Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Location:
    Germany, NRW
  • Interests
    Making stuff, 3d printing, openscad,arduino, raspbery Pi, RC, etc.....
    and of course DU
  • backer_title
  • Gender
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Hagbard's Achievements

  1. Just bringing the potential wipe on the table again is enough to instantly put me on a "pause" mode with DU. it just feels like i invested years of time on the single promise that there is persistence and a wipe would only occur if there is kind of a fatal problem that cannot be resolved otherwise, and even if a wipe would happen all progress and constructs could be taken over to the after wipe time.. so basically that was a lie (looking on all those options being discussed "internally" at NQ.) - getting rid of schematics ==> do you know how much grind it was just to get there and obtain those schematics? - the quanta i own was earned honestly. and yes that was another grind to get there, so why take it away? just because NQ did not react when some people took advantage. so let's punish all players instead.. no, does not sound very reasonable. i don't honestly care about the players that have "more". for all players except one, there will always be players that have more, so who really cares (except the new players joining and want to avoid the grind we all had) - if you wipe any of my quanta, exp, stuff, (without giving me all back via magic BPs, or the benefit of the grind by removing all schematics i see it as betrayal. will probably not return.. - even putting the long term players on an optional parallel DU is not an option. what would be OK for me: - planetary reset (all constructs as magic BP's) - Ban of players that cheated before - removing the requirement to own schematics for Tier 1-2 (or even Tier 3) items - game play changes that do not in-valuate previous "grind" - removal of all bot orders - creating a new System with new planets and resources without the possibility to transport big amounts of mass there where different rules may be applied. maybe even having a new 2nd currency there, so you cannot bring your quanta with you. So yes there are lots of options of adding new gameplay and mechanics even without having to betray all the beta players that spent an insane amount of time in game to get where they are today. But the 2 wipe options you described are not really satisfying in my position. So please: reconsider put your heads together again without just serving those people that scream wipe wipe in order to get an unfair advantage by purging a huge amount of time in grind for senior players who believed in past commitments that had been made by NQ.
  2. I fully support the full talent reset in this case. That would be a lot better than first having to empty the world
  3. ok, i'll better get started to remove a lot of stuff. i have dispensers wiuth free stuff at various locations. i have the Marina with all boats that are in this game that use my LUA. i have mining units various static cores for my showroom with landing plattforms i have my infrastructure withj various elevators, space cores and bases on remote places. i have various ships at all of my bases. this sums up to way over 200 cores.. probably more 250-300 As i still need my infrastructure, elevators mining units and ships i start with dispensers for free stuff on xs cores and than i will probably have to remove all ships from my marina. i don not want to go out begging for org core # from other players. i did all of this as a single player and do not have any plan to change this. so my contribution to content in this game unluckily has to shrink significantly. And Honestly NQ : I DO NOT WANT TO DO THIS if we are supposed to build the content in this game we need the tools & possibilities to do it. my progression in a game like this should not be limited to having a fat wallet one day and lots of BP's representing previous milestones. but as it looks today. my progress only can be measured in quanta and the content created can always only be visible for some time before cores run out again. And did NQ think about how much work it is to manually remove about 200 constructs?
  4. What i wish NQ would do when changing basic core mechanics or limits like it is the case for each update lately: instead of throwing something out in a devblog to all, then receiving the hell of a shitstorm and then react and go back to the design table and leaving the playerbase wounded and demotivated. Talk to us first, i bet if you would have asked any senior player about the core limit , you could have avoided the shitstorm. if you want constructive feedback let us now what the problem is you are trying to solve. you have a lot of game knowledge out there. we are the ones playing the game more than probably most of the NQ employees. so we might have good ideas. but to come out with potential solution ideas we need the problem statement first. is it about server storage costs? is it about network trafic? is it about client limitations when rendering? what are the problems, what is the data behind it. i bet there are a lot of players like me who would happily think about it and come up with ideas. but just asking for feedback on an upcoming core limitation does not give me enough data to properly think about the problem itself and propose good potentiality working ideas. So pls involve us. use us. but put a bit more on the table and preferable before creating damage by coming up with something that first sound like a final decision.
  5. i've been playing since alpha. i always tried to create content and give back a lot to the community via new fancy stuff ( like hagboards or boats etc.) and i operate a showroom with all ships on display and a marina where i try to keep a copy of each boat/sailboat using my lua for people to walk around in and enjoy the creations. additionally i have to make some money and operate mining units on around 20 cores. then i have an industry and need a LOT of cores for prototypes and my own ships. when i am selling tokens i often have to place new temporary cores. so with all this even after cleaning up every so often i operate around 260 cores in my construct org. even if i massively reduce stuff, i still would have to remove most of the stuff. so basically this would end my career in this game. even if NQ would reconsider and go to 100 cores it would be constant struggle of which stuff i would have to remove. i never used nested orgs ( which was basically more in those past mining days to claim tiles) but still i create content, i have a life in this game and i want to grow. so this could honestly be the final nail in the coffin for DU. NQ always talked about the visions where they create the plattform and we the players fill it with life and content. but HOW? If this is about server space or network traffic i would rather pay 1$ more per month to end this stupid plan.
  6. yes i am, but i add a lot of content, innovation , and free stuff as well. but cannot afford that any more quite soon unless i get sponsored.
  7. OMG. i am a builder.. an engineer .. a collector.. a single player. and i have played for quite some time. i use a construct org with maxed talents to manage my constructs. and it is always close to the construct limit. enabling a limit of 15 for my org basically means the end of almost everything for me. How is that supposed to work. people like building stuff or buying cool stuff, and they usually come as a single new construct due to how DRM works. so we are killing construct selling economy? who would assign construct slots to an org if you need them to even store your own single player stuff?? seriously? and all the mining unit cores? dead as well.. sorry.. that would not be my game any more
  8. Thx NQ, really appreciate all the small balance changes you did to the demeter Update. - HQ Tiles: Great Idea! this helps us keep a lot of the player made content outside of sanc - Wiping the scan results: Absolutly the right decision!
  9. thats why in my other thread i suggested that when placing a non mining TCU on a tile, the ore pool gets blanked and will need a long time to recover (e.g. 3 month) after removing the non mining tcu. This would stop people "reserving" the tile just in case or because of the ore pool data...
  10. love that tool! we all waited so long, can't wait to start playing around with it.
  11. Ok, so what could be NQ's intention with the changes in Demeter that we are criticising here? 1. Reduce operational cost. => remove ground mining which creates massive amount of data in both server side storage and Internet traffic. => reduce number of tiles & constructs owned per player by implementing cost, this as well removes massive amounts of data in their database and helps with cost saving Additionally this will probably lead to the salvaging opportunities mentioned in the roadmap 2. Slow down player progression and therefore enable a longer player time in game (similar to introducing schematics when a player was able to reach "industry end game" in some months.) => make it harder to progress so reduce the amount of ore which gets injected into the game => slower player progression leads as well to less constructs and therefore less data, which helps with point 1 above 3. Fix Lag. => we all know that massive haulers with an extensive number of elements are currently not working in the engine as it is today. SO using a simple change like the airbrake obstruction would kill those massive atmo capable ships and force players to use separate smaller atmo and space capable ships. this will effectively remove the Lag monster ships from game All of these changes could make sense and create a working game, but the break in the gameplay for existing players is probably quite brutal. In alpha all of that would have been OK. There was no “persistence” promised for the Alpha. If NQ would communicate a bit more with the player base we wouldn’t have to speculate and maybe find ways together to come up with ideas and potential solutions and/or alternatives...
  • Create New...