spinlock_1977

Open Question: Could you NOT trade Hydrazine?

Recommended Posts

My personal opinion: I think the fuel condenser needs to go away. Why do we have a building dedicated to creating a resource out of thin air? At the very least, make it a multi-step process so it takes actual effort, or make it use another resource so it's not completely free.

Once that is taken care of, then perhaps they could add trading hydrazine back into the game again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TwoHedWlf said:

As far as economy goes, clearly Hydrazine is very easy to produce so would be very inexpensive.  So, you shouldn't be able to sell it for much.  And the trading post should require hydrazine to launch the rocket.  And given there's no one else in the system it must be going interstellar.

So, I'd be inclined to cut the current value of hydrazine in half, plus require 8 hydrazine to launch it.   Leaves selling hydrazine for resources as still being doable, but much more labor intensive and infrastructure intensive.    If you really WANT to you can do built a bunch of condensors.  Or you can leave it for when you absolutely can't find that one piece of lithium you need...

OMG, finally someone actually got it.  Thank you TwoHadWlf.

Yes, this is all about the VALUE that is put on these resources and the dev team needs to improve the evaluation of these resources, not only on the type of resource but on the accessibility of these resources.

For example, anything on the surface like let's say hydrazine would get an accessibility rating of times two. The same hydrazine in a very deep part of the caverns would give you an accessibility rating of times ten, making that hydrazine worth more. As you can imagine, the fuel condenser would only be times one. You could even expand this to the trading platform, anything you receive from the trading platform would also be given an accessibility ratings of times one.

So I hope you can see where I'm going with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CobraA1 said:

My personal opinion: I think the fuel condenser needs to go away. Why do we have a building dedicated to creating a resource out of thin air?

They have the fuel condenser for the rare occasion when you are on a planet that has low access or even no access to hydrazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kantanshi said:

They have the fuel condenser for the rare occasion when you are on a planet that has low access or even no access to hydrazine.

It strikes me as this is a stopgap solution, then. Perhaps a more fleshed put fuel production mechanism will be coming in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CobraA1 said:

It strikes me as this is a stopgap solution, then. Perhaps a more fleshed put fuel production mechanism will be coming in the future.

I'm sure they will put something in that's a better option.  This game is still in its' infancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2017 at 3:34 PM, MMZ>Torak said:

You might want to provide supporting documentation.

There is a difference between being alerted to the problem by the forums and removing it. And - Removing it because people on the forums wanted it removed.

I have no problems being wrong, has been known to happen before.

You can just search for hydrazine or trade platform exploit.  Seriously, there have a been a ton of these threads.  They are the very first source of calls for nerfs in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flashman said:

You can just search for hydrazine or trade platform exploit.  Seriously, there have a been a ton of these threads.  They are the very first source of calls for nerfs in this game.

Hmm, don't seem to be able to edit posts.  Anyway.  Here is a link for you. 

As you can see from the content, this was already a bloody dead horse at the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flashman said:

Hmm, don't seem to be able to edit posts.  Anyway.  Here is a link for you. 

The ability to edit posts is removed after 5 minutes from the original post time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be jumping in too late, but I never intentionally used the hydrazine exploit, Perhaps the developer will come to a better way to make it less exploit-y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Flashman said:

Hmm, don't seem to be able to edit posts.  Anyway.  Here is a link for you. 

As you can see from the content, this was already a bloody dead horse at the time.

 

I don't see a Dev saying that they are nerfing it because the players wanted it.  The closest thing I see is a forum mod admitting that it is a know issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MMZ>Torak said:

I don't see a Dev saying that they are nerfing it because the players wanted it.  The closest thing I see is a forum mod admitting that it is a know issue.

It is pretty rare for a dev team to say "We nerfed X because people complained", but we know it happens.    They did several patches related to this before finally simply removing it from the trade platform (my suggestion BTW).   It was a set of pretty obvious knee jerk reactions to a low priority problem.   But, think whatever you want to think. 

Edited by Flashman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood the topic of this thread to be less about actual hydrazine trading but more about examining a way to offer various game options to the player: Would a player perceive hydrazine trading as an option to modify the game experience by choosing between using hydrazine trading or ignoring it?

From the responses, I got the impression that it is perceived more as a "game breaking" option rather than a game customization option. The major opinion seems to be that if it is possible with the available equipment to take an "easy way", then players will actually use that easier option instead of ignoring it for the sake of a potentially more challenging gameplay.

I do like that SES tries to go with an in-game (diegetic) interface in Astroneer. Therefore, I would prefer having the means to customize your game to your preferred playstyle within the game itself over having to go to a dedicated, out-of-game menu to select a game mode. I thought the option of hydrazine trading could be one part of such an in-game customization. But apparently, this runs not well with many people who participated in the discussion in this thread. So I tried to think of a different way to offer a means for in-game playstyle customization; one that would be more clearly dedicated to that purpose and thus easier be ignored by players who prefer to play Astroneer "the way it is intended to be played". You can find my suggestion in this thread:

 

Edited by Marck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely could NOT trade hydrazine and I could go to the depths of every single planet in the entire game and not trade hydrazine. The solution to my problem is, I do WANT the trade hydrazine because it is fun. And I like to try and create the biggest farm of all and create every thing I want to. To just up and take out the most fun part of the game for myself as well as other players is just quite rude and causes the game to be boring. I say keep everything anyone wants in the game and if someone wants to play the game in a different manner, then more power to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly do not understand why people so desperately want/need the hydrazine trading.  With just a tiny bit of effort, meaning going to the moon (barren), you can get the other materials you can't get on Terra.  There's currently not much need for platinum but you can find lots of it on Barren.  I've hit pockets of lithium that enable me to have such a power backup that I never run out of power even if I dig all through the night.  Compound on Barren...  It's insane how much I find there.  I can fully load a decked out truck/trailer in 20 minutes or less.  Materials are plentiful if you know where to look.  In 138 hours of game play, I've used trading maybe twice just to see how it worked.  I've only used the condenser on planets where I do not have a source of hydrazine and even then only if I wasn't paying attention and forgot to refill at one of the other planets during normal play.  Although I did use them when I was playing around with exploding hydrazine twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kantanshi said:

I honestly do not understand why people so desperately want/need the hydrazine trading. [...]

It has already been said numerous times, but I will repeat the basic questions anyways:

  • Why do you care how others play the game, when it does not impede on how you play the game?
  • Why remove a feature from the game that was enjoyed by not just a few players, instead of leaving it in and being ignored by the players who do not want to use it?
  • Nobody is harmed by such a feature. Nobody is put at a disadvantage, so how can it be "abuse" or an "exploit"?
Edited by Marck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't the only one that reads.  Yes, I have read those replies but just because someone tells their side does not mean that I have to accept their reasoning.  It's just like me saying that I would like some sort of navigation system and many people argue against it.  People need to stop getting offended just because others do not agree with them.  This is what is wrong with society these days.  You don't always get what you want and just have to accept what is given.  You can make suggestions, but stop throwing a fit when it doesn't go your way.  Not referring specifically about you Marck.  I mean "you" as in the entire group whining about the hydrazine trading.  Just as people tell me to move on and learn different navigation techniques, I'll advise the same to the people that want hydrazine trading back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Marck said:

It has already been said numerous times, but I will repeat the basic questions anyways:

  • Why do you care how others play the game, when it does not impede on how you play the game?
  • Why remove a feature from the game that was enjoyed by not just a few players, instead of leaving it in and being ignored by the players who do not want to use it?
  • Nobody is harmed by such a feature. Nobody is put at a disadvantage, so how can it be "abuse" or an "exploit"?
  • Because of the impact it will have on people "playing how the game is intended".  Please notice the quotes there.  Evidence suggests that the Devs feel the same way.
  • See above.
  • The game development is harmed; especially if the game is about exploration/survival and not Commodity Exchange.  Getting everything you need from the air certainly does have an impact on how the game develops and therefore how I play the game.

Once the game is balanced around the "intended mode of play" absolutely put in a "creative" game mode that gives you access to essentially unlimited resources.  Right now such a game mode is not helping develop the game's pacing.  This is a game under heavy development, not a finished product.    Ranting that you can't sit in a corner and play how you want is extraordinarily myopic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MMZ>Torak said:
  • Because of the impact it will have on people "playing how the game is intended".  Please notice the quotes there.  Evidence suggests that the Devs feel the same way.
  • See above.
  • The game development is harmed; especially if the game is about exploration/survival and not Commodity Exchange.  Getting everything you need from the air certainly does have an impact on how the game develops and therefore how I play the game.

Once the game is balanced around the "intended mode of play" absolutely put in a "creative" game mode that gives you access to essentially unlimited resources.  Right now such a game mode is not helping develop the game's pacing.  This is a game under heavy development, not a finished product.    Ranting that you can't sit in a corner and play how you want is extraordinarily myopic.

The two of us already discussed this in this very thread. I already gave you reasons why your claim of impact on people "playing how the game is intended" because it allegedly deviates the development's focus is unrealistic and thus to be doubted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kantanshi said:

Just as people tell me to move on and learn different navigation techniques, I'll advise the same to the people that want hydrazine trading back.

Well, the difference here is that an already available feature was removed and that feature didn't force anybody to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Marck said:

Well, the difference here is that an already available feature was removed and that feature didn't force anybody to do anything.

That's what alphas/betas are about: let's try feature X and see how it works out.

We have a choice between SES testing ideas and seeing how they work, keeping some and removing others, resulting in a better finished game. Or we have SES afraid to test ideas in case they have to remove something and face negative feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Marck said:

that feature didn't force anybody to do anything.

A togglable map or compass wouldn't be forcing people to use it either.  The issue isn't whether something is forced upon the players.  The issue is this is a game in development and the devs need to concentrate on what they want to accomplish, the mechanics that bring them to that end.  If they have to work on content that isn't in line with their vision then it's going to make the whole project take much longer to get where they want it to be.  Let them get the game going they way they want it to be, then add in other content that is essentially "fluff" which makes the game easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eoghan said:

That's what alphas/betas are about: let's try feature X and see how it works out.

We have a choice between SES testing ideas and seeing how they work, keeping some and removing others, resulting in a better finished game. Or we have SES afraid to test ideas in case they have to remove something and face negative feedback.

 

6 hours ago, Kantanshi said:

A togglable map or compass wouldn't be forcing people to use it either.  The issue isn't whether something is forced upon the players.  The issue is this is a game in development and the devs need to concentrate on what they want to accomplish, the mechanics that bring them to that end.  If they have to work on content that isn't in line with their vision then it's going to make the whole project take much longer to get where they want it to be.  Let them get the game going they way they want it to be, then add in other content that is essentially "fluff" which makes the game easier.

You are right, and I agree with you. But I don't see how this applies to the feature of hydrazine trading.

SES deliberately removed a feature. We don't know why. It is all conjecture. If the intention was indeed to make us players concentrate on some particular aspect of the game, then this is an obscure and ineffective way of doing it. (I refer you again to my earlier posting: That change is inconsistent, too, because with the same patch, they introduced new features that potentially keep players from doing an alleged "core gameplay". And they spent time, as little as it may be, to remove a feature that does not impede on anything. I won't call this "focused".)

Players who enjoyed the removed feature are not encouraged to play the game differently. Instead, they most likely are just disappointed. Such players tend to play the game less, not report bugs, and not share their game experience. And that surely won't help the development of the game.

It would have been way more focused and effective if SES kept the feature and simply told us "Our goal is X, so we want you players to concentrate on testing Y" (or just "We want you to concentrate on playing Z").

Edited by Marck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now