Physics

I’m very disappointed by this choice. There should of been a scan data wipe to slow down the horde of land grabbing and getting people to actually explore again. Now it’s a race of who can tab through their scan container first.

I’m very disappointed by this choice. There should of been a scan data wipe to slow down the horde of land grabbing and getting people to actually explore again. Now it’s a race of who can tab through their scan container first.

Or Just post them so the Community can discuss them ?‍♂️

You know forums have DM’s if you must have this conversation…. Idea box forums is not the place for this

You know forums have DM’s if you must have this conversation…. Idea box forums is not the place for this

I completely respect your pacifism and agree with many of your views.
 
However many if not the majority of people enjoy combat in the gaming industry. Not because they enjoy griefing other people but because there is a certain disconnect from seeing it as violence but rather a set of challenges, strategic thinking and battle of skills and will’s.
 
When people have expensive ships or even reputations at risk a certain adrenaline rush can kick in while playing combat making some of the most exciting moments in the game. To limit this would be like putting a 5mph speed limit on a roller coaster. 
 
Dual Universe simply needs healthy and most of all competitive / fun combat systems if the game can even hope to be successful enough to keep the lights on and the servers open.

Hi Hirnsausen,
 
Thank you for your feedback. However, it won’t be possible to go with your suggestion for the following reasons: 
 
What you suggest can be abused in many ways. Just an example among many others: imagine that non-armed ships are used to transport stolen assets (either from wrecks destroyed in PvP or anything stolen due to a betrayal from an infiltrated spy in an organization). We would remove the ability for justified retaliation, and that’s absolutely not our intention. Players should face the consequences of their actions, for the best and for the worst. It’s part of the Sandbox concept (even if we had to limit it in a reasonable way to give some room for both types of players, PvP and non-PvP).
  PvP must keep some unique incentives. Harvesting the rarest materials is one of those incentives. The concept of “risk versus rewards” has been part of Dual Universe, from the very beginning. Please keep in mind that even the current in-game situation is way softer than the initial vision, where safe zones were only small areas on some planets. Today, there are whole planets as safe zones, giving all the necessary space for those who do not want to be involved in PvP. You don’t need the rarest materials for creativity, and even in the rare cases you need some, you can always rely on the markets for resources that would be normally available in PvP areas. Some more adventurous players ready to risk their ships in PvP will find an interesting trade in the situation.
  You can’t speak of non-consensual PvP in Dual Universe. Non-consensual PvP is when there is no way for a player to avoid being caught in PvP in a game. In Dual Universe, you CAN avoid being caught in PvP by staying in the safe zones and have access to pretty much any gameplay available in-game (except PvP of course). If a player ventures outside of a safe zone, it’s his choice and it means he/she has implicitly accepted the risks tied to this choice.
  As mentioned before, unsafe space has always been part of Dual Universe vision. So you can’t talk about lobbying when it is about something that was there from the very beginning. If there is some lobbying, it’s when some players put the pressure to change something that was already well established at the beginning.
While some ideas may be seen as good on paper, it will generate more problems than it will solve, not to mention that it would radically change Dual Universe’s original vision. The game is already more than reasonably friendly toward those who don’t want to participate in PvP and there is no plan to give access to the whole space in-game without any PvP risk. That was never the deal and will never be. 
 
We (as a team) do, however, acknowledge that the current situation in PvP is unbalanced and that some players may resort to some loopholes or gray areas to win a battle. The Novaquark team goal is to fix those loopholes and find the right balance in the long term. Balancing PvP is a delicate endeavor and can take some time. This is why we are still in Beta and that Beta may still last quite a while.
 
On another topic, please refrain to compare non-consensual PvP to awful real life things like rape and such. Try to picture yourself explaining to someone who has been raped that what he/she has experienced is the same thing as being frustrated by a situation in a video game. You will (hopefully) see how unreasonable the comparison is. If you’re not convinced, do try to discuss with some rape victims. It won’t be a surprise if none will agree with you.
 
Last but not the least: some elementary rules are in effect on the forum.
 
- Wishing harm to other players in real life for ANY reason is NOT ok. 
For that reason, @Hirnsausen you get a warning point.
- Direct insults and personal attacks toward a player is not okay either. 
For that reason, @Lethys you get a warning point as well.
 
We hope you will continue to participate on the forum in a more civilized manner in the future.
In the meantime, this topic will be closed to avoid further aggressive/provocative replies.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

 

Since day 1, NQ has talked about cities as a feature of DU:
- during the Kickstarter in JC's '10 Minutes of Dual Universe Gameplay',
- in the 2018 pre-alpha 'Dual Universe Community-Made Outposts', and
- just a year ago, at the 25 second mark in the 'Building Fundamentals Trailer'...
 
So why are there only a handful of 'cities' in DU? 
 
 
 
As detailed in my YouTube video (link below) it is virtually impossible to align static core blueprints reliably, even when working hard to comply with the baked-in ray cast used to position blueprints. The lack of a snap to grid (as with placement of new cores) is just the beginning of the many problems.
 
Static blueprint placement issues also include: 
 
1) 'Nudge' moves the BP by 2 voxels instead if 1,
2) There is no visualisation of the structure being placed. Combined with placement inverting the direction of the structure by default, it is extremely difficult to predict which direction the blueprint is facing when placed, even moreso when rotation is called for, and
3) The inability to 'undo' a bad placement is especially burdensome on large structures as they have to be torn down in dozens of separate cut selections and the blueprint is effectively lost.
 
For all these reasons, it is completely impractical to try to perform a number of tasks essential to large scale architecture, including:
- Relocating an existing multicore structure,
- Replicating a multicore structure,
- Developing multicore structures for sale,
- Selling any static blueprint with DRM (since bad placement consumes the blueprint). 
 
Because it is impossible to transact blueprints in a way that allows customers to reliably place their purchase, there is no profit to be made in multicore architecture. And because there is no profit in multicore architecture, there are no multicore architects.
 
In essence, current gameplay mechanics actively inhibit the construction of cities. 
 
There are three levels of fix for this essential gameplay element: 
 
BASIC:
Add snap-to-grid for static core blueprint placement, identical to new core placement. (Even with this basic fix, determined players can workaround the remaining problems.)
 
INTERMEDIATE:
Add a direction arrow on the blueprint being placed so players can see which direction the BP is being placed. (Blueprint sellers can then provide instructions to customers on which face of the construct the arrow represents.)
 
ADVANCED:
Full function - add a silhouette of the projected blueprint, and add an undo function or teardown with the blueprint recovered.
 
To be fair, there are other problems as well - like the inability to use elevators to travel between cores, or more than half the width of a large core. But with the ability to design and build multicore structures, the largest hurdle would be resolved and the absence of any significant emergent architecture, aside from a small number of very determined players. 
 
It is my wish that rather than wait for the available development cycle to properly fix static blueprint placement, the 'basic' option above be implemented ASAP.
 
*

I completely respect your pacifism and agree with many of your views.
 
However many if not the majority of people enjoy combat in the gaming industry. Not because they enjoy griefing other people but because there is a certain disconnect from seeing it as violence but rather a set of challenges, strategic thinking and battle of skills and will’s.
 
When people have expensive ships or even reputations at risk a certain adrenaline rush can kick in while playing combat making some of the most exciting moments in the game. To limit this would be like putting a 5mph speed limit on a roller coaster. 
 
Dual Universe simply needs healthy and most of all competitive / fun combat systems if the game can even hope to be successful enough to keep the lights on and the servers open.

I completely respect your pacifism and agree with many of your views.
 
However many if not the majority of people enjoy combat in the gaming industry. Not because they enjoy griefing other people but because there is a certain disconnect from seeing it as violence but rather a set of challenges, strategic thinking and battle of skills and will’s.
 
When people have expensive ships or even reputations at risk a certain adrenaline rush can kick in while playing combat making some of the most exciting moments in the game. To limit this would be like putting a 5mph speed limit on a roller coaster. 
 
Dual Universe simply needs healthy and most of all competitive / fun combat systems if the game can even hope to be successful enough to keep the lights on and the servers open.

BOO out numbers Legion and is still growing. However without substance too PvP in DU and a direction change too what NQ is currently doing, the orgs focus is fixed elsewhere. But BOO does have eyes on DU looking for a reason to return.

Way off the mark on the idea here. Your suggestion would literally be the end of the game / final nail in the coffin.
 
A suggestion would be rather than trying to come up with a hard barrier to pvp, think of ways NQ could add some more cat and mouse gameplay in too it. How can people who want to avoid combat in contested territory keep themselves undetected from putting in effort to do so? 

Any element placement that requires an exploit is not allowed.  Seems pretty straight forward to me.
 
All that matters is how you were able to achieve S2.
 
If S2 requires an exploit, then it's an exploit.  If it doesn't, then it's not.
 
Currently there is only S0 and S1.  Anything else requires an exploit.
 
Honestly i think the word stacking is making this whole thing harder for people to understand.
 
Forget about stacking.  
 
There is element placement that doesn't require an exploit, and element placement that does.  That's it.
 

1: Is there a back end reason asteroids are only on a Saturday spawn time? Why not passive spawning and removal of asteroids as they are disturbed? 
 
2. CSS and shields has lead to a new Meta of only low profile voxel or literally no voxel at all L core ships, this is very disappointing to see. Can we expect further work on balancing?
 
3. Does NQ have any plans to make XS-M cores viable for pvp and a purpose for fully built out L cores?
 
4. Aside from Planet warfare will we see any kind of environmental factors in space? Nebula’s? Singularities? Asteroid fields? Planet rings? Other possible ideas?
 
5. Can we get an option to show the Obstruction zones from elements during build mode?
 
6. Line of sight when!? Would be fun trying to play a slower pace game of cat and mouse around an asteroid etc and more stuff in the future.
 
7. Could asteroids be revisited in the future? Sorry but the current DSAT system is just unpopular and not the greatest idea.
 
 
 
 
 

1: Is there a back end reason asteroids are only on a Saturday spawn time? Why not passive spawning and removal of asteroids as they are disturbed? 
 
2. CSS and shields has lead to a new Meta of only low profile voxel or literally no voxel at all L core ships, this is very disappointing to see. Can we expect further work on balancing?
 
3. Does NQ have any plans to make XS-M cores viable for pvp and a purpose for fully built out L cores?
 
4. Aside from Planet warfare will we see any kind of environmental factors in space? Nebula’s? Singularities? Asteroid fields? Planet rings? Other possible ideas?
 
5. Can we get an option to show the Obstruction zones from elements during build mode?
 
6. Line of sight when!? Would be fun trying to play a slower pace game of cat and mouse around an asteroid etc and more stuff in the future.
 
7. Could asteroids be revisited in the future? Sorry but the current DSAT system is just unpopular and not the greatest idea.
 
 
 
 
 

1: Is there a back end reason asteroids are only on a Saturday spawn time? Why not passive spawning and removal of asteroids as they are disturbed? 
 
2. CSS and shields has lead to a new Meta of only low profile voxel or literally no voxel at all L core ships, this is very disappointing to see. Can we expect further work on balancing?
 
3. Does NQ have any plans to make XS-M cores viable for pvp and a purpose for fully built out L cores?
 
4. Aside from Planet warfare will we see any kind of environmental factors in space? Nebula’s? Singularities? Asteroid fields? Planet rings? Other possible ideas?
 
5. Can we get an option to show the Obstruction zones from elements during build mode?
 
6. Line of sight when!? Would be fun trying to play a slower pace game of cat and mouse around an asteroid etc and more stuff in the future.
 
7. Could asteroids be revisited in the future? Sorry but the current DSAT system is just unpopular and not the greatest idea.
 
 
 
 
 

1: Is there a back end reason asteroids are only on a Saturday spawn time? Why not passive spawning and removal of asteroids as they are disturbed? 
 
2. CSS and shields has lead to a new Meta of only low profile voxel or literally no voxel at all L core ships, this is very disappointing to see. Can we expect further work on balancing?
 
3. Does NQ have any plans to make XS-M cores viable for pvp and a purpose for fully built out L cores?
 
4. Aside from Planet warfare will we see any kind of environmental factors in space? Nebula’s? Singularities? Asteroid fields? Planet rings? Other possible ideas?
 
5. Can we get an option to show the Obstruction zones from elements during build mode?
 
6. Line of sight when!? Would be fun trying to play a slower pace game of cat and mouse around an asteroid etc and more stuff in the future.
 
7. Could asteroids be revisited in the future? Sorry but the current DSAT system is just unpopular and not the greatest idea.
 
 
 
 
 

+1 this would be very nice 

UPDATE: More up to date information on this announcement can be found here.

In the recent PTS 0.26.12 update, we fixed an exploit related to placing elements in the same location. 
 
Exploits Fixes
Fixed an industry duplicate production. Fixed an exploit that allowed placement of several elements at the same position.  
This was done to prevent the ability to overlap elements in the same location, which was never part of the intended game design. 
 
Several months ago, we stated in our clarification on bugs and exploits that we would continue to allow element stacking for the time being until a solution was in place. With this fix now coming in the Ares update as part of our continuing effort to close the loop on a number of issues, we will be changing our stance on the stacking of elements.
 
When the Ares update is released on the Live server (date TBA), constructs containing stacked elements will no longer be permitted. Violations of the “no element stacking” mandate will be subject to deletion without warning or compensation. We strongly urge players who have currently overlapping elements to remove those immediately to prevent the loss of those constructs once Ares arrives.
 
Players may report violations via Support ticket or by messaging @gm in the in-game Help channel. 

Way off the mark on the idea here. Your suggestion would literally be the end of the game / final nail in the coffin.
 
A suggestion would be rather than trying to come up with a hard barrier to pvp, think of ways NQ could add some more cat and mouse gameplay in too it. How can people who want to avoid combat in contested territory keep themselves undetected from putting in effort to do so? 

One of the biggest problems with Combat is how basic it is. If you have looked at combat screen you know what I mean. NQ has only just implemented 1 feature that makes you make 1 decision during combat, when to vent shield. We need many many more choices / options and more immersive systems in combat before NQ can even think about slapping a bunch of server generated ships around with an AI bolted on since the PvP combat system will be the foundation of any hope of a PVE combat system. Get one right before you do the other.  

Fully glassed sliding doors and partially glassed sliding doors needed, halleluya and ras tafari!   ?

Hmm this is actually an interesting point to me. In nearly all games I don’t care at all about loosing ships / characters / assets in PvP because I gained my experience from fighting that makes me better for the next fight and so on after that.
 
However in DU there really is next to no experience to gain because there is next to nothing to learn in pvp. It’s way way way to vanilla and requires no skill to do. This is a major part on where DU fails it’s player base because there is next to no skill progression from experience in combat its self. 

Did I actually read this correct? ?? Some people’s logic is beyond me.
 
Maybe as a community we should change the terminology so people get the basics of the game. These higher tier asteroids are in contested territory. If you go in to contested territory where people fight for what is there by design of the game that’s on you and your own choices. The only person you have any right to complain too if you suffer a loss is yourself. 
 
 

This is NQ’s bad design, not legions fault. NQ was warned about asteroids design flaws and given advise on how to make it better, deaf ears.
 
Legion is probably only 100-150 active at most.. shows state of the game if that number is the dominant force that shows this bad design off.