Taelessael

NQ has been reducing the effectiveness of defense for a while now, too much defense makes the pvp-side of the game run irritatingly slow (hour long 1v1 cubes...) while also bogging the server down with all the data it needs to pass around during fleet engagements. Where they are right now isn't bad, but it would be nice if there was some variation (heat, power, e-war, shield-variants, shield skills).

That said, the number of weapons on a ship is the result of a few skills and how many gunners the ship has available, and capping that arbitrarily isn't going to solve your problem. An arbitrary cap on total weapons on a ship is going to annoy the pvp players, push people toward solo-play in an mmo, and get you shot at with whatever the new "best" is by the same number of people spread across that many more ships.
 
If you are having problems with pirates, make some friends that can keep an eye out, or hire an escourt, or build a ship around the speed and defense you need to escape, or just outsmart them. 
 
 

I'd have to agree with this on all parts except for container contents. If containers are permitted to store things when players package them, then it could lead to some rather ornery bugs and/or exploits that are better just avoided entirely. 

I would suspect the primary use of such an element would be to give quanta in exchange for an item, but one that gives one item for another is also an idea.
 
 
You could always just set up a second dispenser linked to the same container with what it gives and takes reversed if they did ever finally add in reverse-dispensers. 

Thank you NQ for keeping us in the loop.
 
Have you considered a system with which a legate or super legate could use the construct list to see elements/materials on any given org construct? It would assist them in making an informed decision as to what they should chose to remotely abandon in the event they found themselves needing to do so in order to cut the core count down before the random-abandon deadline.
 
It might also help if org-constructs and private constructs had their own folders on the construct list (and if org constructs were separated in to sub-folders by org).

I think it would be good if players were able to make magic BPs as well as core and regular.
 
Before everybody says way over powered, I would assume that the player version has the following difference than the NQ ones...
- Weight of what the BP is stays, not no weight
- Volume of original construct stays, not no volume
- Damage, talents, container contents stay, naturally with their weight being added.
 
If we had this, then
- Ship makers could make vending machines which were stocked with fully ready to go ships
- Players could archive some of their less used constructs in storage rather than having 'evil' constructs everywhere which is bad for servers
 

Personal slots are very much involved, even if they aren't changing.
 
Players don't have enough personal slots to lay down all their mining units, they use org slots for that. Unless MU are rebalanced to reduce the number of cores needed to reasonably run them (since you can practically put all of 2 on most outer-world hexes), a lot of players are going to have a private org, maxed skills, and next to nothing to share with their group-org (people they are supposed to be playing with because this is an MMO) because they are using over half of everything they have between personal and org slots combined just to avoid feeling like they are missing out on their MU-ore.

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. 

Can we please address the notification system? 
 
A super legate gets a notification for every calibration. This alone cloggs your feed to the point where you can miss important things like cores being abandoned. This applies to the super legates' own cores because its all the same feed. 
 
The new mechanics will add to this. Please Introduce sorting and/or ignore to types of notifications so we don't have to spend so much time going through it or risk losing constructs. Thank you

Also, the 100 core count does really open the door for malicious usage of core counts against an org. I like the idea, but with the possibility (and in fact, certainty) of losing a massive amount of possible cores across the game, and the hours upon hours of effort it takes to tear down those cores, people are going to lose constructs because they literally do not have the person-power to dismantle them fast enough after a massive shift. A small group of infiltrators could boost an orgs core limit by a few hundred, and then remove them on the day before a two week period begins, leaving an org to scramble to dismantle literally hundreds of constructs in 14 days.
 
I'm gonna get on my soap box again and reiterate that the ability to compactify constructs, and/or the ability to dismantle them with a single click (even if it takes a few minutes on a large many element core) would do a *lot* to alleviate this risk.

Welp, there goes org-constructs.

Under the current tile/skill values it isnt hard to toss up 25 constructs just for running mining units, with personal constructs dedicated to a few stations with landing pads to store stuff for bulk movement in space, some ships I use, and a couple slots for ships/structures I am designing...

Max skills wont allow players to contribute much to group projects/structures, so you may need to do something about that.
-I'd advise at least doubling the ore in all hexes (and the hex-tax to compensate) so that people are tossing fewer of their constructs in to mining platforms and can spend more on cooperative play. 
-I'd also suggest just generally having a higher cap (perhaps via more skills or limiting this cap specifically to static/space core structures without industry/programing/container elements), as this limitation may just strait out invalidate a lot of larger artistic structures.

Welp, there goes org-constructs.

Under the current tile/skill values it isnt hard to toss up 25 constructs just for running mining units, with personal constructs dedicated to a few stations with landing pads to store stuff for bulk movement in space, some ships I use, and a couple slots for ships/structures I am designing...

Max skills wont allow players to contribute much to group projects/structures, so you may need to do something about that.
-I'd advise at least doubling the ore in all hexes (and the hex-tax to compensate) so that people are tossing fewer of their constructs in to mining platforms and can spend more on cooperative play. 
-I'd also suggest just generally having a higher cap (perhaps via more skills or limiting this cap specifically to static/space core structures without industry/programing/container elements), as this limitation may just strait out invalidate a lot of larger artistic structures.

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.

I've been playing DU for a good long time now and I'm convinced that the developers don't play their own game.  They have accounts, but they have a very different perspective about DU than most of us do.  Announcements like this one make that painfully obvious.  It seems like this core limit announcement is not so much the problem, but a symptom of the bigger problem which is lack of meaningful communication between player and developer.
 
Dual Universe needs to have a player council made up of people from a cross section of play styles - miners - haulers - builders - pvp players - factory owners and so on.  If the community, via a player council, had the opportunity to discuss changes like this with the development team before announcements like this drop, it would at least give them a chance to consider the ramifications of their decisions without immediately pissing everybody off.  We do have this message board, but so much of it is just people complaining.  We need a meaningful dialog between the players and the developers and a player council would do just that.  I've seen it in other games and while it isn't a cure all, it certainly improves communication between us rabble who play and love the game and the rabble up there in that ivory tower who love and develop the game.

Personal slots are very much involved, even if they aren't changing.
 
Players don't have enough personal slots to lay down all their mining units, they use org slots for that. Unless MU are rebalanced to reduce the number of cores needed to reasonably run them (since you can practically put all of 2 on most outer-world hexes), a lot of players are going to have a private org, maxed skills, and next to nothing to share with their group-org (people they are supposed to be playing with because this is an MMO) because they are using over half of everything they have between personal and org slots combined just to avoid feeling like they are missing out on their MU-ore.

Welp, there goes org-constructs.

Under the current tile/skill values it isnt hard to toss up 25 constructs just for running mining units, with personal constructs dedicated to a few stations with landing pads to store stuff for bulk movement in space, some ships I use, and a couple slots for ships/structures I am designing...

Max skills wont allow players to contribute much to group projects/structures, so you may need to do something about that.
-I'd advise at least doubling the ore in all hexes (and the hex-tax to compensate) so that people are tossing fewer of their constructs in to mining platforms and can spend more on cooperative play. 
-I'd also suggest just generally having a higher cap (perhaps via more skills or limiting this cap specifically to static/space core structures without industry/programing/container elements), as this limitation may just strait out invalidate a lot of larger artistic structures.

Personal slots are very much involved, even if they aren't changing.
 
Players don't have enough personal slots to lay down all their mining units, they use org slots for that. Unless MU are rebalanced to reduce the number of cores needed to reasonably run them (since you can practically put all of 2 on most outer-world hexes), a lot of players are going to have a private org, maxed skills, and next to nothing to share with their group-org (people they are supposed to be playing with because this is an MMO) because they are using over half of everything they have between personal and org slots combined just to avoid feeling like they are missing out on their MU-ore.

Welp, there goes org-constructs.

Under the current tile/skill values it isnt hard to toss up 25 constructs just for running mining units, with personal constructs dedicated to a few stations with landing pads to store stuff for bulk movement in space, some ships I use, and a couple slots for ships/structures I am designing...

Max skills wont allow players to contribute much to group projects/structures, so you may need to do something about that.
-I'd advise at least doubling the ore in all hexes (and the hex-tax to compensate) so that people are tossing fewer of their constructs in to mining platforms and can spend more on cooperative play. 
-I'd also suggest just generally having a higher cap (perhaps via more skills or limiting this cap specifically to static/space core structures without industry/programing/container elements), as this limitation may just strait out invalidate a lot of larger artistic structures.

To be fair, the suggestions I typically got after you for in the past were all either ones you quite blatantly made in the hopes of entirely driving pirates and/or pvp players from the game, or ones you quite blatantly made in the hopes of entirely driving pirates and/or pvp players from anywhere pve players would conceivably want to go. It also didn't help that your counter-argument to anyone poking holes in your ideas was almost always just insults, trolling, and blind accusations (like calling anyone that disagrees with you a pvp player/pirate) instead of trying to come up with solutions to the problems they'd point out.
 
Make no mistake, pirates will always go after easy prey regardless, but if a pvp system exists where they can reasonably obtain better rewards than they would by hanging around the starting system, then a sizeable portion will go there, and you'll have that many fewer to worry about everywhere else.

More to the point... CoyoteNZ's idea is to give players significant warning and practice well ahead of safe-zone removal from any pre-existing planet, and while I suspect based on things I've heard that they will just add a new pvp system instead, if NQ ever decides to remove the SZ from a pre-existing planet then CoyoteNZ's idea is a good one.

I recognize that the idea of pvp players getting any reward/loot/income at all while playing the same game as pve players is abhorrent to you, but you may wish to consider the fact that if they have a pvp only planet/system, then they are more likely to be there and less likely to be anywhere else you want to be.

To put it simply, it would be nice if there were different options for shield colors and effects (one of them making the bubble totally invisible when it isn't suffering weapon impacts) as it is more difficult to clearly see and enjoy designs people come up with when trying to look through a visual effect that may clash with the construct's color or geometry. 

Being in two Orgs, and having a few private chats the current chat system needs work.
 
it would be a lot better if multiple chat windows could be opened, detached from the bottom left so they could be scaled and placed where convenient. 
 
Even better completely detached from the main window so they could be dragged to a secondary monitor for those who have them.
 
yes we have discord, but not everybody uses it, or wants to give out there discord ID.

As a pilot, I would like an XL atmospheric engine that is an analogue to the XL space engine so that I can place fewer engines on a ship to achieve similar thrust and dedicate more design effort  (and construct space) towards aesthetics and other meta.

I'm still having fun, but I do suppose it is probably just annoying everyone else at this point with this thread continuing. My apologies for that, I will wrap up my part and we can let better ideas bury this one at the bottom of the list.
 
 
Which counter your are referencing? Is it the one where you ignore any reason anyone else gives you about how this is a bad idea and claim that you deserve a WMD to 1-shot other people's ships with because you don't want to fit other weapons? Or the one where you call someone a pirate without any regard to their actual engagement in piracy because you think they don't like being called that? The second was me leading you in to showing that you know the first is wrong, and that you'd rather insult your opponents until they go away because you cant properly refute their arguments in a logical manner. This thread is well past done, and I won't play with you in it any more because it has occurred to me that its continuation is just annoying other people on the board, but if you want to keep posting, you may as well take the time to clarify which counter you are referencing. 
 
 
I will admit, you got me there, I let auto-correct adjust things to say "play your employees" instead of "pay your employees". I will correct this in the post you referenced.
 
Food for thought though, you obviously know what I meant or you wouldn't have called yourself an employer, you should probably also try explaining why you cant pay in-game employees to defend you from pirates instead of just trying to distract from that concept by pointing out spelling/grammatical problems.
 
 
We've been over this, it is called risk. Greater risks bring greater reward, and it is entirely your fault if you choose to give them that reward without that risk.  
 
 
You should ask that question again while looking in a mirror. I am a mission runner, the person that pirates are trying to blow up and take everything from. If this were about me wanting something for myself, should I not then agree with you? I've considered this quite thoroughly, probably a lot more than it deserves, and having looked at it long and hard from every point of view I could think of I've concluded that there is no way this idea as you have described it isn't a bad one.
 
But since you insist on my selfishness: I have flown more than 150 missions through pvp space, never once having fired a shot, never once getting shot at, all of them so clear of any pirate interference that I have on occasion flown them at low and easily catchable speeds just so that I would have the time to go to work, or to movies, or to run errands for hours on end. Your wmd wont affect my gameplay directly either way. It will however affect it indirectly by alienating the pvp crowd, chasing off players that I could enjoy interacting with, and that would subsequently stop paying subscriptions that help keep the game I like going. So, I can't say my intentions are totally and absolutely clear of self-interest, but of the two of us I seem to be the one that doesn't want to drive out an entire section of the game's player-base just to remove a small bit of risk from my own gameplay, so maybe you should go have a chat with that mirror again. You don't need a weapon who's only purpose is to take other players fun out of the game just because you don't like them playing in a way they are supposed to be able to play. 
 
Your initial post asks for a weapon that guarantees instant 100% loss on the part of all parties, no salvage, no loot, no recovering your ship later, the weapon just deletes everything in its blast radius from the game without regard as to what it was doing or how it was or was not involved, hostile or otherwise. Both PvE and PvP players have told you how and why this is overpowered, unnecessary, and bad. Its only purpose is malicious and you know it, and you are wrong for continuing to push it as you have, not that anyone will do anything about it.
 
So, much fun as I am still having, we've annoyed everyone long enough with this thread's continuation. Make your final post if you must, I'll still read it, but it is long past time this bad idea stopped distracting from better ones and was left ignored at the bottom of the thread list, so don't expect a response. 

Goodness, it looks like people actually ran the Alioth Market VI 25q-coal bot dry X) 
 
Try sorting things by price instead of just running to m6, the bots have better prices at seemingly every other market in the universe. 
 
I was under the impression HQ tiles weren't supposed to be minable if taxes weren't paid, but ensuring HQ tiles behaving (aside from "isn't lost if unpaid") hasn't been the highest priority. 
 
Of course, it is worth noting that mining isn't supposed to be a huge money-maker, it is a source of basic-income. If you can't be on much, then you spend a few min each night calibrating your miners, and when you get to your off-time you haul it all to market, pay the next week's taxes, and have the surplus to spend on things like fuel or parts doing the stuff you want to do that you would have otherwise had to spend part of your time mining to pay for. If you are on more, and you want more money, then you do other stuff on top of mining.

Animal/insect like wings are cool, and having them provide atmospheric propulsion without regular engines would make sense, but "fragile" doesn't really work as a drawback, as out of the 14 already existing wing-type elements only one has sufficient durability to survive even a single hit from the game's lowest damage per shot weapon.
 
In the case of the suggested dragon-fly wings, I might suggest some manner of "low lift/speed" relative to their size.
 
We should probably also work out their fuel-usage, though in that area it may be most practical to simply scale their usage to their output relative to a comparable wing-thruster combination.