joaocordeiro

Here are my 2 cents: We can all find excuses and exceptions to try to justify this, but at the end, the abusers knew they were destroying an important admin construct. They knew. We have seen ppl testing the limits of NQ for months now. We have seen NQ giving a final warning to those ppl testing the limits. Should it be a perma ban? Maybe not. But someone had to be the example for players to understand that this is beta. Bugs and exploits are still common and beta testers need to know the boundaries of what they can and should be doing. Want to be on the safe side? Dont overexploit a bug.... Capture a recording of a small use of the exploit, upload it to YouTube, set it as "not listed" and open a support ticket with it.

Its not up to us to convince you to play the game. If you cant find a reason on your own, dont play.

Quite sad that after the report 3 weeks ago about the org that lost several ships, materials and industry to a spy, some big org leaders still haven't put into their heads that they need to restrict access. Trust is gained with actions, not with time or friendly talk. The robbers: pure pirates. But 100% legal. And its not griefing as they are not continually after the same target our using any exploit. But should face some ingame social consequences. The victims:, 99% responsible for what happened. Specially the leader of the org. Blame him has he failed to act and prevent this. A org capable of so many KL is not made out of noobs. So lack of information is not to blame. NQ: 1% responsible. As the RDMS is still kind of hard to undertand and lacks a lot of functionality.

The "Stealing" word includes many forms of action. I know you guys want to try to blur this by creating huge bundles of subjective actions.. But this is a specific case of griefing that is not subjective at all. The actions of this griefers caused major grief to a very large number of players, while exploiting a game feature not intended to that end. Its the definition of griefing on every website, including wikipedia.

Nothing odd about it. It does not matter if its a exploit, a bug, a legal gameplay. It was 100% griefing. And it was not some accidental griefing. Ppl were actively going out of their way to grief others. That should be punished.

Yes. But not forcibly at same time or with the same punishment. Case by case. And now it's time to judge this case and not others.

If only there was a "exploit" in the past to serve as an example on how NQ can punish ppl retroactively................

This is 100% BS. Here and in real life. Justice is applied against a crime, one case at each time. And you definitely do not need to be 100% just to apply justice at one case. Sure we want all exploiters to have some sort of consequence for exploiting. But punishing one exploit has nothing to do with another exploit. It only has to do with the consequences his exploiting caused to others. One case at each time we must evaluate and apply justice.

Can you link this? Also, what is your opinion of JC saying the opposite in the linked video?

Damn, just figured that out. I can just open a incognito tab on the browser and vote again................. They do track the email of registered ppl. so it is possible to filter out actual players. But knowing NQ as i do, they probably never thought about it yet. But i would say that having a proper tool for feedback is much better then just watching discord fights on general. PS: The tool also needs a "DownVote" button

Who are you and what have you done to Mordgier???

So he clearly says: If you want to have 2 accounts connected in 2 computers, its perfectly fine. As long as you don't automate stuff.

FFS.... its a 1h and 32m video... You have any idea if its near the start or the end? And can we agree that this is not the way to clear official doubts? If some official forum statement is confusing, fix it. Don't go clear it out in the middle of a 1:32 video.....

1st we need to understand the rules.

all points on that list are about the functionality of the anti-cheat. Modifying the game files is forbidden, (except for the "Game/data/lua" folder (this is the only location where you can add or modify files). Modifying the game cache is forbidden (by default it is located in the directory C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\NQ\DualUniverse\) ; Reading or modifying the game memory is forbidden. Disabling, modifying, or attempting to evade the anti-cheat in any way is forbidden. Playing at the same time with two or more accounts is forbidden (having several accounts is fine as long as you only play with only one at a time). Its all about the anti-cheat every single point. It also makes no sense to allow for multiple accounts but then do not allow them to be played at the same time. And its also impossible to detect and enforce this rule with that interpertation. To me, the wording used needs a official rectification. To clearly include "(even in separate computers)" Or "(having several accounts is fine as long as you only play with only one at a time on the same computer)"

again, that was on the context of presenting a anti-cheat program........

Can we have a link?

You do understand that that was written in the context of an anticheat program right? All that says for sure is that running multiple instances of DU on the same computer is not allowed (mainly because the anticheat cannot support it) @blazemonger Said in another topic that playing in different computers has been cleared as allowed. But I would love for @NQ-Naerais to clear if this restriction also applies to different computers.

Well he does have a point in XS weapons being 100% useless with current meta. Those XS weapons should have a huge disadvantage but not 100% useless. But its definitely not "pay to win" . More like "socialize to win"

How about having a team mate?

Well NQ is right. Rules never take out any permission, only give new ones. The construct level "use" adds input and output rights on all elements. Then "put" is not doing anything there. What you say you would expect would happen if "put" permission had a "not take" directive. But thats not how the system is designed. Never ever give "use" on construct level. The alternative is to make a composite tag that only affects some element types and give "use" on construct level to that tag. That way you can set construct level "use" just for industries and not for containers.

There was a issue some time ago. At that time, if you linked you self to a container and later lost rights to that container, you were unable to use, reset or replace your linked container.

There are several ways to look at this. But i will start by saying: Yes. There is a group of player that have a deep link with NQ. Their opinions are worth 100 times one of ours, and they get to know stuff before we know it(sometimes giving them a huge unfair advantage) But there is also another perspective here. Some ppl abuse and exploits with the excuse that it will force NQ to take action. Normally ppl report a bug they find. After 3,4 months, they get tired of waiting the bug to be fixed so they start exploiting it massively to create some urgency in NQ. I personally know 2 bugs both game breaking and abusive. I have used one of them in a alt account several times, just to see if there is any reaction from NQ. Ofcorse that none of this uses screws any other player. What i would love to see here would be for NQ reacting faster to this massive exploits. They knew that ppl were docking ships and taking them to the PVP zone weeks ago. Why does this have to grow into 300 numbers for NQ to act?? Is there a reason NQ did not post this exploit warning a week ago? Where was our community manager while this was happening? Talking about "feeding the hamsters"? Every programer can make a game breaking bug. The real problem here is the lack of quick action to prevent the worse.

Why do you even take his bait. This is standard tactics of "look at another problem instead of this one"

My 2 examples explain how damage to others is subjective of the value others give to stuff. You don't have to comment them. But calling them "totally invalid" is just your opinion. Nothing more than that. Responding to the rest of your topic: NQ is a company that owns DU. At the end, NQ wants to make money to pay its employees. To make money NQ has to keep up a good inflow of new players, to compensate the ones leaving and to evolve as a company. Any in game action that deeply contradicts this can and should get NQ's attention and action. Most actions we make in the game have some kind of unpleasant outcome to someone else (like PVP or undercutting a sell order). But also attract a lot of new players. The main problem with griefing. One single player will end up trowing out a lot of players from the game. For NQ is not about (generally perceived) fairness. It's about the success of the game if it's totally unfair. Expressions like "player driven" and "freedom" are not excuses to be a dick. And being subjective is not an excuse to not take action. We know that the OP example was 100% griefing. NQ should take action.< Should there be written rules? Yes, if possible to write good ones. If it's not possible because it's too subjective, a judge will rule. (probably with several warnings before a permanent ban) But we can't expect NQ to write the entire US Penal code just for us to play the game.