Corcustos

With the additional changes to quarries coming in the future I thought it might be a good idea to suggest an add-on. I think it'd be awesome if we were able to change what the quarry produces without having to go to a different biome. The reason for this is that it can sometimes be difficult to find a good place to put a quarry even a few days into wipe. I also think a reroll system would be cool too. For example, if you placed a quarry that was sulfur and later decided you wanted it to be an HQM quarry, you could cough up an amount of scrap, HQM, and another material(s) to change it. It would give you a random amount of HQM production within the spectrum of what is already possible. If you decide it's too low, you would then be able to randomly roll the output by spending some scrap, survey charges, and other materials. Quarry levels could either stay at level or downgrade by 1 as well. Completely wiping the upgrades after a change might be a bit too much. If implemented, a lot of menu changes would probably have to be done to include type of quarry, output amount, and all of the type of upgrade buttons. Though, this could probably be done with a single button in the output container that would then pull up another menu with all of your options. Regardless, I believe this change would be beneficial without being broken as long as the material cost is made reasonable. All it's doing is allowing players more freedom at the cost of their materials so they don't have to scour the map just to find that the majority of places are claimed or already filled with quarries. There would also be more room on the map as a result of players not needing to place their quarries in randomly dotted places, even more so with the already planned upgrades that would further compact quarries.

You can't hit anything out of draw distance, the bullet phases right through them. I tried to do this. That's also not max distance. I've seen bolty/l96 shots past 400. Look at the l96 contest.

Understandable. 😶

@Death #1. What I meant was in order to teleport we have to temporarily give people access to our stuff. If we simply want to teleport to someone but not have them be able to access our stuff, we have to constantly add, teleport, remove, add, teleport, remove, which is completely unnecessary. By request spam are you referring to repeatedly sending requests or constantly teleporting across the map ignoring the land inbetween that you would normally have to traverse? In regards to the first, repeatedly sending requests is violating a rule in itself, and I feel that it would be more beneficial to put more trust in both the players and staff to handle instances like this so the server is rid of the pointless inconvenience of friending-to-TP. Additionally, I think I can already spam requests as long as I haven't actually teleported(might be wrong). If the second is the case, I completely understand, but it is still pretty redundant as people will teleport anyway instead of traveling, still ignoring the land inbetween, given that the distance isn't that far. #2. If you really plan on increasing it, maybe solution I should be suggesting isn't to decrease the cooldown. The main issue that I see people having is that people trading you affects your cooldown. For example, if someone wanted to borrow something or wanted someone else to craft something for them, they'd either have to give the player access, go through that absolutely horrible ever-changing list of friends, add them, teleport, and then teleport home wasting caps, or they would have to wait the timer(apparently getting larger) to get their items back despite their intentions being of good nature. Traveling is always an option, but as mentioned before, that option is usually ignored due to teleporting being a thing to begin with. Perhaps the better solution is to prevent people trading with you affecting your cooldown, that way you can't trade willy-nilly, which is the issue you're trying to avoid from what I understand, but can still trade back people who you let borrow items/etc. Convenience features can have inconveniences within them. This is why I made these two suggestions, because I feel that there are unnecessary conveniences within these two convenience features. Yes, I'm really glad we can even teleport and trade in the first place. Sure, it could be a lot worse. Yeah, they aren't really that huge of issues. They are so little in-fact that I'm the only one who decided to make a post about it after all this time. Either way, I think just these small tweaks would make these features both hassle-free and still accomplish what you want.

Suggestion #1: Remove the need to have to friend and give everyone access to your stuff to be able to TP. Removing this would have zero real negative impact on gameplay. I really appreciate the raised limit, which was very much needed, but I do not believe putting a mini inconvenience barrier is an effective way to make things harder, assuming that was the intention. I don't have any alternatives as the only features that I can see being changed are the cooldown, requirement of friendship, limit, and price. Changing either of these, aside from what's suggested here, will most likely be too much. Although, slightly raising the price might be good if alternate (and somewhat effective) methods of making caps were implemented. Perhaps I missed the real reason this requirement exists, so apologies if I'm jumping the gun here. Suggestion #2: Lower the trade cooldown. A cooldown between trades as long as 5 minutes hardly makes anything harder. This is another inconvenience barrier. Maybe the goal was to disallow players from just sending items across the map back and forth, somewhat keeping the aspect of distance and threat of travel between cooldowns? I can understand that, but I find that players choose to just sit and wait it out unless the people wanting to trade are a few grid squares apart. There's not any danger between a few grid squares. Maybe 1min would be more reasonable? Those are my two suggestions. Not super important as both as mere inconveniences rather than game-breaking issues, but I honestly believe that these are good changes. Unnecessary inconvenience is just.. well.. inconvenient. Hopefully I don't come off as too blunt here; I am just a rather blunt person. Thanks.