DecoyGoatBomb

Space Wrecks should be done through DSAT.  To be found the same way as asteroids (maybe with more steps) but then are also broadcast after found creating POIs for pvp. Alternatively they could just spawn on and around asteroids with RNG based on asteroid rarity. This would give reason to discover asteroids beyond just mining. The current state of the wrecks mechanic is not a "way to play" it is a weird novelty that people may do out of complete boredom and then give up after hours of no results. The only new "way to play" outside of Mining/Manufacturing/Building is to run missions. That is only a thing because of people using alt armies to mass run NPC missions. There needs to be a gameloops. The current implementation of wrecks is not a "loop" it is a broken circle. 
 
This is an overall problem I have with NQ game design as they think that Sandbox/Emergent gameplay means you can't direct the flow of player activity. Just making a massive empty space and peppering in mechanics does not make a game. There are plenty of ways to direct player movement and activity. The empty space is too big and the RNG elements are too few and far between to work the way they are attempting to design the mechanics. Give incentives for players to interact/play together through bonuses, player exclusive utility benefits (Tile bonuses to manufacturing/mining etc ,player markets that aggregate dispensers into a NQ Market style UI). Please please please look at games that do this well: Sea of Thieves, Star Wars Galaxies, Survival Games and even Battle Royale. Yes.. Battle Royale. It is a large "empty" map but a good Battle Royale uses map design and weapon spawns to direct the flow of players. This has to be done even in a sandbox MMO. Right now this is like a Battle royale map where there is no map flow and the guns spawn like the mining skittles on planet surfaces. Perfect example. Why do mining skittles spawn evenly spread all over the planet surface every 2 feet. It is just lazy or bad design. 

Space Wrecks should be done through DSAT.  To be found the same way as asteroids (maybe with more steps) but then are also broadcast after found creating POIs for pvp. Alternatively they could just spawn on and around asteroids with RNG based on asteroid rarity. This would give reason to discover asteroids beyond just mining. The current state of the wrecks mechanic is not a "way to play" it is a weird novelty that people may do out of complete boredom and then give up after hours of no results. The only new "way to play" outside of Mining/Manufacturing/Building is to run missions. That is only a thing because of people using alt armies to mass run NPC missions. There needs to be a gameloops. The current implementation of wrecks is not a "loop" it is a broken circle. 
 
This is an overall problem I have with NQ game design as they think that Sandbox/Emergent gameplay means you can't direct the flow of player activity. Just making a massive empty space and peppering in mechanics does not make a game. There are plenty of ways to direct player movement and activity. The empty space is too big and the RNG elements are too few and far between to work the way they are attempting to design the mechanics. Give incentives for players to interact/play together through bonuses, player exclusive utility benefits (Tile bonuses to manufacturing/mining etc ,player markets that aggregate dispensers into a NQ Market style UI). Please please please look at games that do this well: Sea of Thieves, Star Wars Galaxies, Survival Games and even Battle Royale. Yes.. Battle Royale. It is a large "empty" map but a good Battle Royale uses map design and weapon spawns to direct the flow of players. This has to be done even in a sandbox MMO. Right now this is like a Battle royale map where there is no map flow and the guns spawn like the mining skittles on planet surfaces. Perfect example. Why do mining skittles spawn evenly spread all over the planet surface every 2 feet. It is just lazy or bad design. 

Please, Thank You 

NQ, I had hoped you had taken this to heart.
 
 
I had hoped we were being offered an alternative to mining/manufacturing and courier work. A chance to play as a humble scavenger. If this expectation was either misguided or unrealistic, please read no further. However, if this was the goal...
 
...what exactly were you going for? It's been a week and I have roamed PvP space, both in-between planets, and out in random directions for a couple thousand SU, and have not found so much as an XS wreck. It feels as if you took your implementation of asteroid finding and went in the complete opposite direction to the extreme. Unless the goal was to just have us chance upon a wreck, here are a few reasons scavenging is completely untenable.
 
- Detection distance: Space, as you know, is very big, and 2 SU is "needle in a haystack" metrics.
 
- Rate of travel: This problem is two-fold. One, if traveling at maximum speed you are doing about 2.5 SU per minute (forgive my math if I am off). This means that you have less than a two minute window on your hours long search to see a wreck IF it intersects your search sphere right down the middle. The second issue being braking distance. Due to the detection range being so small, even a slight delay in seeing a wreck dead ahead could lead to you losing it in the backtracking process. Sure, we could reduce our cruising speed, but now we are covering less ground in an already astronomical search.
 
- Spotting the wreck: As I mentioned you have a very small window of opportunity to even see a wreck in the perfect conditions. Are we expected to stare at our screens the entire time we are searching? Sure, some one may (perhaps already have) write some LUA to make an audible alarm if a radar contact pops up, but it hardly seems reasonable to have to rely on that. Slow-boating anywhere is an hours long process and to be expected to sit in your pilot seat staring at space is completely unreasonable.
 
- Number of wrecks: Only you know how many are truly out there, but I will speak to the type of density needed to reasonably satisfy a scrapper such as myself. Over the course of, say, a four hour play session, I would hope to see roughly 2-3 wrecks. They don't need to be "What a haul!", but I do need to see something for my efforts.
 
In a game that has all but zero PvE, this is a great opportunity to add some that doesn't require AI, but we need reasonable tools to succeed! Increasing detection distance significantly doesn't meaningfully affect PvP (*ahem* such as it is) due to lock-on distances remaining unchanged, and this would be just the simplest of solutions. If I'm the only one who feels this way go ahead and ignore me, but if there are others out there that feel the same way, please speak up now!

It would be also cool to have RDMS right that makes constructs visible for the actors. By visible I mean visible in F4 -> Constructs list. Curently, only legates can see the constructs location. So, if you have "use element" right you can control the ship but you can't find it's location other than ask from the owner (or legate) of the ship or if you are registerd at ship's ressurection node. That is also one of the reason why in a small org legates are "assigned quite liberaly".

While this may be off topic for this thread, I believe NQ is missing something here. Many orgs will "promote" members to legate becasue there is NO OTHER rank that would give a member extended options/rights within the org. We really need to have a better org structure as in, have different roles that allow different options in orgs beyond what RDMS can provide.

But this really is a discussion for a different topic.. 

I think this disconnect comes from NQ not doing this stuff manually very often. It takes a lonnnng time to build and even deconstruct a complex large core. I have a vision of suddenly 2 or 3 people leave your org without warning and suddenly the active org members have to scramble to cope with the loss of a couple hundred cores. Players having the ability to take away core slots from an org is fundamentally flawed imo. I think this should be done through a separate org leveling/talent system. When you give players power they will abuse it. 

Have you learned nothing in the past few years?? I don't understand why this keeps happening.. Does whoever makes these decisions have some mental defect which compels them to choose the worst possible option on purpose?
 
A short development history of the DU beta
 
Problem: 
 
Problem: People don't have enough construct slots
NQ solution: Virtually infinite construct slots
Actual solution: Create a way to repackage ships and store them, removing them from the world until made active again. Remove ownership of dynamic constructs which are left unattended in unclaimed territory for too long.
 
Problem: If we let people use lua to fire weapons, robots will take over the universe!
NQ solution: An endless captcha disguised as a gunnery module.
Actual solution: Restrict certain apis to user input driven events. Develop solutions to detect macro usage. 
 
Problem: Industry OP
NQ solution: Break every single factory in the game, hold them for ransom until people magically come up with the money to buy schematics
Actual solution: Energy system, and a much less imposing version of schematics
 
Problem: Somehow, we can't seem to balance PVP quite right... hmmmm whats missing?
NQ solution: PvP AlLoCaTiOn pOiNtZS l0l??????
Actual solution: Energy system
 
Problem: Warp travel shouldn't be free, or nobody will travel conventionally
NQ solution: Warp cells
Actual solution: Tie warp to an energy system. Make designing a ship for space warp challenging. Make initiating a space warp cost energy and come with a risk.
 
Problem: Hey this guy is initiating warp too quickly with lua!
NQ solution: Remove ActivateWarp() from warp drive api
Actual solution: Interdiction modules, tractor beams, warp disruptors. Increase the time it takes to initiate warp. 
 
Problem: Oh no!! Our cloud storage bill goin cuhrazy! 
Nq solution: DELETE MINING ON PLANETS GGRAAASGGGHHH
Actual solution: Decay terrain modifications outside the build zone of a static core.
 
Problem: We need to communicate more to find solutions that players agree with!
NQ solution: Swear we are going to do our best, but instead, huff paint with homeless joe in the back of a denny's and make more asinine decisions
Actual solution: Learn from your mistakes. Humble yoself. Discuss, review, and REVISE plans with community input before developing them
 
Problem: There are too many claimed territories!
NQ solution: Territory taxes
Actual solution: Energy system
 
Problem: Oh no!! We made it so that construct slots are virtually infinite! People have too many construct slots! 
NQ solution: Arbitrarily remove random constructs belonging to people who have too many
Actual solution (still): Create a way to repackage ships and store them, removing them from the world until made active again. Remove ownership of dynamic constructs which are left unattended in unclaimed territory for too long.

The numbers proposed here are much more reasonable. Also, I like that you are giving builders a path to specialize in. Do more of that please. My only major worry is players still having the power to reduce an org's slots. Even with the time buffers this will be used to troll orgs via mass exodus and suddenly reducing core slots limits. When this happens the only way that org can cope is to recruit and hope the new recruits agree give over core slots or get an army of alts. Please look into ways to give org leaders the power to mitigate this. 

The numbers proposed here are much more reasonable. Also, I like that you are giving builders a path to specialize in. Do more of that please. My only major worry is players still having the power to reduce an org's slots. Even with the time buffers this will be used to troll orgs via mass exodus and suddenly reducing core slots limits. When this happens the only way that org can cope is to recruit and hope the new recruits agree give over core slots or get an army of alts. Please look into ways to give org leaders the power to mitigate this. 

I call dibs on Hedronic Library.

I live in Freeport operated by TTC on Teoma.  For folks in player built "cities", this is just soul crushing.  Do you know how much work and maintenance it takes to maintain these?  There are other "cities" spread throughout the system.  You don't want it to get abused, but maybe allow a super legate of these larger orgs more cores for city functions? You'd probably have to get a little creative on the rules for it, but you have all these tools and game architecture to build, then you just want to hinder creation?  I don't understand.

Good Afternoon!
 
I'm new to Dual Universe as of literally today, so I'm not an expert on anything yet... but from what I've learned so far, I can say that this change to how organization core count works will have a serious effect on mid-size organizations that are big enough to make massive constructs, but dont have the player count to keep their construct under this new rule. It will also limit the options of solo players, who will have a FAR lower core cap. The only groups that will benefit from this are the massive organizations, while everyone else loses out. In fact, many players will likely choose not to give their organization cores to organizations and just keep them for themselves instead, making it harder for organizations to get cores despite the overall cap increase they may receive.
 
In short, this is a decent idea but it's much too aggressive a shift. Dial it back some; give players more personal slots, and either more org slots or slots that can ONLY be given to organizations, not used by oneself. This latter option would force players to supply organizations with slots and they wouldnt benefit from not joining an organization, thus allowing the organizations to gain reliable slots to create their massive projects with. My thought is something along the lines of 50+ personal slots, and then either another 25 org slots as they are now or maybe 25 dedicated org slots only usable through an organization (common pool of org slots?).
 
One last thing: some players think this may be connected to the costs of running the servers- you dont want to charge more, but cant afford to keep letting players create massive-scale projects that eat up the server capacity. If this is the case, JUST CHARGE US MORE. If we want to do this stuff and you guys cant afford to provide it at current rates, we would complain much less about rate increases than about these reductions to our freedom of play. That's why a lot of people are here, and losing it will probably just make a big chunk of the playerbase leave, leaving you guys with less income to run the servers. Cutting corners on costs is fine, but it cannot affect gameplay in major ways like this, or itll have the opposite effect by lowering income.

This long past due!!!!!!!!!
If we need to deconstruct, please at least, make it easier to do!

I try to avoid being a doom-sayer, and haven't made that claim of any of the changes made before now, but this one... I'm not sure. I think it will force the closure of many of the things that actually draw people to the game.

First off, I would just like to state up front, regardless of whether the proposed org changes are the right decision or not, I feel that the approach that has been taken, where this change is introduced independent from and after the introduction of mining units, is just flat out wrong. I was not pleased by the loss of traditional mining, but I drank the kool-aid and committed to trying mining. Many benefits to this system were touted by NQ. For example, the adjacency bonus. This system requires cores to use and incentivizes going bigger. The more tiles you mine (and thus cores you use) gives a larger benefit. So instead of a 1 to 1 benefit from each core used, we were encouraged by this system to grow the number of cores used. Only then, after all this work is done, do we get the carrot replaced with the stick.
 
Now that this ugliness is out of the way, my thoughts on the actual change:
In the right ballpark, but missed by a wide margin. This is a game of building and unlimited possibilities. All I see recently is limitations. In this solution, all constructs are treated equally. I don't think that this is the right approach.
 
We have little or no in game reasons to collaborate, outside of the human need for socialization. There is nothing in the game that actually benefits players coming together to work on projects. Where are the social features? Where is the benefit for orgs that add content and culture to the game?
 
I would like to see an influence system added to the game that would allow creators (either individuals or traditional orgs composed of many distinct players) to be incentivized for creating content in the game. If we the players are supposed to create the game content, we should not be punished for doing so, we should be rewarded.
 
There are many large projects in the game that NQ uses to advertise DU. This is the content and is what makes DU special. These projects consume cores and add value to DU. These projects should be rewarded. If we had a system of influence that rewarded content creators and gave a benefit to visit these constructs, this would be a giant step in the right direction.
As it stands now, many multi-core creations that enrich the game are at risk. These constructs are treated the same as a core that has mining units and nothing else on it.
 
Now if we had some system of influence, where players and orgs that create content that the community enjoys, we could be rewarded for creating excellent content. The rewards could be a decreased cost in core count because of the benefit to the game, decreased tax, etc. Beyond this, many game systems could be created or enhanced a great deal. We could vie for influence over a region and have some type of governmental control. Territory warfare doesn't need to be the only way we can impact the world and control an area. Just like music, art, and religion can shape our real world, works of art in the game should have an equal impact on the game world.
 
I want to see more wild creations from the mad scientist builders. All I see is that these players in particular are going to be hindered the most, yet these are the very players that provide the most benefit to the game and community. I would gladly pay an additional amount for my subscription to have the sandbox I fell in love with. I was sold a dream of player created cities and empires. The future I see is massive stress from monitoring tile taxes and core counts. Who wants to suddenly lose a project they have been working on for a couple of years, because they are ambitious and then have a real world problem take them away from the game for a bit?
 
My challenge to you NQ: I would like to know who is the creative lead on this game now. Please have this person come introduce themselves and explain what is the overall direction of the game. In spirit, DU does not seem to be heading to the same destination that we set out for at the start of beta, let alone what was pitched in the Kickstarter. I think we all would appreciate a better understanding of what the end goal is.

So we have a city built by our org but it is occupied by multiple players and orgs. We have cores for infrastructure, shops and apartments. That does not include anything to do with the innerworkings of our actual org (mining units platforms, factories, ships, space stations etc..) We are a small/midsized org where a few core players are doing a lot of work to keep what we have built up and running.
 
We were annoyed with the previous core limits but we adapted and reorganized to fit in that limit. The core limits have gone from 1000s to 100s and now 10s of cores. I understand the max core limit is 1600 but that would take 60+ active players with max skills dedicating all of their cores to one org. I like a very broad solution to a very narrow problem. Please just maybe make organization talents more in depth and take time to train? Right now you could spend multiple years training all pvp talents but you can train all org talents in a miniscule fraction of the time. Some people's main way to play the game is org management and city building yet there is no support for it. 
 
This ripples into how RDMS works in shared spaces. With the current RDMS it is almost impossible to have a shared space with constructs not owned by the host org due to how overlapping build zone works. The org that runs the city/compound either has to own the cores or work on an honor system and hope that citizens (non org owners of cores in the city) do not intentionally or unintentionally turn off overlapping build zone. Because of how large the overlapping build zone area is, it is like setting off an EMP in the city where no constructs can be placed anywhere near that core without overlapping build zone. How is it that someone who has a construct on your tile has more power over these rights than the tile owner.
 
It is painfully obvious to me that NQ does not consider city building in their game design yet every trailer and marketing piece sells the game on this concept. NQ-Mojo was in direct dialogue with me about how our city (Freeport, Teoma) works for the NQ Featurette. I was told that NQ they would use us as a resource of how we were using RDMS and cores to make a functioning city in the game yet I have not heard a peep. RDMS is still a nightmare and features like the new Org Core Construct Slots seem to actively work against the most active builders in the game making projects over cumulative 100s or 1000s of hours. 
 
Please consider city building in future design. I know many of these concerns are likely being shelved until TW is on the table but give us the ability to build large projects in shared spaces. I love DU and I respect NQ's hard work (especially lately) but please talk to players. Find out how we actually use the systems you are creating. So many features added to the game seem to be to limit players and not elevate their ability to do cool things. In the mean time if you are making changes to address exploits please consider the collateral damage to what people have done and how we actually play the game.

So we have a city built by our org but it is occupied by multiple players and orgs. We have cores for infrastructure, shops and apartments. That does not include anything to do with the innerworkings of our actual org (mining units platforms, factories, ships, space stations etc..) We are a small/midsized org where a few core players are doing a lot of work to keep what we have built up and running.
 
We were annoyed with the previous core limits but we adapted and reorganized to fit in that limit. The core limits have gone from 1000s to 100s and now 10s of cores. I understand the max core limit is 1600 but that would take 60+ active players with max skills dedicating all of their cores to one org. I like a very broad solution to a very narrow problem. Please just maybe make organization talents more in depth and take time to train? Right now you could spend multiple years training all pvp talents but you can train all org talents in a miniscule fraction of the time. Some people's main way to play the game is org management and city building yet there is no support for it. 
 
This ripples into how RDMS works in shared spaces. With the current RDMS it is almost impossible to have a shared space with constructs not owned by the host org due to how overlapping build zone works. The org that runs the city/compound either has to own the cores or work on an honor system and hope that citizens (non org owners of cores in the city) do not intentionally or unintentionally turn off overlapping build zone. Because of how large the overlapping build zone area is, it is like setting off an EMP in the city where no constructs can be placed anywhere near that core without overlapping build zone. How is it that someone who has a construct on your tile has more power over these rights than the tile owner.
 
It is painfully obvious to me that NQ does not consider city building in their game design yet every trailer and marketing piece sells the game on this concept. NQ-Mojo was in direct dialogue with me about how our city (Freeport, Teoma) works for the NQ Featurette. I was told that NQ they would use us as a resource of how we were using RDMS and cores to make a functioning city in the game yet I have not heard a peep. RDMS is still a nightmare and features like the new Org Core Construct Slots seem to actively work against the most active builders in the game making projects over cumulative 100s or 1000s of hours. 
 
Please consider city building in future design. I know many of these concerns are likely being shelved until TW is on the table but give us the ability to build large projects in shared spaces. I love DU and I respect NQ's hard work (especially lately) but please talk to players. Find out how we actually use the systems you are creating. So many features added to the game seem to be to limit players and not elevate their ability to do cool things. In the mean time if you are making changes to address exploits please consider the collateral damage to what people have done and how we actually play the game.

Its a step. I dont know where yet, but a step. From what I gather, this will greatly push advantage to players with alts again though by making it all that bit more necessary if you want to have many cores. Im not particularly against it, but I would have loved a system based on active player effort instead.

Really gonna go and make it that much harder to build big things. You falsely advertise populated cities in your videos but are making it impossible. [filtered]ing joke 

Oh man..  15 + 10 cores as the max cap for any player regardless is really not that much and it is going to hurt A LOT of people badly.
 
Just of the top of my head.
- The new MU system is eating cores like they are candy
- Ship sellers need lots of cores for demonstration models
- Ship museums
- Creative players often use lots of dynamic cores to work around placement limitations for artistic expressions
 
Right now the only good thing I can think of is that this will limit the usefulness for making those pesky space elevators. But for big projects like race tracks, player driven markets etc.. oh man they are going to struggle.
 
And this limit will be a large hindrance for the stability of large community projects, since they will now be depending on the good will of players sacrificing slots and not taking them back again later.

I just want to say, thank you NQ for the continued  stream of information.
 
EDIT
 
As a ship builder, I like to have examples of my ships next to the BP dispenser  so that a potential customer  can examine  the ship. As a solo player with no alts, this change will make that impossible. 

Dual Universe’s Panacea update is right around the corner, bringing with it a sizable variety of changes based on feedback from our community. 
Ahead of the update, however, we are immediately introducing revisions to territory upkeep and mining units. 
 
Read on for the full scoop! 
 
GOING INTO EFFECT ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25th
 
Taxes will be effective again starting Wednesday, January 26th.
The day before, we are going to deploy three adjustments to address the issues mentioned in the Community Feedback regarding Territory Upkeep.
 
Territory Upkeep Reduction: 1 MM --> 500k.

Territory Upkeep was first introduced in the November 2021 Demeter update. After reviewing community feedback, we announced that territory upkeep payments would be postponed for two weeks to allow the Design team time to dig deep into the metrics and fine-tune the system accordingly. 

The upkeep rate per territory will be reduced by 50%, from 1MM to 500k quanta. Player feedback indicated that people felt they were having to sell ore too frequently to generate the funds needed to pay upkeep. In halving the upkeep costs, we will relieve the pressure to make frequent trips to the market as well as the need to sell large quantities of ore.
  Calibrations Charges:
Base calibration charge slots increase : 5 --> 25.
Talent calibration charge slots increase : 1/level --> 5/level.

Also introduced in the Demeter update, mining units were designed as an alternative to digging endless tunnels underground for ore. To keep them producing at their peak capacity requires occasional calibration; however, initial feedback from the community told us that further tweaks were needed for the calibration process. To this end, we’ve made the two changes mentioned above.

This will change the total amount of stored charges from 10 (5 base + 5 max talents) to 50 (25 base + 25 max talents).

The intention behind the charge cap was not to force a behavior in which you felt like you needed to spend charges in order not to “lose out” on charges by hitting the cap and wasting your recharge. 

In view of that, both the base and the talent bonus are drastically going up. This will not only allow you to store more charges in general, but specifically allow you to store a much longer period of time in charge recharge time, giving you much more breathing room to store charges and not waste charge recharge time.
  Calibration grace period: 48h --> 72h
  The calibration grace period is the amount of time during which a mining unit does not lose calibration. Similarly to charge slots, the intention was not to aggressively require you to calibrate mining units every 2-3 days. In our initial calculations our goal was more to hit the 5 to 6 day mark depending on what efficiency curve the player selected, and how many mining units the player was trying to maintain.
 
We are changing the calibration grace period from 48-hours to 72-hours. 
 
This change should bring us closer to the initial values we were looking for and give players more breathing room to calibrate when their mining units seem to be producing less than usual, indicating that calibration is needed.
 
CHANGES COMING WITH PANACEA UPATE (0.28) LAUNCH
 
Using industry units on offline tiles

The intention of requiring online territories for industry units was not to negatively impact industry units on planets. We initially saw it as further incentive to pay for taxes, but it was not a core requirement. This is also why industry units on Ssanctuary and space cores were left untouched.

We understand from player feedback that requiring you to operate mining units on a territory in order to not run industry units at a loss on that territory was an annoyance and many players did not want to run their industry units on the same territories as their mining units.

In view of the preferences expressed, we have decided to allow the operation of industry units on all offline territories. In combination with HQ territories, this will allow you to effectively run industry units on offline territories for extended periods of time.
  Faster extraction animations
  We are also addressing the feedback we’ve received regarding the time it takes to complete a calibration minigame, specifically the frustration from the long loading animations when calibrating a number of mining units.
 
An option has been added in the mining unit UI (tick box) that will let you significantly reduce the time these animations take, drastically reducing the period of time the animations run.
 
Additionally, a number of mining unit mini-game animations have been slightly reduced in duration, thus allowing a faster minigame completion.
 
New talents for surface harvesting
  In order to further incentivize harvesting surface rocks, and to be able to specialize in it, we are adding four talents linked to surface harvesting that will touch on harvesting speed and output.
 
The main goal is to create some surface harvesting specialization for those players who enjoy it, giving them the capability to harvest better and faster, and for longer periods of time.
 
CHANGES COMING POST-PANACEA
 
New surface harvesting controls
  To further address surface harvesting issues, we are working on quality of life-type improvements that will allow a degree of auto-harvesting similar to normal mining as well as other changes to reduce control and UX-based frustrations during surface harvesting. 
Watch for additional details as we refine our plans!
 
 New mining unit surface harvesting, rocks spawning behavior
 
Lastly, we are looking for a solution to simplify the process of gathering rocks. This is in direct response to player requests to eliminate the hassle of having to comb their territories after calibrating a number of mining units. 
 
While this is still in relatively early stages, the solution we are looking at is to spawn the rocks right under the mining unit beam, where the beam hits the ground. Players would then be able to rapidly harvest surface rocks. 
 
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE
 
Don’t forget that there’s a lot more to Panacea than the changes and tweaks discussed above. It’s also got some cool new stuff, like the Vertex Precision Tool which we’ll be talking about in the next devblog! 
 
Meanwhile, please join the conversation on the forum here to tell us what you think about revisions we’ve presented in this Devblog.
We’d love to hear from you! 
 
---

The Novaquark team

The containers we have within 250m of markets enable group gameplay with others in our Org across timezones - we have ppl delivering stuff from the main factory and the many mining rigs, then a legate VRs in, links to the container and places sell orders or instant sells as appropriate - under the Org account so we can see and manage the orders collectively and transparently. 
 
Purchases in VR under the Org account also are made available to members to transport or use, via the containers. 
 
Currently Missions does not support our use cases - NQ PLEASE NOTE - to make this work for us:
 
1) Haulage to market missions option to deposit in an Org market container, and be billed to an Org. Currently goes into the personal container of the mission giver, so we have to have a storage construct within link range instead, ie. 250m.
 
2) Instant sell from an Org inventory - only possible currently from personal market inventory or a linked container, so a storage construct is required to swap the ownership. 
 
3) Option to move stock between Orgs and personal within the market. Currently have to use a storage construct to do this. 
 
We still have around 100 mining rigs without parcel containers, and XL parcel containers are expensive. If we don't have the construct at the market, we'll have to set up a warehouse near each market and create short-haul missions - adding extra handling and time for the already-busy legates.
 
Edit - added request:
4) Mission limits way more than 3 please! 20 would be more realistic. We went to put parcel containers on mining rigs only to find we can issue just 3 missions each at any one time, so we continue to get hauliers to drop stuff off at the storage constructs at destination markets - because we can't use the Mission system after doing rig no. 3 of a hundred or so.

Whilst I think the market changes are good, I think 7 days is a little too short and will catch people with family emergencies, computer problems, unable to start DU because of some wierd problem and waiting on a fix from NQ (e.g. GFN users a few months ago) or whatever.  When I had COVID last year I stopped playing for about 10 days.  My whole family had it at the same time so 'I'd better log into a video game and move my internet spaceship so it doesn't get deleted' would have been pretty far down my priority list.

I think 3 weeks would be a better number and would still result in far fewer constructs at them than there are now.