[Can we just buy quanta already?]

This post just acts as a signal for the design not being fun.

 

People spending more time mining to do anything kills the game over all. With most planets being heavily mined out the game becomes more and more grindy in the end

[A More Serious Review of Voxel HP, Resistance, Weight, Timing and Textures]

PTSD server has the same unbalanced issue

[[Discussion] DevBlog: Organization Wallets]

4 hours ago, Lethys said:

Then this isn't even the most basic version of org wallets

 

I agree with this statement...
organizations are suppose to be multi-faceted entities within DU.

companies usually set budgets for a number of different projects to which the leads of those projects or departments dispense, buy/sell goods and services in.

The overarching company monitors and tracks the activity of the departments profits and costs to the company.

 

all in all Orgs need multiple wallets as a start

[The single arguement against a wipe...]

15 hours ago, Nayropux said:

How much free shit did Boo get in the flash sale?

I honestly don't know, I was at work when it happened
Come to think of it, BOO was asleep, working or playing some other game.
 

I'm curious about how many lone wolf players got free/cheap sales as. In which case I'd be happen to see that players in general have the ability to seed the markets with mid to high end products for quanta purchase. Since the bots will no longer offer that.

 

Granted, some players want to see everyone have to progress to that point, however I'd like to see a thriving economy. While that can't really happen naturally when NQ keeps making blunders like the flash sale, it'll only mean they have to spend more time making more mid and high range items for people to progress to (which will be happening anyway). So I see no point in complaining when the game is in beta.

 

We'll be getting asteroids, new systems, new features this year so who knows what other elements they'll add that will make the game better to play.

 

In the end, regardless of a bug happening now or later, if NQ manages to get more faucets into the game with the mission system and other features and stops screwing up then this game may yet launch with a thriving community... I just feel it's too soon to tell

[The single arguement against a wipe...]

2 hours ago, SMPR01 said:

I just wish they would turn on the trees just for you...

Just know SMPR...

That while I know there's a special place in your heart for me... hell also has a special place built expressly for you ❤️

 

Much love buddy hahahaha

[The single arguement against a wipe...]

I may be a PVPer but I love creation and creativity. This is a breathtaking development and really I would be so pissed for all the people who've put all the time into this development thus far if a wipe took place.

 

THANKFULLY NQ TOOK HARDSTAND AGAINST A WIPE AND HAVE VOICED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN...

 

 

[Dear Community]

31 minutes ago, NewStart101 said:

2) I notice that a LOT of space ports are full and littered with ships, I understand that this is supposed to be a place where we take care of our property, however if this game increases in player size, will clutter be an issue? As well as framerate dropping? I dont know if that is a factor or not, I am just speculating. 

3) If down the road I decide to change my in-game name, is there a possibility that we can get an option in order to mask our username for an added layer of security for our accounts? 

I have no more questions however if I manage to think of any new questions, I will respond to this thread in order to not fill up the forum space. (unless you want more meta data then ill clutter it ALLL up)

1. -----
2. I'll spare you a large monologue about the game, it's current state and why the markets and spaceports are basically ghost towns.
    NQ has consistently had an issue with figuring out how to clear clutter and trash constructs from the game from players who haven't logged on... It's mainly a time, resource/manpower and priority balancing act their dealing with here. Initially they were fixing it when it came to the basic speeders being left abandoned on markets. However, after the launch of beta everyone who played put a bit more time in and made actual ships. When the game took a turn down a wrong path, these once bustling markets became ghost towns and graveyards for ships... If NQ implements some action to delete people's constructs while their subscriptions are still active or even expired then that will only stand to harm them. However, the abandoned construct issue is a problem regardless but I don't think it's a priority for them right now... given the larger issues at play here.
3. You can change your name once every 6 months I believe Inside the avatar window you can select your name and change it 6 months from the day of account creation.

[Entry Level - Starting out, my synopsis]

3 hours ago, Haku0814 said:

 Power gen anyone?

I wrote 3 rather extensive posts on power generation good sir

 

couple warnings though:

1. They're rough posts... rough as in I'm being a bit harsh on NQ regarding .23, carebears, past events and the track record thus far.
2. They are really long

[YARSOS #1]

11 hours ago, Volkier said:

 

1. how does the game split them into stacks?
2. how does the player know without clicking on every single stack which one is the full functioning one,
3. how does the game know what stack to use first to undo something,
4. how do you prevent scams since those elements can now be used in trading / market / dispensers,
5. how do you work with picking up and undo-ing in order to apply skill bonuses to someone else's ship and make sure the elements with the correct function go in the same place - or alternatively if you want to use a fully functional element to replace a broken one without yeeting the broken one altogether.

1. Answer:  With dynamic properties, there is no stacking as each element will have it's own unique set of stats based on the talents, health and efficiency at any given moment once modified.
2. They could add some green outline or some other menu indicator to showcase that "X" item is brand new
3. That's something for the devs lol
4. Same deal as how they added the ability to see what you're buying before you're actually buying it... Simply give a dropdown of the stats of an item if it is a modified item
5. In-game when someone with talents picks up and puts down an element the talents are automatically applied. If your talents are less than the ones the item has then the item retains the buffs at that tier. There wouldn't be much of a reason to undo an applied buff to any given item really.
   As far as replacing a broken element with a fully functional one, they need to really do a better job on their salvaging mechanic instead of just saying "Oh let's get rid of this destroyed thing because there's absolutely nothing more we can do with it now".... (even though we have recyclers ...)

[Entry Level - Starting out, my synopsis]

7 hours ago, Haku0814 said:

Tbh on the topic of people leaving - This is the experience for some players, others may be a variant, then again, others may be stubborn and like the challenge and stick around.

• You play, you get used to the mechanics, then you start planning
  • At that last point, you start to tally things up...
    • You start scratching your head...
      • You realize the numbers are right...
        • You get frustrated...
          • You say F this and leave...
• Simple solution
  • Remove T1 Schematics
    • T2+ Schematics only
    • Devalues T1
    • Increases Value for T2+
    • Already T1 is so dang cheap it makes no sense to even have schematics for it.
      • Seriously, it's BASIC technology we should all have had crammed into are heads after sleeping for a few thousand years...

I really REALLY like this idea lol

[To the marketing teams of Novaquark]

On 1/28/2021 at 4:25 AM, NQ-Sesch said:

@Demlock  Thanks for replying to my message. To be honest it would help if you were a little more specific with your statements. For instance, what exactly do you think was wrongly marketed? I understand that there's frustration, and I'd love to be able to help with it, but a list of statements regarding NQ in general doesn't help me address what you might consider the most pressing issues.

@NQ-Sesch After a number of days I finally found a moment to respond to your inquiry about my post regarding marketing.

In it I hopefully provided a bit more context behind the statements mentioned in this forum post.

 

Many aspects, I believe delved into how most of the bullets above correlate to marketing and how what the marketing team puts out, depending on the community's view of the game can lead to good or bad word of mouth times X.

 

I did not post it here because I wanted to spare people the wall of text lol

 

I also inquired about JC directly, regarding the table talk because the marketing team was a major influence in certain events that could've but didn't happen... during or after.

[YARSOS #1]

11 hours ago, Volkier said:

 

I'd rather we had to use repair stations tbh - would make those useful for stuff other than voxels. They currently take parts already, so devs don't need to change / add anything - and it makes PvP more interesting imho...

Oh the repair stations wouldn't be removed or unused at all. In fact they'd be a far more effective and efficient way to repair elements where as doing it by hand would be less than. Because in the end, when you're stranded out in the middle of no-where you can't use a repair unit if you're stranded on a planet or something.

 

You'll need the flexibility of being able to get your ship back up and running, ontop of being able to do full service when your ship is parked at home.

 

12 hours ago, Volkier said:

The parts system also means that factoria players won't be happy as people would be buying subcomponents instead of fully assembled parts. So I dunno - I'd say the ideal solution for a fun game would be a mix of all the discussed mechanics - but I don't know if it would fix the problems of the current system if implimented as an element sink.

Well in this case it becomes more of a balancing act of making one thing more valuable and cost effective than the other.

Now I have no degree in economics but you want people to be able to sell sub-components on top of whole elements.

 

Not everyone is going to have all the schematics needed to build all the stuff they want. So a market for sub-components is, in fact, needed.

 

When it came to producing some guns we ended up not perusing more industry and just ended up buying weapon parts that we didn't have the time nor patience for.

Thankfully, the bots were allowing you to buy certain weapon parts which made putting weapons together much much easier.

 

12 hours ago, Volkier said:

If it makes you feel any better - I originally proposed a very similar solution initially as well - one that used subcomponents to restore full efficiency, with scrap only restoring a certain amount of efficiency to elements, added alongside an element recycler. I've since realised that - while it would be a fun mechanic - it's less likely to keep the most number of players happy and require additional gameplay mechanics to be added to go alongside them, while requiring a moderate developer time cost.... Though I might be completely wrong on all accords XD

 

Really?

I'd like to see  what you wrote!

[YARSOS #1]

18 minutes ago, Volkier said:

Now I do like that idea if it was a temporary measure in combat - ie. field repairs only gave back so much efficiency so PvP isn't a meta of "who has more scrap and people on board" - a ship that's hit 100 times is going to have stuff on it work less efficiently that the other ship that was only hit 10 times - but might not have 20 crew all repairing. But that will only work if there's a way to restore the element to full function after the fight itself (either in base through repair unit w/e). This will actually be a great mechanic to have - but not as an element sink imho - for the above reason of it basically creating the same problems as the current lives system does if used in that way.

Well the other aspect of this that wasn't mentioned would be:

• You would use element specific parts or ingredients used to make the element to restore an element's efficiency to 100% if it is running at 40% or something from being destroyed 6 times.

This way, instead of people having to carry whole spare elements on board the ship and even a spare core, they now can just carry spare parts specific to that element to restore it's efficiency to 100%.

If the element on an enemy ship is completely destroyed then they should be able to salvage it down for X number of spare parts used to make the original element (at a cost of course).

 

the whole approach to what I'm suggesting is something that's not too complicated where you find it becomes a 2nd job for you

but

not too simple to where it's not something you can just ignore.

 

If coupled with Kurock's idea for element degradation, this would make for a perfect mechanic I think.

[YARSOS #1]

9 minutes ago, Kurock said:

An element sink is very going to be fun, always tedious, and direct you back to mining.    The "lives" method is definitely less immersive. 

Maintenance makes sense... some might even find it enjoyable.  Not everyone.  And that is a good thing imo.

Oh, I agree with the need for maintenance, it makes perfect sense indeed.

 

I'm more pointing out (through traumatized experience) how NQ has typically introduced similar systems in a way that are not fun, or the numbers are so far overboard that no one even bothers playing the game.

 

They never start on low numbers so people can get used to the idea of maintenance or any new mechanic before turning up the heat.

 

12 minutes ago, Kurock said:

Added. It's very similar to Tuning so if one can be done, why not the other?
 

Well not so much tuning really. Tuning implies tweaking or changing characteristics of something that already exists.

 

I'm saying:

• When an element takes damage, have it's efficiency decrease by the percentage of health removed from the element. So for example, if an engine, wing, adjuster, air/space break ect. has 90/100 hp then it will function at 90% efficiency.
• When an element is destroyed and restored it will function at 90% efficiency even if it's at 100% health.
• Every subsequent destruction/restoration of an element will result in the element operating at an addition 10% loss in efficiency
• Degradation over time while in use can apply as well, in a forgiving numbers of course
• They already have the code in the game for obstructing elements and making them function less efficiently... why not use the same code for an element's health

I think your approach to degradation and mine to efficiency would make a perfect couple for a well functioning feature for salvaging and such for DU.... provided NQ is able to bake the two ideas together in the game within their schedules.

[YARSOS #1]

I'm in full agreement @Kurock that the DU repair system, in it's current state, needs severe help and hard number counts are just too much of a sink.

 

However, I do agree with what @Volkier is saying:

36 minutes ago, Volkier said:

It's better than the lives system that's for sure

I do see a couple of issues that will arise here though - so to play the devil's advocate:

cons:
- Balancing would be tricky, as making elements break too quickly will destroy any sense of immersion (you know, like those survival games where your character has an infestation of gut worms and have to eat every 5 minutes in game time lest they starve to death). On the flip side, realistic timeframes similar to those on current aircraft before you would begin to even notice a degrade in performance, would mean that you should be able to fly for weeks on end before your element goes down to 99%
- Does feel like a survival mechanic - which I appreciate is not what many people would be keen on. Like eating food or drinking water kinda thing XD

 

The main issue NQ been notorious on when it comes to patches or features or changes, is setting the numbers required to do anything ridiculously high.

Thus making the game:

1. less enjoyable
2. more tedious
3. less immersive
4. direct you back to mining to engage in any one aspect of the game's acclaimed pillars

I do agree that it does create a maintainer job on board a ship and for a static construct WHEN IN USE.

If NQ were to implement something like this then the numbers would need to be digestible and not something that's akin to the game Green Hell.

This could very easily become yet another sink for the game... and as we already see, if a game has too many sinks and not enough faucets then you don't have a game.

You have a painful grinder few will enjoy.

[YARSOS #1]

Why not incorporate efficiency?

 

They already have the code needed to simulate an engine, adjuster, brake to have less output ... (via obstruction)... why not just use that code to simulate an element being less efficient due to dmg?

 

[An Event that may actually help revive community activity]

On 1/28/2021 at 5:56 AM, carijay766 said:

Yes I guess before PVP hasnt become more of a easy to access face to face dogfighting kind of thing where they have the hope of even remotely standing the chance against established forces, newcomers are very unlikely to touch this subject knowing the system is complex and hard to get into and it is and would just be a super frustrating overall experience, not to speak of the time gated 50% extra damage (and other advantages) most veteran PVPers as if the experience in ganking alone wasnt advantage enough. If you add the fact on top that you just get popped out of nowhere from hundreds KM away this will make people get into PVP even less. Now if you want to come back with just "git gud" as a PVP veteran you would kinda be the reason why we have the situation in the first place.

I actually agree with this statement...

 

The fact that PVP is so costly to get into in the first place and the environment forces people to work with others in order to do ... anything on a greater scale kind-a leads to a self defeating approach to many things.

 

A lot of people manage to be self-sufficient but the difficulties in getting there make it barely worth the trouble. People tend to want the game to be fun when embarking on the struggle to accomplish something... PVP or non-PVP related. However, everything has become more of a struggle as of late.

 

and yeah, while the PVPers of the game are either complaining or simply leaving for something better, it's just 1 symptom of a larger number of problems that people are trying to point out.

[Energy consumption and how it can be properly executed]

On 1/28/2021 at 5:15 AM, carijay766 said:

The positive response is overwhelming (you had your own org members like your post... lol)... Demanding of the devs to make the game like you imagine (so itll be "good" in your eyes), threatening them and bashing them for being too proud and hardstanced will certainly get your point across. Also bashing on the "carebears", probably around 5/6th of the playerbase, is not really a smart move when you want to convince the majority. This is not a PVP focused game. If you want dev time for one of the 6 pillars in the game be more considerate.

Let me clarify

• I did not "HAVE" or force or tell anyone "like" anything.
• I DID share this on as many DU focused platforms as I could to ensure as much exposure as possible
• I structured the entire post, and others in such a way where it made too much sense to engage in even a fraction of the idea
• Regardless if you agree with me or not, the state of the game is proof that change for better systems, features, approaches and executions are needed from NQ because .23 and other events are proof that the game is in a problematic state.
• If the game keeps this direction going, you and many others in the 5/6 pillars will find themselves alone in a game built to force team play where all you do is mine to do anything... hence why I even write posts to begin with. Because if you did infact want this game to succeed, you'd be writing up posts on what NQ could do to help the community.
• Non-PVP orgs either are leaving without saying a word or are trying to tough it out while losing their members because the game is boring or too grindy (too many sinks and not enough faucets)
• This post was not 100% about PVP but it did dive down the route of PVP because everything in this game is PVP in some form or another lol
• This was mainly a core mechanic that would function on most of the pillars in the game and not just PVP
• What I wrote is rough or can be easily taken as a threat... but it's more of a promise. DU has already lost the interest of about 258 BOO players and probably 350-475 players from the AC (yes, those are rough numbers but our intel suggests it's somewhere in that window). Those would be both Alpha and Beta Subscribed players. Which is a crapload of money that walk out the door from NQ. So from a business standpoint, it's important they pay attention to their community... and no not just me.
• Also, I'll say to you like I said to another negative critic via a stream. This document takes on a multifaceted approach to a game feature from a design standpoint. The intellectuals at NQ more than likely took the time to read this from start to finish and by-passed the harsh negatives and pulled out the actual substance within. If you failed to grasp that, then this document just wasn't for you...
• Finally, Firestorm, and several others who've liked, responded to or even read this and several other posts are not in BOO
   

 

 

[A question of power]

Damn

I didn't consider the TCUs as part of the energy management.

Very nice touch linking them into Territorial protections with regards to territorial warfare

[Energy Management Part 3: Execution of Energy Management Project in Pieces]

Round 3!..... FIGHT!

 

Hello...

    After having laid out a fairly thorough and indepth posts about Energy Management much of the feedback was related to how much information overload and extensive walls of texts there were. To that, I understand completely. It was exhausting for me to even write it all out but as you saw, I had a lot to say about the feature that I believe NQ are probably working on.

 

With this forum post I will do 2 things:

1. Summarize Energy Management forum posts Parts 1 and 2
2. Dive into organizing the final part, which is how to attack this beast from a project management standpoint (this is where it gets heavy)

 

Keep in mind I'm of the assumption that NQ may read this but some managers may or may not look at this and think "This guy has no idea what he's talking about or how we work". Quite frankly, I don't have a single clue about how they operate, the systems they use, the languages they write in, nor the task manager software employed at NQ to organize each featured release. If I did have an understanding then yes I'd have a write-up ready and tailored specifically to how NQ could employ energy management from start to finish just to make their jobs easier.

 

=======================================================================================================================================

 

1. Summary of Energy Management: Key Aspects
   • The Rule of Three
     • Almost every aspect of energy management will have 3 key aspects or components to make it all work
     • At the heart of the whole system rests 3 key characteristics
       • Energy Generation (Max Energy)
       • Energy Regeneration
       • The Redzone
     • The above characteristics apply to 3 key sources of energy
       • Cores
       • Generators
       • Batteries
     • The above sources of energy are interconnected by 3 key components
       • Inlets
       • Outlets
       • Purifiers
     • The above interconnecting components allow for 3 key actions
       • introducing batteries
       • recharging batteries
       • cooling various types of generators with cooling rods
   • Quick descriptions and outlines
     • Energy Generation - The combined baseline storage of available energy for the construct provided by the Core and Generators (static and dynamic)
     • Energy Regeneration - The combined rate at which energy is regenerated by the Core and the Generators
     • The Redzone - The combined condensed section of the available energy (typically shown in red at the end of the energy bar) that, when reached, results in a number of negative effects occuring to the lights, engines, adjusters, brakes, weapons, doors, and even radar. The deeper you are in the red, the worse the effects become.
     • Cores - Central primary producer of energy for the construct.
       • Only allowed to have Generators connect to the core
       • Number of available slots vary depending on size of core
     • Generators - 2ndary source of energy for the core
       • Acts as an augmenter to Core's Energy Generation, Regeneration and Redzone.
       • Allows for the connection of Inlets and outlets and containers
       • Number of available in/outlet slots varies based on tier, type (or tech) and size of the generator
         • Can be buffed with talent points
     • Batteries - tertiary source of energy for the construct
       • Only able to interact with generators via in/outlets
       • Provides temporary source of energy
       • No energy regen
       • No redzone
       • Can act as the first source of energy pulled, backup energy or reserve energy when your construct's eng. level is about to hit the redzone.
       • Allows your generators to go into overdrive mode and provides temporary boosters for the engines
         • damages batteries/capacitors/crystals ect. forcing them to be recycled.
       • Has a set number of recharges that varies in type and tier of the battery
         • can be increased with talent points
     • Inlets - Act as connectors to generators for batteries and cooling rods
       • The connection is 1 to 1 (one battery or cooling rod per inlet)
       • Allows for the battery to inject it's energy into the construct's energy store
       • Allows for a cooling rod to be "injected" into Nuclear type generators
     • Outlets - Act as output connectors from generators to batteries
       • Allows you to recharge or energize batteries, crystals and cooling rods.
       • The connection is 1 to 1
          
2. The Project... coming soon (Dun dun Duuuuuuun)
   • Place holder because I just started my next batch of physics classes. So this will get updated in pieces daily.

 

   

[To the marketing teams of Novaquark]

44 minutes ago, NQ-Naunet said:

Haha, still no wipe as far as I know.

To Demlock - we've seen your post. It's being discussed internally. 

Thank you very very much for your response Naunet!

[To the marketing teams of Novaquark]

2 hours ago, Sparktacus said:

I really, REALLY hope they are, to be done in line with new content.

Yes, it will piss a lot of people off, but at the moment, people already are, and aren't playing the game. With a wipe (preferably a scheduled one we know about well in advance) I'd hope to see a return to some of the fun "It's all going anyway, so lets go shoot stuff!" attitude that led to people actually doing things in game.

Obviously, without the core gameplay loops becoming something entertaining in their own right, it's not a fix, but it would at least be a step in the right direction, and a very, very necessary one.

To any at NQ reading this - if you are considering a wipe, and keeping it quiet, don't be shy! A wipe would be a great thing for the game in it's current state IMO.

The only way I see a wipe working is if they manage to successfully activate the "magic blueprints" and reserve everyone's talent points and quantas that were built up over this beta.

 

As JC mentioned we are able to play this game as if it is a "Soft release"

if they did a hard wipe, then it would do a serious disservice to the people who've subscribed or those who spent the extra money to play this game and actually stuck around.

 

The soft-wipe approach would be to allow everyone, new and old to have a chance to claim territory and grow. Setting everyone back to zero would do far more than piss off people, but kill the game entirely I feel when you have people paying to keep the stuff they've built in the game.

 

If this were Rust, where it were easier to regain all that hard work and such, then sure, I'd say hard wipe it all.

But since everything takes soo much time and if they added in more faucets to offset how many sinks their are in the game then I think it'll all be ok.

[To the marketing teams of Novaquark]

58 minutes ago, le_souriceau said:

Tonns of good points. About about headline: I doubt marketing team have any meaningful say in important decisions.

 

You make a very solid point on hitting at the marketing team.

 

The person in charge of marketing @NQ-Sesch of marketing DM'd inquiring about it, of which I'm writing up a lengthy response in:

• Marketing in DU from a player's perspective
• How it has negatively affected the people on the ground.. in general... because my exposure is limited
• Possible ways to improve on that front so people don't feel lied to.. because that's what I'm hearing from people
• The various content that is either mis-marketed or not marketed at all
• The possible marketing points listed in this forum post and exactly how they connect
• How they could possibly NOT do what No Man's Sky did.
  • Where in the game mechanics didn't match the promises made through marketing/announcements
  • People were pissed off because of the dichotomy created and they became more frustrated as time grew on. Eventually they didn't bother paying attention until it was corrected.

58 minutes ago, le_souriceau said:

Return to communication of "just messenger style", despite growth of CMs numbers. What they all doing is mystery for me, but my tin foil theory: they pulled to some long-term projects, may be even outside game itself, that will be preparation for actual release in some mysterious form. Day-to-day communication with rioting peasants likely set to lowest priority (signature style of comms here).

 

This aspect here only steers their community away even more.

I've inquired about the lack of communication from their more public facing people like @NQ-Naerais and @NQ-Naunet.

 

If there's life issues going on then that's understandable.

When I've made post after post about various questionable aspects of DU and get no response, I simply sit and be patient. (giving it the benefit of the doubt)

Yet, when a Silver Founder/ATV person says something that echos what my posts are about then there's a response a few hours later.

This sends a clear message to people in general.. and not a very good one.

 

I praised @TheBlacklist and @NQ-Pann for taking the time to speak with me over a stream, about a week or so later. Very cordial and professional regarding my posts in a very public way.

 

Because of last year's questionable approach to say #Market15 bann and a number of individual bans that further pushed the public's view of NQ into the dark people are a bit more afraid of:

• even bothering to ask questions,
• challenge NQ dev's stance on mechanics
• inquire to marketing teams about why something was marketed as so
• Poke and probe the game's broken or bugged mechanics in hopes of getting NQ to quickly fix things
• Challenge their GMs, Admins, PR, Devs and even JC himself.

All because someone, somewhere is afraid of getting banned, suspended, silenced, censored, or even fired. It creates this cancel culture in the DU community that turns people off and adds a crate of WD-40 to a bonfire.

 

You cannot just "ghost" your community

 

NQ's actions last year were identical to a... certain person's response (whose name begins with a D) when she began to block virtually everyone who had a response to her statements. Even Du helpers who had positive yet, small critics about her forum posts.

 

Don't get me wrong, some people are rather cancerous with their statements and cause themselves to get banned but there's people on the DU Memes server who've outright said they don't bother asking questions on DU discord anymore, others just simply quit.

 

In the end, approaches to their community like this only echo out into the greater gaming community and generates bad word of mouth for the company. Thus also negatively affects marketing. When people see an ad from NQ and then hear "They are ban happy or they don't respond to your questions" or their customer service is sub-par. (limited resources aside... because yes, it's important to acknowledge that they're not swimming in cash).

 

 

[Energy Management Part 2: Conclusion]

4 hours ago, NQ-Naunet said:

I'm curious to see some of your write-ups, @vylqun! Do you have one or two that are close to your heart that you'd like me to read over/re-surface internally?  

Are any of these posts being resurfaced or seeing the light of day to JC or some of the Dev management?

and

Actually getting some sort of eyebrow-raising response from any of them?

Are they taking the time to hear out the community instead of ONLY the streamers?

[Energy Management Part 2: Conclusion]

57 minutes ago, vylqun said:

thats why i stopped making fleshed out suggestions for game mechanics after alpha1. It's just being ignored without any feedback because NQ follows their gameplan and basically doesn't care for the suggestions of players if it touches a core mechanic.

Its disappointing to know that a Silver Founder and a person on ATV hit this state long before I even got serious about this game...