Scavenger

Rebuilding Helios will be easier with our enhanced Blueprint Deployment Tools.
 
bptoolv3.mp4  
You can omit any element, swap missing honeycomb, and soon after launch, snap blueprints to deployed cores.
 
What will you build first, Novean?

Well hello firiends,
 
I know it's not a priority but since Jago's makeover with insects on the surface and small fish in the water, I dream of seeing rain falling, snowstorms or sandstorms.
In short, I need more immersion and it would really be a plus for my morale when I would be sheltered behind my window watching the weather while enjoying a good coffee.
 
warmly, Tekhamon

Make a solid shape using the current tools, select a volume using the 'hollow' tool, and it removes all voxels inside the shape except those at the surface (without messing up smoothing.) 
 
This would allow us to more easily make "container" type volumes, while also easily optimise the amount of honeycomb in a shape. 

So, what do you all think of the idea of having a heat-management system? Not EVE's "periodically emergency over-clocking your elements until they melt" mechanic, but just actually having elements give off heat when used that then needs to be either dissipated via radiator, or stored in some manner of thermal-battery/capacitor?
 
I'd figure it wouldn't be like power, where things probably just wont function if you can't power them, but perhaps the ship itself can start taking damage in some way if it cant adequately store or dissipate the heat and you keep generating more of it.
 
Any thoughts?

Current starting planet is Alioth/Sanctuary, and they both have a 1g gravity.
All other planets/moon have less gravity so if you have built a ship that can leave Alioth, you can safely land on any planet. There is no challenge in that.

How about adding a higher-G planet, even something like 10g gravity planet, with some Ion\plasma storm that disables AGG.
With big ore pools, but only of heavy metals, hematite, chromite, etc.

I think we need some challenges in this game.

100% agree. At the very least, I'd say reduce the brightness to a fraction of what it is now, and maybe reduce the amount of rocks as well. They're so abundant it shouldn't matter if the spawn rate was limited to, say, 1/3rd for example.
 
They also lessen diversity and uniqueness among planets and moons in my opinion, as having such a large portion of the area around you be covered with these rocks makes all the planets feel just that little bit more the same.
 
Here's another gorgeous shot just to add:

Everytime I fly around the game it looks great until I get low enough for the rocks to load in and my eyes burn. I can't emphasize how much these rocks destroy the look of the game. There are so many ways to make this not the case. Like in your pole... why do they not just glow when the tool is activated or use the same green outline mechanic as undergound mining if the desire is to make them standout from the background. Plz change this NQ. 

I like immersion.  DU's asthetic is supposed to be scifi but more on the side of realism.  The glowing rocks simply arn't realistic.  Now there are certain rocks that do glow under certain lights but not nearly to the extent depicted in DU 
 

 
Idea: These rocks should look like normal rocks except when you have the harvest tool equipped then it they look like this.  This makes them easy to find when you want to harvest but doesnt look terrible when you don't.
 
What say you?

All those are some great ideas.

Was wondering why i should use the filter for the inventory if it resets anyway.
Would love to hide all my hundrets of blueprints and tool icons, but since the filters do not save i have been quicker with just scrolling down in the inventory instead of setup the filter everytime.

In terms of the Element highlight system in Build mode i would prever it like so:
There is a mode you can turn and which makes all voxels transparent while elements will have priority at the selection if you look at them through voxels.

A quick way to dismantle a whole structure would be great, but i think it could cause performance issues at large structures as DU seems to move items tick by tick. (I actually have no clue)


 

I am not fond of schematics since I preferred, working my way through building what I could on the road to making my own ships myself. I have found once you have the blueprints up and running - I do still need to get some of the Blueprints I need. It works as it used to so I am ok with that. I am certainly not fond of the idea of turning the entire game into a kiosk, where you pay for everything and anything in game. If that happened it would be unplayable for me - would literally be a job.
 
So I am on too keen on the idea of replacing schematics with spending money each time you place an industry unit. I think if you were going to replace it with anything, simply make manufacturing anything a skill you have to train and some things cannot be trained before other things - like a tech tree - I think that would be a much better way to avoid everyone having a massive factory.

Here's some ideas that could improve a lot the experience in DU, based on what I usually do (building, prospecting, selling):
 
- Add way to dismantle a construct in one click, making all elements and honeycomb go back to your inventory. If possible, add option to when doing this any custom properties are removed (such as screen contents). This would be extremely useful not only for ship builders but for anyone who wants to dismantle a large construct they own, would also help when voxels get bugged or buried.
 
- Add way to highlight specific elements and possibly honeycomb too in build mode, as an overlay on the HUD or maybe just a ping/coordinate. Would help a lot for smaller elements that sometimes get lost or stuck.
 
- Add sorting by type of element on the inventory screen and allow sortings to persist too, would make organization much easier in larger inventories.
 
- Show the name of the planet or celestial body a territory scan belongs to, maybe make it sortable too.

Unfortunately that's a little beyond my own scope, however I can tell you it's related to how its converted for storage.
 
Perhaps, if there is a lot of demand for it. I can look into a more extensive devblog on the topic. However that will greatly depend on time available for the team members who's scope that does fall into. ?
 
 
Static and Dynamic constructs are pretty much the same from that perspective, although they do have some behavioural differences obviously as one supports movement and the other supports industry.

If you look carefully you will see its mostly the same small group of players expressing their dissatisfaction with the game over and over again. There are still dedicated builders and players who still quietly enjoying the game in their own way. They just don't generally feel the need to come over to the forums to express themselves probably for fear of the small dedicated group of dissatisfied players who will jump all over them.
 
The other problem is the fact that currently the playerbase is far too small right now. A lot have left leaving the salty ones to throw salt on each other until they give up and leave due to an excess of salt.
 
Don't be put off by the players talking about the making of quanta. Monetary value in game is usually a representation of how well someone is doing. When the ways to increase that value are hampered or changed in some way it causes repercussions.

I meant 10 hours of voxel building only.

Detailed after action report of todays fight Zombieland vs Legion includes great video Google Doc to AAR

When you decent into the toxic hellpitt to confront the screaming vocal minority that there are other opinions then their own, you can expect to be a little corrupted as well. Be warned! ?
 
We all know college is p2w! ?
 
 
Boored! ?
 
But seriously, the problem here is that instead of stating problem X and discussing how to solve that problem. It's stated that I want Y, because I have problem X. The problem is literally that people don't do the math, if they did, they would know that the 'solution' they want doesn't actually solve their problem, the opposite happens as it worsens the situation. @Vonboy Has the actual solution to the problem.
 
The problem is that you don't want to a daily grind. You already don't have to. There are two types of skills. #1 increase how quickly mining charges regenerate, #2 increase the amount of mining charges you can hold. #2 increases the amount to max 10 charges. Without training the #1 skills, you get a new charge every 6 hours, you can store 10, thus 60 hours, that is every 2.5 days you have to logon. Even with max #1 skills, charge recharge goes down to every 3.5 hours one charge, thus 35 hours to get all 10, that is every 1.5 days. If you want to change that system, you do not increase how long a single mining charge will allow a MU to run, that just means that people doing their daily grind get an even bigger advantage (over twice the ore at less then an 25% increase in costs). What you need to change is to be able to store more mining charges.
 
That can be done a couple of ways:
1.) Double the basic 5 to 10 charges stored and let every skill increase add 2, for a maximum of 20 charges stored. With no #1 skills trained that would mean 120 hours of mining charge regeneration or 5 days. So you could do the last mining charge Sunday evening (8 charges regenerate over the weekend) and on Friday evening you'll have 20 charges ready again.
2.) Add another skill that adds another 5 storage capacity to the charges.
3.) Combination of the above.
 
I am totally FOR more storage of mining charges, as that doesn't force the 1.5 day grind. What I'm not for is being able to do the same daily grind and automining 2 million liters of ore per week, instead of just one million for just a 20-25% increase in costs (taxes/mining facilities).
 
The issue still is, that IF you want to do it optimally you want that 3.5 hour recharge rate (for 48 charges per week), I don't see 35-50 mining charge storage capacity happening. The question is also: do you want to do the mining mini game 48 times a weekend?
 
Please keep in mind that different people find different things fun, relaxing, enjoyable, or satisfactory... ?
 
When people refuse to do the math or just can't seem to do it well (or frankly, at all). They make assumptions that are not based in reality. Then they make proposals that just don't make sense, and worsen the problem they have with DU. If that happens once, sure, I can be a nice guy, I can patiently explain. It can happen twice, trice, but this has happened way, way more then that. Just look up posts by Warlander, Creator, CptLoRes, etc. At a certain point, being a nice guy just doesn't work.
 
NQ has shown that if a small vocal minority is loud enough, they'll bend like a reed in the wind. Scan results deletion is an example, but certainly not the only one. So if that vocal minority is allowed to scream without any opposition, that might just happen again. You're not seeing much opposition in this toxic hellhole of a forum, because it's a toxic hellhole of a forum. How many people do you think looked over the edge and went "Oh hell! I'm not going in there!"? A LOT!
 
Not everyone wants to min/max the game, but be assured that there are quite a few who do. And if you don't keep that extreme in mind when proposing willie-nillie changes, the problems you have with DU will only get worse. The proposed changes from the OP would have resulted in an even more massive influx of Ore on the markets (by those same min/maxers). What happens when you increase supply drastically? Prices go down. How exactly did you want to pay for those tiles again?
 
I dislike most of the changes that have been made in Demeter. Let me be clear on that. I liked to mine in the planet on occasion, it was very ZEN! But there are people that absolutely hated the mining mechanic and love the automining. That same vocal minority that wanted all the current rich/inactive tile holders gone, are the same vocal minority that complains about the tax system that is getting rid of the rich/inactive tile holders. They keep spouting inaccurate information, they keep proposing insane changes they don't understand the consequences of. But when someone calls them on their BS in the same condescending tone they are using, they get huffy about it. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
 
The issue most people seem to have is that they can't continue to play as they previously had. They can't. It's that simple. The underlying problem isn't that things change, but if enough things change at the same time, not many people can adapt. And that's what we're seeing in DU, too many changes at the same time. And instead of forcing NQ to change it again in a plethora of nonsensical ways, we need to adapt to the new situation and realizing that the old way of playing is gone. Just as with 0.23. And there are ways to adapt, just many are to stuborn to change (whiny voice: I want it MY way!).
 
You want to mine old skool? At one of the player 'markets' there is a public asteroid scanner you can use and find one of those asteroids (Shamsie mentioned it yesterday on his stream). Don't have a capable space ship? Ask some other players nicely if you can join them on an expedition, they might say yes. There are a ton of very helpful people in DU, many would even go out of their way to help you along. But I personally draw the line at loud arseholes, I'm not sharing the secrets of getting space rich with them, I leave that for the nice people... ?

I certainly think that if NQ gets their business in order and delivers a good series of updates in 2022, doing a wipe shortly before moving to "release" really is just a good business decision all around as it wil erase all of the pain for the false start JC caused with his panic moves last year.
 
Some will hate it, most who say they will leave won't and many who put the game on the back burnrner will come back and give the game another shot.
 
I do think that the wipe will need to come with the end of beta key access though, so that would put it very close to "release". NQ could then also offer a "pre-release" sub which will run for say a month prior to release. All sorts of options for them there but the first hting they need to do is get the ship sailing again and away from the cliffs they are at now.
 

The current nebula is pretty good designed since its evenly without some spots which are too penetrant or something. It basically fits in every scene.

I just would prefer to have less of a cyan tone and make it more "neutral" so to say.
At the screenshot i have attached (After and before) i reduced the cyan tone by 70% and made it a bit darker.
If i would make a spacegame i would make it like that.

The glowing stones are a whole different story tho.

This is my first post on the forums, so forgive me if my formatting is off or I posted in the wrong place. TL;DR Included but please read the post.
 
Hi All,
 
Over the past year, I have mainly been a builder and creator. For the longest time, this has been my only source of income and as so, I have plenty of experience with the DU building system. I had a few ideas on the Quality of Life improvements for building in Dual Universe that would make everyone's life just that little bit easier, and so I want to post them here to be discussed. For every idea, I will outline what it is and why it is needed. Building is the best part of DU and it should not be forgotten about. Please feel free to discuss and reply!
 

Selection Zones - Suggestion 1
We all know that the size of the zone we can select is limited by size. While this is annoying most of the time, I'm fairly sure it is there as a technical limitation of the build mode. However, some improvements are warranted (mainly to voxel selection/placement tools):

What:
- Do not let us select a larger area than is possible. I have spent many a time trying to find the maximum selection size or over estimated the max selection size when building, making the entire selection area red with the only fix being to re-select the area again.

- If possible, increase the size of the selection area.
 
Why:
- This saves us time and effort, as, if I wanted to select the largest area possible, I could just click to a corner and the system will automatically select the most volume that it can. I will no longer see a "selection size area is too large" message, saving me time in finding the max selection size. This can also be a toggle if people find it necessary

- Convenience and makes building mirrored areas on L/M cores much easier.
 
 
Mirroring - Suggestion 2
The pain of having to perfectly line up elements on the other side by remembering / writing down element positions or copy/pasting voxels in little bits on an L or M core is all too known. I propose we are given two things: 

What:
- A mirror mode or a mirror tool, that would place the selected element on the other axis facing the same way. Could also group elements together, so that when one moves, the other mirrors this movement along an axis.
 
- A mirror axis (or multiple) that automatically places any voxels onto the other side (if you've ever played Space Engineers you know what I'm talking about). 

Why:
- Speed up the process of placing elements and thereby speed up the process of building by removing the need to memorize locations of elements. 
 
- Incredibly increase the speed of building mirrored constructs or large sizes, as the largest time waste is copy-pasting bits of an M or L core around from one side to the other every time one side is updated. 
 

Painting - Suggestion 3
Replacing voxels in order to change the look or material type of a ship's armor has always been a pain. For one, it wipes out complex patterns unless it is done perfectly and is, at least in my opinion, the biggest obstacle to the ability of individual creators to release multiple paint schemes of ships larger than an M core at an efficient rate. To remove the pain in re-painting a ship, I propose the following:

What:
- Allow me to replace certain types of voxel with another type of voxel with a single right-click option. I see this working as follows: Select an Area > Right click > Replace Voxel> Select Voxel X (to be replaced) > Select Voxel Y (to replace with). There most likely are other  more efficient ways of doing this but this is the most basic I could see.

- Could limit the suggestion above only to the same materials, aka can only replace steel with steel or aluminium with aluminium.
 
Why:
- I, and many others, have spent hours replacing complex patterns on our ships just to end up not liking the new  colour scheme and starting again. Not only that, when voxels are replaced currently, it creates a multitude of voxel errors and wipes any complex patterns that are then a pain to replicate. This change would allow for much quicker colour scheme changes and make it convenient to change colour.

- This change would be kept to keep actual armoring work (say for a pvp ship in a changing meta) as a time-consuming thing that is rewarded with gains in PvP.


Destroying/Removing Voxels - Suggestion 4
Just yesterday, I have spent around 30 minutes trying to find 0.14 cubic meters of luminescent glass on my ships which were invisible. I had to select a max size voxel cube and alt-paste it around until I got the last bits of the glass. This is an area that could be improved as nobody should have to spend hours finding one micro voxel in their construct in order to get back the core. I propose the following straight-forward solution:

What:
- Allow the option to remove the last big of voxels from a construct with a simple right click. For example, if the core has less than say 5m^3 (value could be changed or different with core size) of voxels left, one could right click the core in build mode Right Click > Remove Remaining Voxels. This would only work if the voxel volume is low to keep the work associated with actually disassembling a ship.

- Add the ability to change the last little bits of a voxel to another type, say I have a ship made from Voxel X, Y and Z, but Z is only 0.1m^3 and I can't for the life of me find where it is. I should be able to just right click the core and remove/replace it with another voxel.

Why:
- This saves innumerable hours for everyone in the game, as I can guarantee I'm not the only one who spent hours trying to find tiny voxels on an L core only to give up and abandon something worth half a million quanta. This change should have been available from the start.

- This change allows builders to clean up their blueprints and not make someone get 15 types of voxels just because there's 0.1m^3 of each in an L core blueprint.


Copy Paste Changes - Suggestion 5
Copy-Pasting was improved so much when the ability to change paste priority was introduced by pressing SHIFT when pasting. The change I'm proposing is minor, but still important when one is working with low quantities of voxels. Currently, if you need to paste , say, 10 cubic meters of a voxel but they are spread over a large area, you will need up to 300 cubic meters of voxel to paste it anywhere, because the system calculated the area of the selection and not the actual amount of voxels in the area.

What:
- Change the calculation of copy-paste voxel amounts so you need the exact amount of voxels that you are pasting instead of the entire selection area. 

Why:
- Allows builders to work with less amounts of honeycomb and makes life easier. Also helps when working with expensive honeycomb or limited supply, as you can use it to a more efficient degree.
 

Element Blocking - Suggestion 6
I have seen many times my elements were being blocked. Through scrolling through the element list I could see how much they were blocked, but it was time consuming. However, I could only guess as to what exactly was blocking them. Would be nice if you could tell what is doing the blocking.

What:
- Highlight the elements that are blocking the element in question or highlight the area that the voxels that block said element occupy.

- Allow to mouse over the element to tell how much it is being blocked by instead of scrolling through a menu at the top of build mode.

Why:
- Allows builders to quickly tell why their creations are being blocked instead of guessing and constantly changing voxels to fix a problem they can never know the true cause of.

- QOL change that exists for saving time when building.


DRM Change- Suggestion 7
What:
- Please enable DRM protection on constructs by default. Why is this even turned off in the first place?

Why:
- Allows new builders and experienced ones not to lose ownership of their constructs and scripts because of a simple oversight.
 
 
Element Talents - Suggestion 8
I, like many players, have wondered what exact talents are currently affecting my elements. The only workaround as of right now is doing the annoying math to sort-of get the right value. Currently, there is no way to tell what element has what exact talents affecting it as you can in the industry view.

What:
- Allow the option to either mouse over an element with a tool and see all the talents affecting it and their rank, or, Right Click Element> Show Effective Talents on Element

- Ability to remove all talents from an Element via right click or the ability to remove all talents from ALL elements.

Why:
- Allows ship builders or industry builders to quickly tell if their elements could use boosting with higher level place-down talents or if they are maximized. Also allows to see if all elements have the same talents, although this is not so much of a problem with the apply all talents button that we have now.

- Allows shipbuilders to gauge the performance of their ships as someone who does not have any piloting skills and build for those people. Currently, you need an alt or be in VR to do this.

 
CSS View - Suggestion 9
The CCS is a big part of building a PVP ship. Perhaps not in the current Meta that we have know, but in case it gets buffed it will be very important. I propose the following:

What:
- Ability to see the CCS value of a ship in the build mode when building a ship.

Why:
- This change will allow ship builders to gauge the performance of their ships without having to rely on Excel or other external tools.
 

Element Preview - Suggestion 10
Elements conduct the vast majority of voxel sizing and other dimensions. Most creators work either around or with elements that are in their builds. It would be great if we could see the size/outline of an element without actually having it.

What:
- Ability to select any element in game and place it in the construct as a "hologram". This hologram would only show the size of the element, so that a creator can plan ahead and work with elements they may not have (for example, L AGG). 

Why:
- This allows creators to plan ahead and construct their voxels around elements that they may not have at the exact moment, saving time and effort on everyone's part.


Blueprint Preview - Suggestion 11
Blueprint deployment is one of the many things my customers encounter and find problematic for many reasons. For once, static blueprints can be placed in the wrong orientation and once placed cannot be moved. Additionally, the same situation can be applied to dynamic blueprints when using them as statues or ornaments. 

What:
- Blueprints should not be displayed as a transparent cube right before deployment but as an approximate hologram of the final structure/ship. Even if the extra calculations on the client-side will take time, this should still be prioritised.

Why:
- This will allow players to properly foresee the structure and alignment of the blueprint that they are placing and not have to spend 20 minutes of their time dismantling the structure if they place it in the wrong orientation without knowing (and then flying back to buy another, losing precious quanta and time). This feature will make creating cities and bases with precision made from other people's creations a lot easier for everyone.


Blueprint Alignment- Suggestion 12
Stacking static blueprints together has always been painful for everyone. Having to fight the curvature of the earth and even the fact that the blueprint outline is not the same size as the outline of the core building area has been a significant barrier to many players' ability to build cities and bases in an orderly fashion. Personally, I wish this feature would be around now so I can continue work on the MTI City Project for my organization.

What:
- Aligning blueprints together with other deployed cores should be made easier. There should be options to align it in the centre of the core its being placed on and align it either with the orientation of the or the curvature of the planet at the place.
- Additional tools to align blueprints and be able to see the build area around the new blueprint before it is placed.
- Ability to use a blueprint on an EXISTING empty core to place the elements and voxels around it automatically while retaining the DRM rights of the BP creator. (alternative but easier-to-implement option)

Why:
- This change will allow the precise building of blueprints onto other cores and their alignment that much easier for every player in the game, not only those building cities. This results in cleaner looks of bases and more orderly placement of cores.


Core Alignment- Suggestion 13
Every organization and practically every player has encountered the pain of aligning multiple static or space cores in a fashion that allows for grid structures, be it for bases, airports, cities or space stations. Currently the process involves moving a lot of cores around with CTRL+Arrow and then building voxels to the edges of the cores. Note that such a process doesn't even guarantee similar alignment of cores in terms of their direction (for static cores)

What:
- Ability to align cores next to each other automatically or only through several clicks. Either by right clicking on a static core and selecting "Attach Static Core" or another method.
- Ability to select core alignment and ensure it is in the same direction to allow building of core grids much easier.

Why:
- This will allow players to properly place static/space core grids and not have to spend 20 minutes of their time re-aligning the core if they place it in the wrong orientation without knowing. This feature will make creating cities and bases easier due to the simplified way of aligning core grids (and save lots of time)


And that's it! Please reply to this post if you like the changes and if you think they should or should not be added to the game. Lets hope NQ sees this and implements some of the ideas (please just implement them all and save us all so much pain). I personally think these changes will make the life of many people so much easier and will encourage more people to enjoy the building aspect of this game - the strongest aspect of it as of right now.

Stay safe out there,
Koriandah.

TL;DR:
- Bigger / more manageable selection zones
- Mirror tools like axis mirroring and element mirroring
- Painting tools to easily replace voxels and keep their complex shapes
- Tools to easily remove the last pesky micro voxels from construct
- Copy paste required voxel quantity optimization
- Element blocking info, what is blocking said elements and how much
- DRM enabled by default
- Show talents on elements, ability to remove all talents
- CCS View
- Element Preview
- Blueprint Preview
- Blueprint Alignment
- Core Alignment

If you elobrate your points in more detail we might can discuss it here.
But to say "sustainable economy" or "Stuff to explore" is like saying "We need to do something about the climatic problem on earth" and then claim to found the problem of the climatic change just by pointing at it.

I totally agree that we need a sustainable economy in DU, and i totally agree it would be cool to have stuff to explore.
But this stuff to explore need to fit the DevelopmentTime/PlayerSatisfaction ration which is worth it. And to make such a system is not that easy. They could just place some structures here and there in space you can explore, then you explore them and then what? Probably could be easy if you have a team of 10 Heads just dedicated to build stuff to explore and systems for it which makes it fun in the long term.

The thing is to say what NQ already knows is no valueable help if you dont keep factors like budget in mind.

Its like if you have 2 kids and booth want a car from you. But you only have 1k Dollar, so you get them booth a bicycle. And that is what NQ is doing right now. They find compromises.

PS: Just readed your "DU is BORING" post
The points at "Easy" (VoIP is not really a easy thing in Uni engine i think) are more like personal taste things.
I like the slow paste of crafting and traveling. Mining tho has been replaced now anyway.
"Moderate" and "Hard" are still some very expensive features to add while i also disagree that a creative mode would make DU greater as it kills a bit the immersion i think. But why not. If it gets more new player in DU it might be cool.



 

These devs put their heart into this game and do not deserve to be ridiculed like this. Please reconsider how you frame your argument. Its fine to be critical of NQ itself, but these are people that deserve our respect. I have seen countless examples where they have gone above and beyond to advocate for the playerbase and fix issues on their own time.

Hate the game all you want, hate the company all you want, but please give the individual devs your support. They need it now more than ever.

I believe that the nebula skybox should be replaced with a realistic, dark and starry skybox, akin to the old one prior to Alpha 3. Here are my arguments,
 
The nebula was originally introduced as an immersive way to increase ambient lighting in Dual Universe, making it easier to see at night. This is mentioned in NQ's Dev Diary on YouTube. However, this was nullified in 0.24 with the reduction of ambient light brightness.
 
This is personal preference however I believe many will agree; the ambient light level does not have to match the skybox's brightness. For example, take this image of Pre-Alpha Thades. Its dark side is heavily illuminated, as I'm sure it would look on the surface as well. You'd be able to see. Compared to current Thades, I think most of us can agree that it still looks far better, and it could be taken down a notch if it's too bright. Additionally, with the introduction of the nebula, the atmospheres were changed to the same blue color we're all used to. I'm guessing this was done as a result of a technical limitation relating to the new skybox. So, think; If I'm right about this, we could have a Thades that looks like this, for example:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Current Thades, for comparison:

 
You see where I'm coming from?
 
The way I see it, removing the nebula would provide so much in the way of fidelity, immersion and polish. It wouldn't affect gameplay either. Furthermore, I believe this change would solve many, many of DU's lighting glitches and "rough spots," at the very least making them look far better, and would provide much more polished lighting, both on ground and on a planetary scale. I simply don't see what the nebula adds other than style, but it sacrifices fidelity in a lot of key areas. Unfortunately I don't have any screenshots to back up that claim, so you're gonna have to take my word for it as an Alpha 1 player who knows how lighting used to interact with the old skybox.
 
The nebula may be beautiful to some, but honestly, changing it would add so much in the way of polish — which I believe is far more important and is what this game needs right now. Not to mention, many people were dismayed at the release of this nebula, and I'm taking a wild guess by saying that most players would like this change. I know my friends and I would.
 
Please consider this, Novaquark.
 
Similar post by Mjrlun

oh yes we want a wipe
yes the early game is more than broken now, not only the early game, will need some enormous rebalancing
 
if we all start again from scratch, industries will be extremely slow to develop, long space distance exploration for finding better than T2 ores will be a very hard task since we wont have territory scanners (needing T1/T2 and T3 ores) to check which tile on Alioth have Malachite therefore to be able to make space fuel, unless you want spend hundreds of hours of your time mining 20L skittles on the surface to fuel up a space speeder
 
but too many players have gotten effortlessly insanely rich using the game exploits (free schematics worth millions after patch, VR missions allowing players to make more than hundreds millions quantas per mission, duplication glithes etc...), and it is those players now are playing with broken economy mechanics, because they are the only ones now well equipped for feeding the markets, where solo players and smaller orgs pay the highest cost, where rich will keep on pressuring to get richer and richer, and new players and poorest will never be able to get out of it and surely give up on the game

Q: Why (after 2+ years) would I return to DU after the rumoured full wipe prior release?
A: Because DU would feel new because of the following:
 
There is a "New" Alioth  Aphelia declares Alioth a Sanctuary (the other one becomes Moon 3), and all planets/moons have a 3SU "Safe Zone" enforced by Aphelia. PvP exists everywhere else. Note: current Alioth has too many water territories, just swap the name with Sanctuary and move the Ark.  New Alioth has a central market at the Ark which is restricted. Satellite markets provide access to the central market and are distributed such that no territory is more than 30km away from one (about 60 markets in total). Thus, no need to go further than the local market to trade.  12 regional markets (reachable by teleport from other regional markets, each regional market has 4 satellite markets with teleports within the region) provide free, safe, shuttle service to the corresponding market on Moon 3. All Basic schematics should be found on Alioth for negligible prices (~1Kh). All Uncommon schematics should be found on Alioth Moon 3 for reasonable prices (~50Kh). Note: Next to building, Industry is the most widely enjoyed content that DU provides (it also provides an incentive to build). Make the early stages broadly accessible. Add a new moon to Alioth (nothing special). Assign one Tier 2 ore to each moon. The T2 ore should be found on each territory of the smaller moons and are findable (e.g. 1 in 10 territories) on Moon 3. No higher tier ore should be found on Alioth or its moons. Helios is smaller Move all the planets closer to Alioth. Reduce their distance from Alioth by at least half. Make No Promises, but Provide a Vision for the Future (let us hope) Here is a story: Colonists revolt against Aphelia's heavy hand (and taxes). One by one, Aphelia withdraws her planetary protection until only Alioth and its moons remain. As Aphelia withdraws her protection, territory warfare brakes out between colonists.
All of this could be done with what DU software provides today, but it does require work so it can't be done today, or even a week, but certainly by the time of release. In my opinion, it would be enough to get the majority of people who have drifted away to come back and try DU again.
 
 

Greetings Noveans,
 
Upon popular request from players, we will be holding a live, written Q&A session with the Novaquark Game Design team on Wednesday, December 1st  at 15:00 UTC. 
 
NQ-Kyrios, NQ-Entropy and NQ-Wave will be answering player questions during one hour on a dedicated channel on Discord. We encourage you to prepare your questions in advance, and discuss the hot topics that you have in mind in this thread, with the following caveats:
 
They will not be discussing future plans and upcoming features, as we are planning an update to the roadmap early 2022. The Game Design team will only answer questions in their field. So, questions about performance, bugs or the business of Novaquark will not be answered in this Q&A, for example.  The focus of the Q&A should ideally be on the latest release, Demeter, and any gameplay-related questions you may have following its release. Other questions on existing features may be answered, but Demeter-related questions will be prioritized. Our 3 game designers are very excited to answer your questions, but it goes without saying that the tone should remain courteous and respectful. It is in the interest of the community that these events, which we hope to organize more of in the future, stay well-behaved and that our employees feel a positive connection to our players.   
We realize that not everyone will be able to attend the event, so we encourage you to pass along your questions to your fellow Noveans. Pending unforeseen technical difficulties, our intention is to ensure that the content of the Q&A stays accessible for a few days after the event, so that absentees can still read it through. 
 
We can’t wait to hear your questions!
 
The Novaquark team.