joaocordeiro

The part that you quoted does not stand alone. It is a part of several lines that make a point. Try commenting on the full point instead.

PS: Turning down your stove does not take you 15 minutes to get to the sanctuary moon from Alioth.
PS2: Or the 2 hours to get fuel if you don't have it.

Definitely don't agree on the "only"
Op gave us an acceptable solution.
I gave another.
 
Your solution is utopian. A powerful org can still park all their assets in a player market. Then what? Is the market owner going to declare war and face oblivion because of something NQ failed to fix?
What ever mechanism NQ finds to fix this for NPC markets, needs to be available for player markets.

The solution to this problem already exists in most games. 
Virtual garage. 
The player approaches a marking in the ground, exits its ship, looks at a interface and select "store the last construct you piloted". 
If the ship is near the center of the marking and if the player has "store in garage" permission, the ship will disappear from game. 
 
For ppl crying that they need to "see" the ships that are present in any market, there could be a public listing of all ships on that garage. 
 
After this is implemented, NQ could add the following:
Automatic storing for ships that idle more then X hours. 
Storing fee. Removing quanta from player's money. 
When money runs out, ship is spawned on a remote ship graveyard, without a owner. 
 
PS: EVE uses this players need to park their ships upon arriving on a station. 

Please note the word "instead". 
That means that if you report it, you can use it. 
So all you have to do is to open a bug ticket. 
 
At least by this sentence alone. Maybe some other rule prevents it. 

I get you, but the notation +5% is flawed and can create this type of miss interpretation
"+5%" is translated to "100%+5%" = 105% = 1.05
as in X=Y*1.05
 
The miss interpretation is that level 3 would equal to  +5%+5%+5% = 15% but this is not correct.
Because the correct interpretation is level 3 equal to 1.05*1.05*1.05 = 1.157625 or in your notation +15.7625 %
 
This change makes ppl believe that NQ does not know how to make basic math with 5+5+5 ending up at 15.7625 while the reality is that ppl don't understand how the calculation was done.

How about you read the post again instead of saying BS above your player paygrade... 
Ppl can use multiple accounts at the same time as long as does not mess up the anti-cheat - > not on the same computer... 
 
 
PS: current players getting multiple subscriptions is probably a economical "must" at this point. 

Lol. 
 
I wish this was like cyberpunk. 
Cyberpunk only failed on releasing the game full of stupid small bugs. 
But it is still a great game. 
I was lucky to get it for pc(the least buggy version) 
And yes i saw all sorts for bugs and crashes. Had to save every 30 secs to make sure a game bug would not roll me back 2 hours. 
And i was kind of disapointed with the damage system. But then i found out about hacks and it kind of compensated. 
 
That said, cyberpunk is a dramatic masterpiece. 
The city colors, the quests rich with story, the horror, the hope, the rage, the sadness, the joy. 
At the end of game i felt like i lost a close friend.
(I definitely recommend ppl to play it for the story) 
 
What does DU have to compensate the bugs?
Does it have story? Quests? Hope? Joy? 
Does it make us feel something besides boredom or grief? 

Lots of ppl betting on that. But can designing pretty voxel ships be a lasting objective?
What ever the answer is, its not my type of game. I like to feel rewarded emotionally when i make a good decision on a game. I dont feed on other ppl grief to get satisfaction. 

You need to link the agg to the PB and rename that to "agg" 

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. 

We dont know the full context. 
 
In how many previous explois have those same players participated? 
 
Have all of them been banned? If not, what was the criteria? 
 
All we have seen was NQ saying they have seen 100% intention againt rules and reacted, and some ppl saying "poor me, im banned" 
But does that count as context? 

We dont know the full context. 
 
In how many previous explois have those same players participated? 
 
Have all of them been banned? If not, what was the criteria? 
 
All we have seen was NQ saying they have seen 100% intention againt rules and reacted, and some ppl saying "poor me, im banned" 
But does that count as context? 

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. 

We dont know the full context. 
 
In how many previous explois have those same players participated? 
 
Have all of them been banned? If not, what was the criteria? 
 
All we have seen was NQ saying they have seen 100% intention againt rules and reacted, and some ppl saying "poor me, im banned" 
But does that count as context? 

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

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. 

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" 

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The extreme is not subjective. When you dig a wall, without any construct or any other reason, in front of a landing strip. You are objectively being a dick.
The border between being a dick and not being a dick can be subjective. That's why NQ is doing the ruling case by case.

As a general rule, I agree with you. Specially in RL.
But well-defined rules are only a requirement for must have game mechanics. Stuff that you need to do, in the daily based to play the game.
Like stop on the red sign.
 
But most things in life and some in game are not well-defined. Here are some examples:
 
"Spraying paint in to a surface"
There is no law that prevents you from spraying paint into a surface.
But if you do it in a way that damages stuff that is not yours there is.
But if that stuff has no value, like dirt, or stray plants, it's ok.
 
"Damaging a vehicle that belongs to someone else"
Everyone will say that the owner will be entitled to compensation.
But what is "damage"?
If I have butter on my fingers and live a mark on the surface, should I pay for a full paint?
If the vehicle is parked in the middle of the highway, should I be responsible?

In all cases in RL, a judge is required to interpret the law in that situation. Calculate the responsibility and the damages. Only after that, a rule can be applied.
 
Computer game are somewhat more easy to regularize. Because game mechanics have a limited number of outcomes in each action. So players assume that it is possible to create rules that cover the entire gameplay. It is not possible.

In this case digging dirt is allowed. While griefing players with blocking wall is not.
But what is a griefing wall? How many meters? How far away from the other territory?
Should NQ come up with a 5 variable equation?

But the problem is not the height of the wall. It's the "damage" it is causing to another player.

If the 2 players are ok with having a 100m wall dividing their territory, there is no issue in doing one.
But if one player feels like his gameplay was griefed he has the right to open a complaint.

NQ will look at his arguments and annalise his suffered "damage".
Then NQ will go to the player that caused the situation and ask for why the player did that.
If the player has a decent justification, like "L was leveling terrain for my L core" then NQ may try to find another solution, like offering a free TCU to the "offended"
If it was pure griefing. NQ may take action against the griefer.

For anyone doing digs and platforms from dirt. All you need to know is that you should get along with ppl around you.
If possible, don't block access to his stuff.
If you feel like he will not like it, go ask his opinion 1st.
If you really need to do it, try to make a deal with him.

For anyone attempting to make a complaint to NQ.
Try talking to the guy 1st, make sure he knows he is creating a problem to you.