Also this sharing of yields is becoming very annoying, especially if you get more then a few outposts, so we need a way more simple system, which i suggest is to do away with linked yields. kill some yields if you have too, but clean up those planets and then seed some new yields if needed, but dont keep this current system, as its impossible to follow.
Right now any possible changes to the mineral/mining aspect of the game is WAY down my personal list of priorities. It works, and works well - so why change it?
Dan
Also its become time consuming, to have to look at numbers just to see which yields are shared, i even found two outposts with same number of a yield, except i noted they where on two different planets and one was metals and other hydrocarbons, that means i will need to look at more then just the number.
Too much too keep track off. We need to make game simplier, because this shared yield bit is too wasteful to have in the game. Especially since all affs could just setup on your good yield, so whats the point of shared yields???
Have you got two outposts mining the SAME deposit ID? is that what you're getting at? If so then the outpost not at the peak will eventually see a number in the vein column. But why have the two iutposts doing that - all you need to do is group your outposts by planet and make sure you only exploit each deposit once, at the outpost where the yield is highest... but the ability to mine the same deposit from two or more outposts isn't a major hassle, and does allow both co-operation (sharing of a deposit) and conflict (claim-jumping)
Dan
Also why have shared yields, when 10 affs could just setup on the peak yield? why should really anyone complain about this, since the shared yields now, limits you anyway??? its stupid to include shared.
Remove shared so that it becomes more easy to sort out yields and i agree markets are worse, but does not mean we should just accept yields being as they are now.
Also you ever tried to write down a 50*50 world? once you have GPI all 2500 sectors and if you GPI them, to get all info, then will you need to sort throught 2500 sectors to find numbers, this is worse then markets, because this is just one planet, there is what 1k+ in this game.
So no more of that, remove shared because it is stupid!
Maybe it's less important for the more common ores, but for those *very* rare ores it's a very important game feature.
If aff X is mining on the peak deposit with a well defended outpost, the yield system allows a covert outpost (ie in caves) to be established in an adjacent sector
and tap into the yield without provoking a conflict.
I do agree though that the term *unlimited* is thrown around a little lightly.
Perhaps if that term was used more accurately and replaced with *lots* or something more vague where applicable.
No you are making it harder for people to keep info on yields, because already now, its impossible to see which yields are shared, espcially on big planets. I find GPI info many times harder to keep track off then markets, so if this game was suppose to become more easy to play, then why include surpluss info on stuff that is really not needed in the game, like shared yields.
Might i include that i dislike the fact, that i GPI a sector and as mica have said, then do i not really GPI a yield there, but a next door sector, just showing what yield i can get, from my outpost sending mining crafts there. But that suggest that your GPI scan have actually failed, because if a sector dont really have a yield, then should it not show one.
So stop annoying people with all this surpluss crap, removing shared would make it more easy for people to handle GPI info and if you want to share a yield, then place it on the peak yield for christ sake, at least then everyone know that its there the yield exist.
Perhaps while some of you like idea of shared, then consider those of us, who are tired of all this surpluss useless info, the more we have to process the more hours Phoenix demands at some point, it will become too much and we would quit. If that is the end result, then is shared yields really that important to the game?
| QUOTE |
| why would anyone want to place a hidden outpost next sector, when you can just setup a cave as first complex and then move more too it, since shared means others steal and reduce your yield, then i dont see why anyone would bother to complain about someone setting up in the same sector as you, even when it comes to rare ores, because the result is the same. |
If you want to steal someone elses, then shared makes it easier... thus it has a purpose, just coz you dont use it doesn't mean it should be removed from the game.
| QUOTE |
So stop annoying people with all this surpluss crap, removing shared would make it more easy for people to handle GPI info and if you want to share a yield, then place it on the peak yield for christ sake, at least then everyone know that its there the yield exist. |
The peak of one yield may be the same sector as vein of another ore type... thus a base can mine more than one type of ore, even if it is at a reduced rate (might still be more efficient than building/defending two outposts).
| QUOTE |
Perhaps while some of you like idea of shared, then consider those of us, who are tired of all this surpluss useless info, the more we have to process the more hours Phoenix demands at some point, it will become too much and we would quit. If that is the end result, then is shared yields really that important to the game? |
purrrllleeeease!
/me hands the rattle back to Harlow
How would you like it, if I asked for a part of the game that YOU like to use to be taken out because I don't - and I threaten to quit because I consider your favourite piece of the game as nothing more than "surpluss crap info"? Have you asked the SMS - ie. the miners in the game - whether they consider it to be surplus to what's needed in the game?
If you have two outposts that can tap into the same deposit (you keep using yield I THINK for deposit - it's the only way that your comments make sense to me) then just exploit it from the one that has the higher yield - otherwise you're not using your facilities to their greatest efficiency. Look at it, once, then ignore it at the outpost with a lower yield - is that so hard?
"Infinite" has been used for "too much to bother counting, if you mine it from here it's not likely to run out any time soon" - as you extract enough from it at the peak, it will eventually start to show the number....
Dan
As for quitting, well its not just this, but also how annoying starbases with markets are, especially if they are setup on standing orders, like falencia for one, 200+ standing orders announced once per week and its in the preproduction part already, so why include it at each update! i want new stuff there, not old setup standing orders.
But if a game annoy me to play, i have options of scaling down, thats an option, but then i cant play as i am now, then i end up quitting. While Phoenix is better then BSE, then are there now many things, that IS MAKING THIS GAME BORING, LIKE THE STUPID SHARED YIELD!!!!!!
also there is some who wants to cut some from what i like, as in trade which i like, but i am fine sofare with what is being done, except for when mica tries to screw it up futher, we still have way more demand, then there is goods!!! need more goods!
If someone can delete this thread then please do.
1. hidden complexes to "steal" your ore - the person being stolen from might not like it, but they wouldn't like being attacked either
2. where a deposit has a very limited vein (usually rare ores) it allows you to tap the outpost from a nearby location that might not be at the peak, but IS at the peak of a different (more common) deposit... hence when the rare ore deposit is finished, the outpost is still useful
3. As has already been said, one outpost near two or more ores (enough to make mining them worthwhile) only needs one outpost's worth of security. If the area is less safe, then it might well make it cheaper overall
there are others, but these are the first that spring to mind. I have made use of the spread of deposits in about a dozen locations so far, and would not like to see a very useful aspect of the game removed!
Dan
| QUOTE (Harlow @ Mar 15 2004, 09:10 PM) |
| This is my last message here, i am quitting this forum, because i find discussions endless and they never amount to anything. So dont waste your time and comment on anything i have written. If someone can delete this thread then please do. |
your choice - but it is a forum meant for opinions...
While I can delete the thread, I'd prefer not to as it does cover a useful topic - the "why" behind deposit spread
Whilst I know it would be low priority, surely its still worth discussing?
Mark
| QUOTE (Mandible @ Mar 16 2004, 08:09 AM) |
| A way of allowing the GPI data to be sorted more easily for example; say, have the parser pull in GPI data and allow it to be manipulated or saved as a spreadsheet or database file so you can play with it yourself and easily find those linked yields. Whilst I know it would be low priority, surely its still worth discussing? Mark |
We don't have to go cap in hand to Skeletal/kjc everytime we want something like this.
I'd be surprised if a few players hadn't thrown together a small phoenix-GIS program already, which would parse turns and cater for all your yield data / optimum site locator needs.
It comes down to a little preparation prior to construction and half an eye of what is happening in your own backyard but otherwise is not a defining feature of the game.
To put it bluntly, removing it will screw more people that leaving it be. It will force players to run more outposts just to get ores. It will immediately inform players that an outpost is already built in a sector as only one outpost can tap a deposit.....
I can go on if you like?
As to unlimited yield, this just means that at the current rate of exploitation, the deposit will last for at least 20 years. If you expanded the 12MU outpost to exploit at 36MU per week then you'd find that unlimited would change to the amount left.
Whether it's better to state how long a deposit will last at the current rate of exploitation (e.g. unlimited, 18 years, 10 years, 15 months, 6 months, 4 weeks etc etc etc) is another thing. Useful for big and medium sized deposits, not so good perhaps for very small deposits.
Nik
| QUOTE (Nik @ Mar 16 2004, 12:14 PM) |
| It is very easy to write a marco in Word to format the data which can then be pasted into Excel for sorting into highest to lowest yields. |
Hi,
that's good for just one ore, but I was thinking about a little program that would help organise/analyse all GPI data.
It would allow the user to select any planet and give a view similar to the one for the planet scans in the order editor.
But would have alternative views than just terrain.
Mets, for example could be told to be red if greater than X, orange if between y and z etc
Also, could ask to highlight sectors where (rare ore) > # AND metals > # and hydrocarbons > # etc.
maybe even not limit the searches to a particular planet, if you had all your aff's data available to search you could maybe find some prime locations for outposts to increase efficiency.
Placing a second outpost to tap the same deposit will not be more efficient than placing more mines in the outpost on the best yield for the deposit.
There may need to be some more reporting required so that ppl can see what is happens when 2 outposts compete on a single deposit.
For now, the best advice is to group starbases and outposts by planet and pull out the deposit info. While there is duplication of deposit ID's within the game, they are unique for each planet.
Once you have that listing for the planet, mark the duplicated deposit ID's, and only mine from the outpost/deposit with the highest yield. As long as you keep clear which outpost to expand your mining at when you want more of a specific ore from a specific deposit, you don't need to worry.
Dan
| QUOTE |
| but also how annoying starbases with markets are, especially if they are setup on standing orders, like falencia for one, 200+ standing orders announced once per week and its in the preproduction part already, so why include it at each update! |
I could most likely make an option to make standing orders report on several levels. I think 200 standing orders seems a bit excessive. Is this something to do with the markets.
| QUOTE |
| While Phoenix is better then BSE, then are there now many things, that IS MAKING THIS GAME BORING, LIKE THE STUPID SHARED YIELD!!!!!! |
6 !'s that sounds serious. Pitty he is gone ore we could have got to the bottom of the problem.
I'll write some PHP to create a graph for mining, see if that looks good.
I think what he means is too many changes at the same time is making them hard to keep up with.
Like I said before, I'd much rather see some of the current ones finished before we start talking more changes.
| QUOTE |
| Like I said before, I'd much rather see some of the current ones finished before we start talking more changes |
Its less about changing anything and more about presentation. There is nothing wrong with shared yields but as most things its not presented ideally. Which is all down to time. The mining util is something i have on a list somewhere 5 times so its prob time to do it.