Clarify anchor-based mining model
This commit is contained in:
@@ -197,6 +197,22 @@ Resource nodes are not construction sites.
|
||||
|
||||
That is intentional so they can be spawned, depleted, despawned, and regenerated more freely than permanent infrastructure anchors.
|
||||
|
||||
Resource nodes are strategic mining destinations.
|
||||
|
||||
That means:
|
||||
|
||||
- outside localspace, a miner travels to a resource-node anchor
|
||||
- inside that localspace, the miner chooses a concrete extractable target
|
||||
|
||||
The concrete extractable target is a tactical mining concern, not a strategic travel identity.
|
||||
|
||||
So:
|
||||
|
||||
- travel uses `anchorId`
|
||||
- local extraction uses a localspace-level target such as a rock, cluster, or gas pocket
|
||||
|
||||
Do not use a generic `NodeId` to mean both.
|
||||
|
||||
## Localspace
|
||||
|
||||
`localspace` is the tactical simulation term and should be the only term used for this concept.
|
||||
@@ -232,6 +248,16 @@ Localspace is where close simulation happens:
|
||||
- local logistics
|
||||
- tactical defense
|
||||
|
||||
For mining specifically:
|
||||
|
||||
- the destination localspace is chosen by anchor
|
||||
- the final extractable target is chosen only after the ship is inside that localspace
|
||||
|
||||
This preserves the distinction between:
|
||||
|
||||
- strategic travel to a mining site
|
||||
- tactical mining behavior inside that site
|
||||
|
||||
Ships and constructions do not exist directly in system space. They exist in one localspace at a time unless they are explicitly traveling between anchors.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ship Placement
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user