
And really, in all honesty, I must question this idea that building is exploiting. If a player is sitting at a planet and actively building, I don't see how that could be exploitative. What is the value in building a mine, then building a depot? Is this really a valid reason to basically punish every other player who is just using an engineer to build a planet to a better level? Does not the better part of the game require players to do exactly that, whether it be in the mv or the scenario? Would it not be more proper, that if a pilot is doing something exploitative, that he is reported and dealt with for RoC violations? Doing anything to a planetary structure that could be potentially exploitative or sabotage is announced on the server to the faction. Isn't this what moderators and /report are for, or has that changed as well? It wasn't in the dev logs.....
Anyways, sorry for rant. I just don't understand this particular aspect of the game, purely from a player's point of view....
_________________
bucket link
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2010-10-02 12:08
if we buff building pres to satisfy high ranked players, the newbies will rank up extremely fast
if we put it so newbies will gain good pres, higher ranks will get nothing
why doesn't this happen with combat you say?
because we have like 2-3 dedicated engi ships, and as you rank up you get slower building, more combat oriented ships.
so you build at same rate/get same rate of pres as a captain as you do as a CM.
unless we have a dedicated fleet of engis, tweak build drones, and then put higher ranked engis in, it will be slow ranking for high ranks, or power ranking for low ranks.
_________________
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2010-10-02 12:40
I believe player can downgrade from level 3 to level 2 or 1, then upgrade it back. Upgrade and downgrade doesn't lose pres, I think. Only scrapping loses some.
I myself doesn't see the need to re-organize most of the strucs on the planet, except def bases. If someone can bomb it, let one does. Then cap it back and earn pres.
There is no planet that tough enough to withstand without player's protection. Hence lose pres when building is unnecessary.
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2010-10-02 13:17
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-02 12:40, chlorophyll wrote:
I believe player can downgrade from level 3 to level 2 or 1, then upgrade it back. Upgrade and downgrade doesn't lose pres, I think. Only scrapping loses some.
|
|
No you can't and yes it does.
Quote:
|
I myself doesn't see the need to re-organize most of the strucs on the planet, except def bases. If someone can bomb it, let one does. Then cap it back and earn pres.
|
|
AI and nub engies make reorganizing planets necessary, & the MV is all about territory and holding it.
Quote:
|
There is no planet that tough enough to withstand without player's protection. Hence lose pres when building is unnecessary.
|
|
That is completely beside the point. And atm, you lose pres when building NEEDS to be done. That is my whole point.
_________________
bucket link
|
Fatal HI NSA PadmaVajra *XO1*
Chief Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: May 24, 2005
Posts: 184
| Posted: 2010-10-02 14:12
without adding flame, I agree with Azrael's main point. I found dozen or so planets that were poorly built. They seemed to be AI or noob builds.
After working for almost 4 hours on rebuilding them to useful systems...virtually no pres gain. Even if you aren't preoccupied with pres it can still feel like a nice waste of pres time. 4 hours and you aren't any further along.
_________________
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2010-10-02 15:02
As a self-styled professional builder, I can confirm that, indeed, upgrading a building nets you the same prestige loss as scrapping one would. This means that replacing a Level 2 Offence Base for a Level 1 Defence Base will result in a loss of prestige. This disregards whether it is strategically important to do so.
Note that it also means that building an inefficient planet full of Shipyards, or Level 2 Offence Bases, is a much better gains of prestige than an efficient planet. Sure, it'll take a while longer, but to give better prestige for building an absolutely worthless planet than to build a proper planet seems a little weird.
Is it possible to remedy this? Let's review the staff's options.
-->Make it so that upgrading costs less to no prestige to do. This obviously increases net prestige gain for upgrading structures, as they replace for less than they would if you scrap them. As someone raised, though, it is potentially exploitative for people who don't mind spending the time for reliable and lazy prestige.
The upside is that people are rewarded for restructuring a planet. Potentially even the player is rewarded for improving a planet. This would encourage people to take up the banner of "improving planets everywhere" and reward building in the MV a bit more beyond just something you do after razing/bombing.
The downside to this is that it is exploitable. It is never proper gamedesign to implement a potentially exploitable feature, never bother if you don't have the resources to regulate it. We just don't have a mod on each team in each server at each moment. Irrelevant, because in the grand scheme of things it is never a good idea to implement things which are known to be exploitable.
-->Redesign the way planet building works. This could lead to a new system for rewarding building. At first I thought about the way prestige is awarded but honestly, you can't have the server judge if a planet is built properly and you want to reward them per second spent building rather than after half an hour of building a planet up to pre-build spec.
I can't list pros and cons for this as the actual system is up for debate, but the pro to the REDESIGN is that you can ameliorate the issue and promote building a bit more.
The obvious con is that redesigning takes time, energy and insight, and while the last one may be available, the first two are important commodities. As much as I believe that volunteers willfully made themselves available, I do think there's a limit to how much we can expect. A redesign would probably be a lot of work and there's other matters right now. A Two Weeks plan, if you will.
-->Keep things the way they are, which is the other option I see. Obvious pro is that you don't end up breaking anything and it's already present and, indeed, until right now there were no real suggestions nor feedback to change the system save for the occassional peep and whine in the lobby. [size=small](from yours truly)[/size]
Is there a method X, a fourth opportunity I haven't explored in thought? I hope so, else I'd have suggested it!
What my point here mostly is is that it is easy to complain that a system does not function, but the readily available solution is not a solution borne out of proper game design philosophies. ONe does not implement exploitable mechanics with no defence, and unless someone here has a good idea to Anti-Exploit it with a near 99% guarantee of success I think the devs will not do well to actually accept the proposal to make upgrading cost no prestige.
For now, like mining, building is one of those things you'll sometimes have to do but can't really expect reasonable returns for. Building may be rewarded in scenario, but in the Metaverse, there's no reason to spend too much time building from a prestige-centred point of view.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-10-02 15:17
We'll likely be reviewing structures soon as the planetary system is close to being worked on. We'll take this topic under consideration when we look at them (maybe extend the build time by upping the HP of the structure - hence you'd get more prestige).
_________________
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2010-10-02 21:44
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-02 15:17, BackSlash wrote:
We'll likely be reviewing structures soon as the planetary system is close to being worked on. We'll take this topic under consideration when we look at them (maybe extend the build time by upping the HP of the structure - hence you'd get more prestige).
|
|
wouldn't upping the hp on buildings make them harder to destroy when bombing?
_________________
|
Katejina
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: February 13, 2010
Posts: 73
From: katejina
| Posted: 2010-10-02 21:59
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-02 08:38, Azreal wrote:
I spent 1 1/2 hours rebuilding a few planets in Eri. 1 1/2 hours. Had to upgrade some buildings, move others. scrap some and build others in their place. You know, planet tweaking.
1 1/2 hrs tweaking netted me 45 pres lost overall.
what the hell is that?
Why is there no deconstruction option for a building that takes the building off and replaces the res to the planet? This could be scored the same as construction points with a similar time required for deconstruction to happen. I mean, you have a player actively playing, attempting to help his team, he should get something for it. Who except for a very high ranked player is going to bother, and why should that player lose prestige for doing what he knows needs to be done?
Downgrading was a nice option until it was removed. It allowed you to at least make up some points before you ultimately had to scrap something. But that has apparently been disabled. BAD MOVE!
Please! Stop punishing players for playing the game!
|
|
Its 45 pres who cares...
_________________
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2010-10-02 22:09
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-02 21:59, Katejina wrote:
Its 45 pres who cares...
|
|
wow.. its not about the pres. its about the fact that he lost for building planets the right way vrs leaving planets in piss poor shape.
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
