Msoul

That is unfortunate. I would highly recommend you submit a ticket then and include your most recent logfiles. Please be sure to include any other perinate details to assist the developers in reproducing the problem and hopefully it will get fixed soon.

There have also been reports of this occurring for some players when initially loading in near pre-existing screen units. I believe the devs are aware of it already but if you are experiencing said bug then I would recommend you try traveling out of render distance and then re-approaching said screens. In many cases this will fix the issue and is a much better work around than clearing your cache since regenerating it can take considerable time and computer resources.

Really happy to hear that talking with the community made your list. Everything else you described is also doable right now but admittedly some of the large player builds are still in progress so expect to see some "scaffolding" here and there. There are of course other gameplay aspects you might want to explore too like lua programing, industry, and pvp. Finally please don't forget that for the first 6 months after release, a talent point booster is in effect for all subscribed accounts. Now I wouldn't recommend redeeming a DAC just for that but I do think it is worth mentioning as some tend to place high value on their talent points. If you do decide to wait till later then please don't forget to place all of your important constructs on your safe moon territories to ensure they are not lost to IAR and be sure to signup to the newsletter (see footer on www.dualuniverse.game) to keep up to date.

I would be more than happy to take a look and report back about it. It is a bit off-topic here thou so I will make another thread later today and ping you so you can follow up.

That seems a bit extreme. The npc mission system is rather popular and also serves as one of the game's quanta faucets. To completely scrap such a feature is unrealistic in my opinion. I think you would need to make a very convincing argument before NQ would even consider making such a drastic change and you would also need to have the support of the vast majority of players. It would be much more realistic to instead advocate for adjustments to bring said feature more in line with your expectations.

Just to follow up on this, the Air Delivery Challenge was re-enabled in the last update. Best of luck out there improving on your time and earning that quanta.

There has been a lot of talk that mission running rewards are disproportionate when compared to other activities. I am not sure where the balance point should be for this but if tweaking were necessary, what methodology would you recommend? So far I have seen the following suggestions: Alter the risks associated with mission running in pvp space. (ie: change speed, radar visibility, shield strength, etc for constructs with packages) Change the overall quanta reward for missions either by a flat amount or through some kind of diminishing returns. Place limits on the number of missions that can be completed in a given timeframe and/or the number of packages that can be placed on a single construct.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions on all of this. It is fairly rare for new players to offer detailed feedback on the forums, but that only makes it all the more valuable. Please try not to get discouraged or strongly influenced by some of the comments here. Many of us are just extremely passionate about this game, one way or another, and some have become heavily biased by our past experiences with it. Good or bad your perspective as a new player is important and we all appreciate you taking the time to provide it. Welcome to the community kbruderTech.

I am very impressed by your post, particularly with how you have broken things down into distinct phases and summarized the benefits of each one. This is obviously not the first time someone has suggested expanding on PvE mechanics or adding in NPCs but it is the most detailed implementation plan I have seen thus far. Honestly I am not sure if parts of what you are proposing here are possible from a technical standpoint or if such a development direction aligns with the desires of the DU community. While it is true there are currently mechanics for asteroid and space wreck spawning, adding in more complex behavior could be very challenging. Perhaps there would need to be a phase zero to assess the viability of the plan and the time investment required to see it through. Performing these kinds of checks helps to avoid wasting time and potentially disappointing the consumer. Maybe start off with some internal testing to see if adding motion to the currently static wrecks and/or asteroids presents any issues and continue from there? As to the bounty system you mentioned, it goes together quite naturally with the idea of NPC hunting but there has been some criticism about formally implementing it for pvp. The problem really boils down to enforcement. There needs to be something to prevent a target from claiming the bounty on themselves via friendly fire or by making side deals with their hunters. I think if you can somehow solve that dilemma then it would add more viability to system since more people would feel inclined to use it. Your idea of work order missions is particularly interesting and I agree it has a lot of potential applications both for economy regulation and encouraging diverse play. Even if profits were negligible it would assist with new player introductions to crafting by offering smaller bite sized production goals. Personally I would place this as phase 1 due to its high versatility. PS: I love the idea of adding a villain NPC for distributing nefarious missions. "Dark Aphelia" gets a +1 from me.

Hey Leniver, there is indeed a limit to the amount of surface ore that can be present on a given territory. When this limit is reached, new calibration spawns will begin overriding old ones. This was officially mentioned in Ask Aphelia Episode Eleven - Question Nine. Unfortunately I do not know what the limit is but perhaps others can comment on their experiences and offer a rough estimate.

There are no plans for another wipe at this time. The reset described in this thread is referring to the one that already occurred during the initial release of the game on September 27th. If you arrived here following the recent announcement of Update 1.1 coming on the 29th of November then please note that it was specifically the other gameplay features, systems, and improvements that were being referenced. The plan going forward is to continue check off the items listed of in the letter by NQ-Kyrios but rest assured the reset mentioned here has already been applied.

Canceling the calibration procedure without selecting a final calibration point applies your base calibration gain (as seen in the top right corner of the calibration UI) to said mining unit. This results in it beginning to produce ore as per normal operation. While it is true you will not get any surface ore, as long as you have a container linked you should receive the the amount listed under production rate and it will always be non-zero after a calibration. The only exception would be if your base extraction rate multiplied by your calibration gain comes to less than 1 L/h. In that case you would need to continue to calibrate said unit and raise the calibration percentage to the point where you meet this threshold.

That is intended behavior. Your territory resource pool is decreased whenever you press start on a mining unit and will remain as such until the unit is stopped manually or the calibration percentage drops to zero. This prevents players from exceeding the specified base extraction rates listed in the territory pool. The new change simply requires units to be running before applying calibrations and prevents stopping said units for 24 hours post calibration. A new on deploy warning message was added to help notify players of all this but you would not have seen it since your unit was already setup. Here is said message. If anything is still unclear then I would be more than happy to elaborate further but if you are looking to comment on the recent changes I recommend you instead post it here as that seems to have become the main feedback thread.

Talent points in any game represent progression and outline the unique path selected by the player. I strongly believe that talent resets/refunds should not be issued lightly because doing so takes away the significance behind those carefully thought out decisions. Ideally it should be reserved for situations in which said talent no longer reflects the choice made by said player at the time. Where the change is so drastic that the meaning/description itself is fundamentally different. There is no point in even having a talent system if every time a new meta comes arround refunds get issued to allow everyone to spec into it. If you are advocating for a talent refund then I would like to hear your thoughts on the above. Do you agree with my stance? How does this recent change impact you specifically? What would you do if a refund were issued and what would you do if it is not?

Thank you for sharing the link Rokkur it was a very interesting read. The part that stood out the most to me were the initial difficulties grasping various game mechanics. I tend to agree that Dual Universe has a steep learning curve. There is of course a need for challenging content but it is also important that new players are not getting overwhelmed. Personally I consider the first spaceflight in DU to be a very special experience. There will be some that want to punctuate it with an explosion or burn off all their fuel to peacefully drift off into the darkness, but I really feel for players that unintentionally end up in these situations due to lack of knowledge. As an old veteran, I am honestly not well situated to offer suggestions on this particular topic. Maybe we need better tutorials or maybe there needs to be hard barriers in place to slow down new players so they don't get in over their heads. It would be really awesome if more people from this group could share their experiences and offer their thoughts and suggestions for improvement.

Quick Summary: If you are getting an ".obj file reading error" then that means the DU client was unable to find the specified model. If you do not get an error then the model was found and should appear in the exact center of your construct's build zone provided you did not add any position offsets to it. If you can't see your model then try modifying the set scale and/or set position offsets on the projector to bring it into focus. If your model is invalid, then you will currently not get an in-game error message and it will simply fail to appear. In this case there will be an "unknown format" error added to your logfile. This Test.obj model is known to be valid and you can use it to test your setup (note you must be logged into the forums to download). Default Path for 3D Models: C:\Users\<username>\Documents\NQ\DualUniverse\holograms This is the standard directory for .obj files when using the virtual scaffolding projector but the DU client is specifically looking for your Documents folder as defined by environment/registry variables set in your windows PC. I have seen several cases where said Documents folder was redefined to a non-standard path due to third party software like OneDrive. The easiest way to determine where you need to put your models is to check your logfile to see where DU is looking for said model. I will briefly explain how to do so here but if any of this is outside your comfort zone then feel free to reach out to NQ support. Accessing your Main Logfile: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\NQ\DualUniverse In this directory you will see a file called log.html that contains a summary of all errors reported during your last play session. It will have an icon that matches your default internet browser and you can simply double click it to open it up for viewing. Note that AppData is a hidden directory by default but you can access it directly by typing %LocalAppData%\NQ\DualUniverse\log into your explorer's address bar or by going to debug options at the top right of the in-game login screen and selecting show log. Virtual Scaffolding Projector Logfile Entries: After opening log.html look for any error messages with a yellow highlight that mention your model's filename. If you do not see any then attempt to trigger the projector again and refresh the page to reload the logfile. The most common error is associated with ".obj file reading error" and this will generate the following logfile entry. MeshFileOBJ::load(): can't open "C:/Users/msoul/Documents/NQ/DualUniverse/holograms/Test_NoFile.obj" file Whatever path is written there is the exact path you need to place your model. In my case it is just the default location but yours could be different. Note that when entering your model name into the projector it is not case sensitive and the .obj extension is optional. The other potential error message you can get is for invalid model format and will look like this. Mesh::load(): unknown format of "C:/Users/msoul/Documents/NQ/DualUniverse/holograms/Test_Invalid.obj" file If you are seeing this message then your model does not conform to .obj file standards. I recommend you attempt to open it with a versatile 3D modeling software like blender and re-export it again or reach out to the original creator for assistance. Hope that helps. msoul

Hey Nick and welcome to the forums. The air delivery challenge was disabled after the maintenance period on Thursday the 10th. This is the message that was posted in the official discord. Cheers! PS: I will do my best to reply back here once it is fixed but I suspect that it will also get mentioned in the release changelog so keep an eye on that too.

The first instance of IAR (Inactive Asset Requisition) was added in the Panacea update in early 2022. This devblog covers the initial implementation and Vargen already linked the Athena reference where Haven was added. The official wiki also has a page that outlines conditions for loss of constructs or land that summarizes it fairly well. It has also been brought up a few times in the official discord where the developers have clarified it. A lot of the confusion and misleading posts you are referring too are likely due to the organization caveat I mentioned. During beta it was extremely common for players to have their own private orgs since it would greatly expand the number of available construct slots with no real downsides. Unfortunately quite a few neglected or were unaware of this aspect and ended up losing those org owned constructs. Naturally such a loss can be extremely frustrating so please spread the word "Haven and Sanctuary are safe longterm storage but only for constructs directly owned by the territory owner" and hopefully no one else gets caught unaware.

Hey there Rimezx. I just wanted to point out that a player's safe moon territories (ie: Haven and Sanctuary) are currently exempt from said abandonment system. These locations can thus be used for longterm storage in the event anyone wants to take a 3+ month vacation. Just keep in mind that only constructs belonging to the owner of the territory are exempt, so if assets are tied to an organization said player will need to transfer ownership to themselves for this to work. With that said, organization owned constructs will only become abandoned if said organization lacks construct slots or does not have at least one active legate (ie: with active subscription). Hope that helps.

The default talent training rate is actually 90/min. Since the game was released on September 27th a talent point booster/accelerator event has been in place. You can read more about it here but this graphic sums it up fair well. Note that after March the talent training rate is expected to return to the default value.

That is a very good question. People can be unpredictable and neither group offers any real guarantees so it is just a question of who is able to evaluate candidates more thoroughly. NQ has an upper hand since they have access to private information like gameplay statistics and chat logs whereas the playerbase benefits from having more eyes to look for suspicious behavior. If something like this were to become necessary then perhaps both should have a say in the selection process. It makes things more complicated but also ensures that neither group is held solely responsible in the event of problems and helps to eliminate selection bias. The way I see it, there is nothing preventing the game design team from publicly asking for input. In fact that is the whole reason why we have discussion posts after every major announcement. Later on if the devs need more directed feedback then they can request it like Entropy did with the honeycomb changes. A council/ATV system is only needed for the secret projects/changes and for making the playerbase feel more relaxed and better represented. Judging from the responses so far, it seems most believe we are not at the point where it is worth the added risks. I tend to agree but NQ may feel differently so I think it was worth raising the topic again.

The idea of informed feedback has potential but the danger of someone leaking information on future plans or using said knowledge to gain an unfair advantage remains a serious concern. Perhaps there are situations where it is worth the added risk but that is something for NQ to decide. Personally I think there are safer alternatives to test out first. Like anonymously posting suggestions on the forums and evaluating the community response or reaching out to experienced/influential players privately. When it comes to alleviating community concerns I am in agreement with Koffye. Ultimately I think that responsibility falls on the community managers, but they in turn rely on others so it really is a team effort. Perhaps some players would feel satisfied knowing that their chosen representative is part of the internal discussions but the most common criticism of Eve's CSM system is player bias. You end up with one group very happy because their member is part of said council, while all the competing groups are nervous and feel underrepresented. This can be countered by having a larger council but that also increases the security concerns as well as the management overhead. So again the real question becomes whether such a system is still worthwhile. I don't think it is right now but given that this revolves around player perspectives I am quite curious to hear what others think.

Quanta is created when certain activities are performed and is eventually consumed via taxes or element destruction. What happens in-between is largely dictated by players. The ore buy orders associated with the mining profession is currently one of the few direct quanta sources. However players that use this method alone are then left with nothing but quanta and in theory will then spend it on purchasing goods/services from other players. That player driven demand for goods and services is largely what makes the DU economy function. Yes, in theory the other professions (production, pvp, etc) could also be subsidized with specific bot buy and sell orders but doing so could take away some of that control from the playerbase and introduce a variety of other problems. The ultimate goal of an MMO is to encourage player interactions and so to avoid infringing on that I think any additional buy/sell orders beyond T1 ore needs to be introduced very carefully and made inferior to whatever player demand is at that present time. Ideally thou, it is not needed at all and that role gets directly filled by players specializing in said resource.

Just to clarify, I believe the bot orders are suppose to refresh. If they are not then that is most likely a bug as stated by NQ-Rubicon in the discord a few days ago. Yes there is always the potential that things could change but I caution you not to make any premature conclusions. Right now the bot buy orders are one of the most popular quanta sources for players and they also help to remove excess ore from the economy. I think it makes more sense to keep them around but I also don't disagree that we could technically survive without them.

Login credentials along with all the other user settings are stored in appdata. If none of your changes are being saved then it stands to reason that something is preventing Dual Universe from writing changes to this directory. If you have any antivirus programs consider making exceptions for Dual Universe and EQU8 (the anti-cheat engine). You can also try running the client as an administrator to see if that makes a difference. Also I saw a case once where someone had portions of their appdata directory set as read only. Ensure that this path is read/write accessible C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\NQ\ Hope that helps, if not then you might want to consider submitting a ticket to NQ support.