HOME     LOGIN     CREATE ACCOUNT     SSW HELP CENTER  

Asteroid Depletion

Secret Society Wars  »  SSW Discussion

  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Asteroid Depletion
    So, while just sort of staring at the screen here some days back, the Galactic Ecotourist Alliance propaganda caught my eye "Stop mining asteroids - Mining is murder" and all, and that brought an idea to my mind.

    What if the asteroids represented a diminishing return resource, that over time would get farmed down by people and facilities mining out of their stock?

    I'd not suggest that they ever totally "die", but instead that after some number of ore is extracted, they drop their yield per turn/cycle. Perhaps something like a 5% decrease for every 100000 ore removed, and capping at some minimum return.

    This would be intended to replicate a decreasing quantity available and greater time/effort to extract the desired resources from the less rich asteroid.

    The game implications are probably reasonably wide-reaching, with there being a much greater need to secure, protect, defend and manage your resources, as well as making it more beneficial to mine at "alternate" locations or enemy holdings to deplete them first, or impact the opposition's efficiency.

    Just an idea I had and have been bouncing for a bit.

    Discuss.
  • Posted By: grimdel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Yesterday, I didn't see that many 105 ore buy trades - thought maybe the traders had an over-supply.

    I doubt Munk would have pushed this change without some hints, but it could fit with this theme - trader prices fluxuating based on previous day's trade activity? supply and demand and all that? Things get cheaper if theres a glut, and prices spiking if some ore gets neglected?
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I've noticed similar things as well, though I thought that it might have been tied to the UA in some fashion instead, at least in what the alignment of the buy/sell points were?

    Though it certainly is possible that trading would be what would have an impact on that, at least in what the price points were for trader's low sells and high buys.

    I can't really say in any case, as I never watched it that closely and just went ahead and worked with whatever the situation was and all.
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "Rakkasan":  

    What if the asteroids represented a diminishing return resource, that over time would get farmed down by people and facilities mining out of their stock?



    I'd tend to think this would just reward those who bot all their mining turns right after whenever the replenishment roll would be, leaving everyone else who plays normally ore-starved. It also would tend to make establishing mining colonies counterproductive, as the well-developed mining sector would be continually starved. Seems to put the incentives all wrong.
  • Posted By: Rickton  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    It would also give a big advantage to the societies who get their facilities up early, who are already at an advantage to begin with. And it would make things really slow later in the cycle once all the asteroids get mined out and everyone's barely producing any ore, and so can't produce many drones.

    A twist on the idea might be having temporary super-asteroids in addition to the main ones, that have a finite amount of ore but give more than normal. If there are only a few at a time, it would also be an incentive for societies to fight over things a little more rather than everyone just staking out their corner of the map and leaving each other alone except for a big attack. To avoid the problem munk mentioned, maybe they couldn't be mineable by hand because they're too dense or something.


    I DO also like the idea of being able to sneak in behind enemy lines and do something to disrupt your opponent's efficiency, although as something that would be temporary or need maintenance. Send in doppelpets to enemy facilities as saboteurs? Or maybe galactic ecotourism facilities run by doppels that decreases the efficiency of all mining on the asteroid it's attached to by attracting protestors that get in the way of the miners. (OK, that's a little silly)
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "Rickton":  

    I DO also like the idea of being able to sneak in behind enemy lines and do something to disrupt your opponent's efficiency, although as something that would be temporary or need maintenance. Send in doppelpets to enemy facilities as saboteurs? Or maybe galactic ecotourism facilities run by doppels that decreases the efficiency of all mining on the asteroid it's attached to by attracting protestors that get in the way of the miners. (OK, that's a little silly)



    well, that can get awfully complex and meta. The current philosophy is focused on drone warfare to disrupt production. You can ask the Eastern Star how seriously their production got hit by Triad and Oddfellow blockades a week or so ago to determine how effective a blockade can be, even without such tactics as colliding facilities which also exists. I can't really see much purpose in introducing efficiency blockers that can't really be defended against which would distract from the main point of adequately controlling your sectors.
  • Posted By: Rickton  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "munk":  

      Quote "Rickton":  

    I DO also like the idea of being able to sneak in behind enemy lines and do something to disrupt your opponent's efficiency, although as something that would be temporary or need maintenance. Send in doppelpets to enemy facilities as saboteurs? Or maybe galactic ecotourism facilities run by doppels that decreases the efficiency of all mining on the asteroid it's attached to by attracting protestors that get in the way of the miners. (OK, that's a little silly)



    well, that can get awfully complex and meta. The current philosophy is focused on drone warfare to disrupt production. You can ask the Eastern Star how seriously their production got hit by Triad and Oddfellow blockades a week or so ago to determine how effective a blockade can be, even without such tactics as colliding facilities which also exists. I can't really see much purpose in introducing efficiency blockers that can't really be defended against which would distract from the main point of adequately controlling your sectors.


    Ah, yeah, I forgot about colliding facilities. Plus thinking about it more, a mechanic like that would be of bigger benefit to Amaranth players because they're more easily able to swing into other societies to get to their facilities.
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    How many facilities before they start colliding?
  • Posted By: crashnburn11  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    How many facilities before they start colliding?



    33

    If there are 34 or more the sector week have a message that says you better do something about that from what I remember.

    I also found out people get overly angry when you do that to them
  • Posted By: Rickton  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "crashnburn11":  

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    How many facilities before they start colliding?



    33

    If there are 34 or more the sector week have a message that says you better do something about that from what I remember.

    I also found out people get overly angry when you do that to them



    IIRC, they have to have doppelpets in them too, empty facilities won't collide with full ones.
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "crashnburn11":  

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    How many facilities before they start colliding?



    33

    If there are 34 or more the sector week have a message that says you better do something about that from what I remember.

    I also found out people get overly angry when you do that to them



    heh, yeah I think it counts as dirty tricks.
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Adsynth and I are pondering currently the pros and cons of this concept. Comment welcome. I note that Asteroid Depletion appears to be polling badly, so this might not go anywhere at all.

      Quote "The Halls of Power":  

    Concept: asteroid depletion
    --------------------------
    Currently 72 Asteroids, 6 of each ore. They do not deplete.

    Change:
    1) At universe generation/reset, distribute 12 of each ore worth of asteroids.

    2) add field to logs_mining to indicate which asteroid was mined.

    3) at roll, check logs_mining for asteroids that have been "mined out" (say a million ores mined from that asteroid) and remove it from space if it's out of ore.

    Result:
    1) finite amount of minable ore during a cycle.

    2) holding an asteroid is only useful for a period of time, thus forcing strongholds to move to take new asteroids once old ones have been mined out.

    3) resource competition becomes much more hard-fought in endgame as the few remaining asteroids are hotly contested.



    Addendum; I'll have to really study up on how the logging works again, but I think it's possible to *not count* the mining of facilities against the count. Thus, if you set up a nice mining corridor for your facilities and kept a PvP guard handy to keep <33's from mining your asteroids, you could keep your asteroids full for the duration. This would add some interesting offensive mining tactics for <33's and create a controllable element to asteroid depletion in the sectors you control.
  • Posted By: Salen  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I'm willing to give it a shot...may make the wars go a little faster as well. not gonna be able to sit and just mine and drone forever :)
  • Posted By: datacore  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Sounds unnecessary to the game mechanic and might make those who purchased items to help them to mine more (miner's helmet) a bit bitchy. Me included. It's already been voted negatively.
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    It would actually make the mining helmet even more valuable, since getting your mining done quickly, before the asteroids go away, is important.
  • Posted By: crashnburn11  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I'd be willing to try it but I would have more fun if we keep it at 6 of each, but at a million ore the asteroid vanished and a new one was found shortly thereafter in another location
  • Posted By: Kimo  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Um.. Yeah. I voted against this idea. So, if someone is late to the party they get punished because the resources are gone? I guess the dimits will increase as people realize building facilities and investing in doppel pets is futile. That is if they started weeks after the start of the cycle. But hey if that is the way it will be, I will adjust. At least I am on the record.
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Yeah, I don't like the way it penalizes those that are a bit slower to dimit, or who come into the cycle later on.
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    anybody else want to shoot a hole in it as the idea spirals down in flames? :D
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Seems to me the anticipatory fear is a bit overblown for how fast the asteroids would deplete.

    I mean, with one tool and a helmet, you'd be talking about around 100,000 turns spent mining to blow out one asteroid, unless my maths are off? Toss in doubled tools and the helmet, and you're still looking at a LOT of turns to deplete one asteroid.

    That's an AWFUL lot of turns spent mining, even if you consider 20, 30, 40 people all hammering at the same asteroid at once, particularly considering if there were 12 asteroids... per TYPE.

    I mean, c'mon, I know I brought up the idea and all, so I'm perhaps a bit protective of it, but it seriously strikes me that there's way too much jitter coming up from this?
  • Posted By: xKiv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Hm. If 40 people are hammering at one asteroid with two 100% tools 500 turns a day each, that's how much ore mined? 40*500*2*, say, 4?
    16000 per day. A million then lasts 1000/16=250/4=62.5 days.

    That's so long that the whole thing is pointless. The mechanic will never really come into play with the "goal" set so high.

    Which means: either set the goal much lower (100k or even 10k), or scrape the idea.
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "xKiv":  

    Hm. If 40 people are hammering at one asteroid with two 100% tools 500 turns a day each, that's how much ore mined? 40*500*2*, say, 4?
    16000 per day. A million then lasts 1000/16=250/4=62.5 days.

    That's so long that the whole thing is pointless. The mechanic will never really come into play with the "goal" set so high.

    Which means: either set the goal much lower (100k or even 10k), or scrape the idea.



    "a million" is just a random "out of the ass" number. say it's 50,000, and discuss from there. (:
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    you guys saying it would take forever are also not taking facilities into account.
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "munk":  


    "a million" is just a random "out of the ass" number. say it's 50,000, and discuss from there. (:



    See, to me, I think at that number you'd be looking at something that took considerable effort and dedication to burn through.

    If an entire 10-person team went at it, that'd be 5000 ores each, meaning that it'd take them all at least 500 turns each to get it done, more like 1000 would be likely. So it "could" be done in a day, perhaps... assuming everyone could put that many turns into it, and there was access to the sector, wasn't any opposition kicking them out of the sector, etc.

    I suspect that those who don't like the idea won't like the idea no matter what, though. I mean, even with 12 asteroids per type and a "out of the ass" number of 1000000 ore, seems like the idea of potential for needing real security and flexibility and maneuver and such just doesn't appeal, but limitless resource static warfare with brute approaches does.

    I don't know, I honestly just don't get it. At all.
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    you guys saying it would take forever are also not taking facilities into account.



    Nope, I am.

      Quote "munk":  


    Addendum; I'll have to really study up on how the logging works again, but I think it's possible to *not count* the mining of facilities against the count.

  • Posted By: ThatKat  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I think that the most fair and viable way to do this would be to deplete an asteroid, and a new one pops up somewhere else. The 33rds that have facilities camped there would have to scramble to move them, while giving everyone a new crack at the asteroid.
  • Posted By: Rickton  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "ThatKat":  

    I think that the most fair and viable way to do this would be to deplete an asteroid, and a new one pops up somewhere else. The 33rds that have facilities camped there would have to scramble to move them, while giving everyone a new crack at the asteroid.


    Yeah, I like this idea. I like the idea of asteroid depletion, but I don't think the asteroids should be a totally nonrenewable resource. As others have mentioned, it penalizes slow/late players and societies even more than they already are.
    In addition to what's already been mentioned, once they're depleted, it would make the daily quests basically necessary to be competitive, and for those of us who don't have much time to play (myself included, so I may be biased here), it puts us at more of a disadvantage (don't get me wrong, I like the daily quests, I just don't think they should be *required*, and this change would make them required if you wanted to be competitive).

    Making new asteroids appear when old ones are depleted also makes the endgame a bit more dynamic. Rather than everyone staking out their claim and mining forever, societies will have to scramble for control of the new asteroids. Societies that miss out and don't get good ones aren't totally screwed, they'll get a chance to grab one later.
  • Posted By: xKiv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    you guys saying it would take forever are also not taking facilities into account.



    How much can your facilities mine in a day? I have not deployed any yet, but my hazy recollection is that it was not even an order of magnitude more than what I could mine by hand. Maybe 3 times as much (depends on # of available doppets, of course). With the kind of guesstimates I am working with, that's not a significant difference - once we get near to the right numbers, it will need to be tuned from observation (did this limit have interesting effects in this cycle? would increasing or decreasing help? - slow process, and not predictable)



      Quote "Rickton":  

    , it would make the daily quests basically necessary to be competitive



    It would make *favorable RNG at picking the daily quests* required to be competitive.
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "xKiv":  

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    you guys saying it would take forever are also not taking facilities into account.



    How much can your facilities mine in a day? I have not deployed any yet, but my hazy recollection is that it was not even an order of magnitude more than what I could mine by hand. Maybe 3 times as much (depends on # of available doppets, of course).



    For the sake of the record, my current Bof mines are producing an output of 42 per production cycle. With the maximum facilities limit per sector, assuming fully shielded facilities, staffed by reasonably experienced pets, running at near max efficiency, you'd be looking at a near absolute maximum total asteroid depletion rates of: 42*24 = 1008 ore per facility/day, *33 facilities = 33,264 ore per asteroid/day.

    Disclaimer: Yes, I realize that the facility limit only kicks in at daily roll and that the theoretical maximum depletion rate is effectively "much" higher, but for this number, I am assuming a Society/Team long-term depletion rate that is done with a sustainable facility arrangement.


    =====

    Munk, as an aside, I was thinking more what with if asteroids were to go disappearing, what then would happen to facilities based on them/in that sector? Would they just remain and go idle?
  • Posted By: Julionics  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "Rakkasan":  



    Munk, as an aside, I was thinking more what with if asteroids were to go disappearing, what then would happen to facilities based on them/in that sector? Would they just remain and go idle?



    Would it be possible for the pets to be forced back into the cage from a distance but the facilities would be destroyed?

    Or would it be you would have to clear out your old facilities before rollover?
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "Julionics":  


    Would it be possible for the pets to be forced back into the cage from a distance but the facilities would be destroyed?

    Or would it be you would have to clear out your old facilities before rollover?


    Well, I'd hope it wouldn't destroy the facilities and kill the pets, that'd seem a bit extreme, really. To the point of making the loss of the asteroid itself entirely adjunct, to the point of being utterly superfluous.

    However, the idea that the pets would re-cage wouldn't make the asteroid depletion any sort of viable "attack" method at all. More, it'd be a viable alternative "rescue" method when a sector was captured and held too strongly to be recoverable. Or, actually, in most cases mining out an asteroid would even be PREFERABLE in terms of recovering stuff.

    Nah... I sure hope that pets wouldn't go back to their cages. I'd like them to float there, helpless, doing nothing. This gives an actual "advantage" to holding the sector and destroying the asteroid.

    -edit: Aside, if the pets would re-cage if an asteroid depleted, why wouldn't they do it, or be "made" to do it, when a facility would explode or when a sector was blockaded? I mean this from a game-play rationale, more than from a mechanics one. If "teleport rescue" is possible in situation X, why not in Y and/or Z? Right?
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "Rakkasan":  

    Munk, as an aside, I was thinking more what with if asteroids were to go disappearing, what then would happen to facilities based on them/in that sector? Would they just remain and go idle?



    They'd just go idle. I was not thinking of adding a lot of weird consequences for the disappearance.
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "munk":  


    They'd just go idle. I was not thinking of adding a lot of weird consequences for the disappearance.


    Right then. Seems the most simple, logical, and reasonable solution.
  • Posted By: xKiv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "Rakkasan":  


    For the sake of the record, my current Bof mines are producing an output of 42 per production cycle. With the maximum facilities limit per sector, assuming fully shielded facilities, staffed by reasonably experienced pets, running at near max efficiency, you'd be looking at a near absolute maximum total asteroid depletion rates of: 42*24 = 1008 ore per facility/day, *33 facilities = 33,264 ore per asteroid/day.

    Disclaimer: Yes, I realize that the facility limit only kicks in at daily roll and that the theoretical maximum depletion rate is effectively "much" higher, but for this number, I am assuming a Society/Team long-term depletion rate that is done with a sustainable facility arrangement.



    This is an interesting part, because maximal total asteroid facility depletion rate depends on *square* of number of players (each player's depletion rate depends on how many doppets are available).
  • Posted By: grimdel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Just curious how this would affect mining stations -> you use a kit, 105 shields, 105 batteries, and have the potential of farming for a week->month before the asteroid is used up. The current behavior is you can recycle it for a trivial amount of spacebucks.

    Would that behavior change? Or maybe you can 'rent' a spacetug to move the facility to a new location? Or maybe recycle a percentage into batteries, shields, kit(?) to build a new facility? (could be tied to an iotm - Ms Fusion's replicator, Mini-Slartibartfast)
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I think we can file this idea firmly in the "induces panic and loathing" category and back-burner it for the Time Being. (:
  • Posted By: TFwO  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    maybe we can test it out after the war during an anarchy period just to see what it's like for shits and giggles. then have another vote after trying it out.
  • Posted By: adsynth  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "munk":  

    I think we can file this idea firmly in the "induces panic and loathing" category and back-burner it for the Time Being. (:



    Indeed.
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Well, I guess when I push a button, I like to REALLY push a button.