Taelessael

Fiddly... On the one hand it would be nice to see some larger payouts there... On the other there are a lot of achievements that amount to "do a thing with stuff you can pass to your friends/org-mates so that y'all can will have it 5 mins after the first person does"... Increasing the achievements' payout to make them individually significant will probably require re-working what earns what so that this time around when I throw 256 plants and 256 encampment chairs on to the roof of my cargo-shuttle along with a few other achievement-related bits, my org (or any other) doesn't play a game of "hot-potato" with the shuttle like they did back when beta started to earn 200 people all the top-end achievements. I'm all for it, but we need to adjust the achievement-rankings first.

I'm all for planetary pvp, and for pve environmental hazards, and for proper additional content, but a random environmental effect disabling constructs without a proper defense would be annoying, especially with loss of the rez-node and on a pvp planet. Otherwise I'd have to agree with @Sagacious, the spawn of such things needs to be random and not all at once weekly. I would perhaps suggest that area-environmental-damage would have to eat through a construct's shield and ccs before it could disable the construct, thus providing a way for players to extend the time they'd have to deal with dangerous environmental AOE so that they wont have to worry about having to panic-rush-mine a rock that spawned next to their stuff the moment they log back in.

As I recall, many of those fights dragged on for absurd amounts of time because it was possible for a suitably large engineering crew to patch a ship faster than it could be killed (so long as supplies lasted). While I will gladly support a bit of a buff to voxel so it becomes relevant outside of sieges, I'd expect that we'd need something more complicated than making the repair crew relevant again if we don't want to risk sliding back in to the previously overlong fights. Unfortunately my best ideas for such would involve things like allowing multiple shield-generators on a ship (probably while nerfing individual ones, disallowing script control, allowing only simultaneous venting, and requiring them all to have their resistances kept synchronized to get their combined hp?), or adding other mechanics to ships that need managing and cant be script-controlled, such as an e-war minigame that improves the hit-chances of the weapons on the ship that has its sensors/countermeasures better managed.

Agreed. Here you are only partially correct. While players did previously have the option to do as you have suggested, they will now instead have the option to sell their copies to other players. It is most certainly not a perfect 1 for 1, and it isn't hard to see that it will annoy factory players by giving them what is functionally a level of "upkeep-play" akin to mining calibrations... We'll need to see how it goes, but NQ really should be careful here, we don't want parts of the game to turn in to a job.

Right, I forgot the sarcasm tags... I should go edit the original post so people don't miss my intent. My point isn't that there are mega-factories, it is that someone is still complaining about them because they can't accept that it is possible for people to work together enough to amass the supplies to build them. There are mega-factories, there will be mega-factories, they will be operated by a small number of people on behalf of larger groups for the sake of avoiding "too many cooks in the kitchen", and the only thing a wipe will do to inhibit that is annoy people in to quitting and thus reduce the possibility that the game would continue long enough for another mega-factory to be built. So, please don't start with the absurd "objective must wipe" bologna. DU is an mmo that involves amassing stuff, building, trading, pvp, and generally competing with each other in ways that have permanent results for every action anyone takes in a persistent world. Someone will always have more stuff than someone else, people can and will cooperate with each other in large groups in ways that allow them to wildly exceed what solos and small groups do, and the only time this game will ever be fair and/or equal for everyone will be when NQ pulls the plug.

<sarcasm> Well, I suppose this will produce some hard numbers to throw at the noisy ones that for some reason think the game is having issues with privately owned mega-factories... because this is still apparently an issue for someone... </sarcasm> ...Anyways, if they don't want to annoy everyone like they did in .23, they'll need some manner of transition period where both new and old schematics work, and it wouldn't hurt to make it so players don't need to run to an aphelia-structure to get this done (even if it costs just as much).

...I don't see why RNG is a useful feature for a glorified copy-machine... Could you please elaborate as to why it would be a good thing to add?

...This just sounds like making auto-miners more complicated for the sake of making them more complicated... Planetary auto-miners are supposed to be basic income for casuals & new-players, and subsequently need to be relatively simple. If you want something like this, you'd probably do better asking for it in a way that applies to asteroids, such as: -A system that allows the deployment of territory units, static cores, and variant auto-miners on asteroids, with these auto-miners running on mining-cartridges obtained via missions. On a related note, until NQ decides to add in random meteorite storms, coronal-mass-ejections, corrosive clouds, and space-lightning, the only thing that makes a mission dangerous is player-pirates, so scaling a mission's rewards to it's "danger" would be quite difficult at this time.

Game's been all over the place for pvp balance. NQ wants a diversity of designs and sizes in combat in an "everything's relevant" kind of way but they keep trying to generally tweak the broad rules/numbers to make it happen instead of adding new stuff. Meta was XS/S core cubes at beta-launch, so they removed the radar restrictions and restricted weapons that it was based around, then it was L core bricks because it was possible to make them effectively too heavy to kill with a repair crew going, so they added cross-section, and then ccs, shields, and tardis-ammo, then it was L core SNES cartridges because there wasn't a good reason to not have a wall of guns that outrange everything else propelled by a wall of engines that outran everything else, and now with the weight-speed cap its S core USB of doom, because cross-section lets it relatively out-dps everything else while light weight lets it out-run everything else. As for the changes proposed here... -Giving L weapons higher alpha with the same dps would help diversify things a bit by encouraging fighters to try and get under its guns, but the S-fighters are already the meta for the moment... -L weapons getting to knock things around would be amusing, but short of meme-ably egregious kicking capacity it probably wont do much of anything long term, -CSS has needed to apply differently to different cores from the get-go, letting larger constructs have a higher CSS cap would go a long way there, but only in defensive scenarios, To sum it up, I don't think these changes alone will change the balance/meta much, if at all. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of great options to achieve the desired balance that don't involve adding a lot of stuff. The simplest way to do things I can think of would be: -A power-system added to allow for element-balance-tweaks and to help nerf the ability to have the best acceleration/speed and the best cross-section and the biggest shield all on one ship for any given size (speed/cross-section need to be incompatible with oversized shields). -CCS modified (as you suggested) so that bigger ships can have more effective armor than their smaller counterparts, -Weapons/cross-section modified so that in pvp the best thing to kill a ship (or ships) is a ship one core size larger, -A capacity buff/nerf to gunner-seats applied in a way that encourages matching the core-size to weapon-size (make an M core with M weapons require a smaller crew than an identical L core with M weapons), -The addition of tiny, short range, fast reloading L missile-launcher (call them torpedos or bombs) that can only be fit to XS ships, and makes a few of them the best thing to kill an L core with, -The addition of a basic set of reference info in a weapon's listed stats (when inspected on the market) on the weapon's hit chance vs cross-section so that we aren't pissing off all the new players by not informing them that anti-L weapons will miss so often against xs targets as to be less useful than XS or S weapons.

Still trying to think that up or I'd have posted it here. Unfortunately at the moment we are all playing in a relatively tiny universe where if the players are given anything they can just go ham with it, there aren't any pve hazards capable of trimming down the stuff in the world, anything of interest that isn't already in a safe-zone is within a single warp of one, and nobody wants to pvp over the pvp objectives because they don't think they can win against Legion. On top of that the market hasn't had time to rid itself of all the salvaged stuff yet, there aren't a ton of new players joining, and NQ dangling a wipe over everyone has a large number of existing players either taking a break until they are certain they wont be losing all their work to NQ's poor problem management, or stockpiling ore and things they produce themselves for when its needed in a no-wipe scenario...

I want an option that doesn't involve a wipe, and I want that same option to not involve having to regularly replace the hundreds/thousands of elements on my constructs, and I want that option to also not involve forcing me to either store deployed elements in a massive lag-cube, or fly all the markets to buy all the ores/elements I'd need if I decide to build something. I also know that while it is potentially difficult, courtesy of the nearly 2 decades EVE has been letting some people care-bear it up in high sec without even paying for fuel I can say it is entirely possible. I also know thanks to having run my own pvp-survival server in Space Engineers that few things kill people's enthusiasm to play a game like having to design for and perform regular maintenance on their starship. People play games to escape reality, not to be reminded that their car needs an oil change every 3,000 miles, everyone wants to captain their own private Enterprise, and nobody wants to put in man-hours it would take just to keep it clean without space-roombas. I understand that you probably have a factory that isn't rolling you in quanta right now thanks to recent salvage pushing a lot of the element prices down below their manufacturing/transport costs for a while, and that you don't think regularly maintaining all of the elements in your factory is too much of a problem for you, but I've watched maintenance kill people's enjoyment of a game because the grind quickly turned it in to a job. So, I say its' a terrible idea, and if it happens it will crater the game.

Ah... in that case odds are no. If they aren't just doing a "we're re-doing a planet, here's all your stuff from that planet in magic prints" wipe then I doubt it will matter where things are.

Sanct tiles are mildly more safe than HQ tiles (in that NQ is hopefully less likely to change them). You still need to keep your sub going and your stuff on your tile. Unsubbed accounts still lose their stuff after the un-sub timer runs down (there was a lot of unsub salvage on sanct before it all decayed).

People have been over this request a dozen times already in other threads asking for some kind of element decay/maintenance. If you make the game become a job, most people will quit. Making people do some manner of regular maintenance on every element of every ship and structure turns the game in to a job. Also, making elements decay out of containers is a terrible idea. A- You'll annoy everyone by functionally making them work just to maintain their inventory for if they ever want to build/modify something. B- People will circumvent it by just tossing elements down in non-functional ways on spare cores, an act that will bog the server and people's connections down in a way that leaving things in a container does not. C- Before it causes the game to close via everyone deciding that they don't want to pay to do a job, it will destroy the in-game economy for months by encouraging everyone to sell everything they aren't actively using for non-decaying quanta.

Is that what they're asking for? I thought he was just asking for Aphelia to tax orgs... Allowing orgs the option to tax their members makes a bit more sense, so long as there is a way to let players see what they are being taxed on and how much.

To what end? Orgs are functionally just some extra core slots and prefabed RDMS tags, taxing them will do nothing to orgs big or small that can afford to keep all their stuff on private cores. The only group it would cause problems for are the small/private orgs using org-cores for mega-structures (typically race tracks, museums, and other art-structures).

1) Pay to win is a terrible idea, and would drive off a lot of people. 2) Free-tier is a terrible idea, not only because a large portion of the player-base would stop paying at all, but because it takes the teeth out of banning someone for doing things they very explicitly shouldn't be doing. If you want NQ to make more money, talk them in to selling things that people both actually want and wont break the game with (element skins, shield skins, unusual voxel colors/patterns, landing-gear variants, very limited talent-point respec, ect...,)

3/3 Issue is persistent here.

Capping how many parts people can own is a terrible idea. Items in a container are functionally just a few numbers representing the type of item, volume, stack-size, and weight, probably taking no more than a few bytes of data per item-stack. I'd be willing to guess that the sum of the data for the collective inventory-contents of every single container in game would probably easily fit on an external hard-drive, if not a thumb-drive. If NQ can't afford to keep track of a few numbers in boxes... well, we'd probably all get an e-mail amounting to "sorry, we're broke, hope you had fun, we're not liable". As for the economy, this would probably kill it by removing the ability of more well off players to stockpile materials beyond their needs. Many players collect ships or structures they don't actually use just for the sake of collecting them, others pile up things to give away to friends/newbs, or to have on hand for replacement or to follow inspiration without needing a market trip first, and others still like to amass elements and materials just for the sake of having them. If there was an element-ownership cap, then people would just collect the best things up to their cap, and then they'd stop. Wanting something new would entail getting rid of stuff they already have, so they'd have to tear down something else and would subsequently use the parts from that instead of buying new parts. Sure, they may need something new here or there, but that would be largely limited to temporarily setting up a single industry line to produce that thing in exact numbers. If you want to nerf mega-factories out of existence... well you really can't short of destroying people's ability to play cooperatively. Most if not all megas are owned by sizeable groups of people, if you cap the number of elements on a construct or owned by an entity, they can just divide the factory across multiple cores/players and use RDMS to allow the factory-specialists to still have access to everything. It may disrupt their flow a bit, but there are people can and will compensate. Relating to factory wear and tear... No. There are probably dozens threads where people have asked for this in some for or another, usually to either "counter megas" or get people to buy more stuff, and most of them end with some variant of "most people will quit if DU stops being a game and becomes a job, and adding in some arbitrary maintenance requirement to constructs will make it a job". Now on the other hand, a deployed element-cap on a single construct makes sense, as it would theoretically help reduce the loading required for any single construct, and deployed elements are generally much harder on the game than the contents of someone's pocket. As an arbitrary hard-cap would just be annoying and immersion-breaking, such a cap would be best achieved via the inclusion of a power-system, probably involving a variety of different sized power supplies for different kinds of constructs. Factories/bases would make use of very large and powerful supplies that would probably not be well suited to mobile constructs, while ships would have much smaller and more weight-efficient power supplies that would probably double as a pvp balance mechanic.

You could theoretically start a service where people pay you to haul the packages, but they'd still need to be at both the start and the destination in person to pick up and drop off said packages, meaning they'd need transport to and from the area just like they already do now. Multi-crews technically need only 1 member present to fly, the rest can surrogate out to do other things, so it wouldn't make multi-package haulers all that much more viable than they already are now. Tis why I said "most". It wont nessicarily push the price above the payout for missions in any permanent way, odds are it will spike above it, then drop back below, then go back and forth a few times in smaller jumps until it settles at a point where most people don't consider it worth their time, but those that do still buy enough cells to keep the price more or less where it is. It would become a daily that most people don't think is worth their time, but still (correctly) think that they still think they are missing out on something by not doing. We agree on daily missions/quests being bad then As for shooting down ideas without providing alternatives/improvements, it is quite reasonable to dislike doing so, but on occasion it must be done.

I approve of pve ships exploding via random space-lightning... but something tells me that isn't what you are asking for. If NQ wants to add in random fields of damage near asteroids or along the pipes representing things like CME, meteorite-storms, or whatever other random hazard they think would occur in DU in space, then it would make things more interesting. They could even come up with missions that require retrieving something from the middle of such areas (please do this NQ, hauling missions are boring). That said, pvp players need something to fight over. Let them have their t5/plasma, they'll sell it to you sooner or later anyways. Getting some kind of high-paying mission for flying in to a meteor-storm to recover a package from a wreck before it is completely destroyed, or having to quickly retrieve a large node of t4 from an asteroid before radiation collapses your shield and damages/destroys your ship both seem like some good pve that NQ could add in (assuming NQ is smart enough to ensure you can't circumvent all the hazards via jet-packing. Asteroids aren't abandoned, I know guys that still go after them when they need the ore. The asteroid-system needs some developer-attention to be sure, but "making them safe" would run contrary to their purpose as late-game-mining content. There needs to be challenge/risk involved in going after the late game stuff, if it isn't pvp players, then it has to be something else. Auto-miners are supposed to be basic income for causals to fuel their stuff with. They lay them out, hop in mid-week to calibrate them, and come their weekend they have enough material to build/make fuel. They are also used to provide ore for the universe at large in a way that doesn't break NQ's bank (or the player's network connections) maintaining millions of miles of mining-tunnels, and pay for tile-taxes (which are needed). I'd agree they need a nerf, but they can't be removed entirely without adding in a comparable replacement.

Unless I missed something, everyone has different missions available each day. limiting it to one package per ship subsequently seems redundant. As for warping... on one hand it would make it much faster, and I would like not having to afk for several hours... on the other it would turn missions in to "daily-quests" that everyone would need to do "to keep up". Even if they nerfed the payout again, it would probably just blow a lot of quanta in to the game (small amounts at a time, but everyone would have it) short term, until the price of warp-cells went up enough to make it not worth most people's time... I agree that something needs to be done to make aphelia missions more interesting/involved as 4+hr afk seems a really poor excuse for gameplay, but making them warp-able probably wouldn't be a good solution.

The space delivery challenge still can't be completed, the game does not register that the items to be delivered are in the container you need to deliver them to.

Having a different explosion for the core is cool an all, but the explosions not doing any damage made it all look silly, and nobody is going to see any of those explosions unless you add a kill-cam to let the previous occupants of the now dead ship watch it blow before they respawn. As for seeing explosions from battle-fields you aren't on, that would get annoying really fast once someone decided to just dump a bunch of cores and start popping them.

I'd agree with pulling t5 off planets, but you'll need either t4 or more common/larger nodes of t1-3 on outer planets to help encourage people to leave the safe-bubble. As far as preventing perma-claims on the best tiles goes, you'd probably need to rotate the ore pools periodically on said outer worlds to stop that. As for warping... you seem very certain nobody slow-boats, and I'd have to disagree with you there. I'm also not sure what you're trying to accomplish by limiting the availability of warp, as it makes interplanetary travel more accessible to a lot of players that wouldn't nessicarily have the time otherwise, and slow-boating isn't what anyone would call active or engaging. Asteroids definitely need some work (starting with something more interesting than a "follow the waypoints" game through an empty void). I know some people that go after them when they need a t4/5 they don't have, but others are more than content to find other ways to get what they need that don't involve spending tons of time pursuing relatively small amounts of ore through pvp space in what is one of the most boring mini-games anyone could think up. As far as exotics go... well... NQ obviously needs to do something to get people to actually try for the alien cores now that Legion holds them (or whoever in the future), but making the difference in power match what the sellers have decided the current difference in price to be would be taking them from a bit better to absurdly overpowered. The relatively small separation in power ensures that people are not hopelessly outgunned by whoever manages to hold the alien cores long enough to make exotics, if the power difference was as significant as the current price-difference then it would probably kill pvp altogether.