Talonclaw

at some point, full body tracking, VR support etc pp just leaving this out here

For what it's worth - NQ-Naerais confirmed that this is not intended use of the mechanic allowing territory owners to move ships.
 
 

Hey folks,
 
first of all: don't tell others their statement is "bullshit" or that their assumption is "stupid" - this doesn't help anyone. Keep it nice and let the other party know that you disagree with them in a polite way. Thanks!
 
Now on topic
All I can tell you so far is that a formal policy will follow soon.
 
I don't speak for NQ now, but I want to help evaluate the situation for the time being. It's a bit of a long read, but there will be a short version at the end - don't jump there if you don't want any spoilers 
 
As I see it there is a very basic concept to consider. First of all there's the question of what we do know and what we don't. Next how to make an educated guess about things we do not know for sure just yet. Since @NQ-Naerais gave a very clear statement about the "zero tolerance policy towards cheating and exploiting" in that previously linked announcement, I think it would be a good idea to start with the definition of exploits, because I don't see this provided by NQ yet. In case I just missed it, please point me towards it - thanks in advance.
 
In order to make an educated guess about what might or might not be considered an exploit I'll just use the first reference that comes to mind: Wikipedia article "Video game exploit"
And I quote the first sentence:
I don't know if NQ shares this exact definition, but I think it's good enough for this evaluation.
Now that we got this covered it leads us to the next question: What is the intent of the game's designer here?
 
Having read this thread I think everyone agrees that the intent of the maneuver permission on own tiles is to enable landowners to move all constructs out of the way that are parked on their tile. So far so easy.
 
Where people seem to disagree is on the question if this permission is intended to allow docking such constructs in order to take them away far outside the boundaries of the maneuver tool and the owned tile(s) on or for which the permission has been granted in the first place.
 
But there's a problem - I can't find a Wikipedia article about NQ's intent regarding this. So if we want to proceed to evaluate the situation before that formal policy is released we have to find a different approach.
 
Again, having read this thread I took note about your opinions and while some aren't exactly clear, I found that 4 people are in favor of this being intended/allowed, while 11 people oppose that assessment/opinion. Further I found 1 "probably in favor" and 3 "probably against" as well as 2 more people against it who added some constraints like "stealing in general would be cool, but not like this" or "against it but don't think it's an exploit". Don't confuse these numbers with a vote tho - it's just an observation and I don't even guarantee that I got everything right  
 
So this is just a very rough approximation, but to sum it up:
5 people think it's more or less ok
16 people think it's not ok
 
Now I could try to make an educated guess based on this and say that the landowner's maneuver permission is probably not intended to be used for docking. That right to maneuver is probably just intended to be used to maneuver constructs off the landowners claimed tile in order to solve another issue and nothing else. So just based on your comments here the probability for this being an exploit is rather high.
 
Granted, it's always hard to guess someone's intent and to base this on the opinions of players instead of Novaquark employees further dilutes the accuracy of this speculation. But if we include the possibility that NQ might take players' feedback into their considerations, it counteracts this dilution a bit.
 
I can't tell you what is going to happen or what that formal policy is going to say, but personally I'd like to strongly advise against using this mechanic to dock and abduct for the time being. At the very best I think it's dangerous to do it - especially since there is a certain level of awareness that there's a good chance it will actually be considered an exploit and it may be hard to claim "But I didn't know!" - pure speculation on my part tho and just meant to convey why I think it's a dangerous path to follow.
 
If you remember the aforementioned "zero tolerance policy" regarding exploits, at least I wouldn't want to take that chance even if I rounded the numbers down to "only" 3 to 1 against me. Or if I move the "3 probably against" from the original numbers towards the "in favor" side it still results in 13 to 8 against and I wouldn't bet my access on odds like these. But it's your account and your own risk to take if you decide to go for it anyways - after all, as moderator, as said repeatedly, I don't speak for NQ regarding game-related things.
 
 
So much for the evaluation. My guess is as good as yours, but if I may further add my own opinion/guess: since construct owners have to deliberately grant the "maneuver construct" permission using the RDMS, it's clear that it's not meant to be granted to enemies. I see the fact that this permission is being granted to landowners as an exception that's solely meant to solve an actual issue and for nothing else. I think it's meant to enable landowners to help them keep their land usable and this permission should not transpire outside the owner's land in any form. That should exclude the option to use it to dock constructs to your own if not granted explicitly through the RDMS by the owner of the parked construct.
 
You remember the "EVE doesn't give you a warning" sentiment on this thread, which was countered by "this isn't EVE"? Just consider that DU gives everyone a distance indication as soon as they approach or leave the PVP Zone. Players flying towards a planet get a notification that reads something along the lines of "You have entered the Safe Zone". Again, not speaking for NQ, but I think planet surfaces so far are "intended to become unsafe" once territorial warfare gets introduced - not before.
 
I think attacking from non-pvp space into pvp space is clearly not ok, but the only thing I actually know is that a formal policy will follow soon. Again, until then I just recommend to think twice about how sure you are regarding the developer's intend.
 
When you confirmed the existence of a "possible exploit" and there's any doubt if this is intended, the safest route to take is: make a report and get permission first before you use it. In that case you will always have the report on your side for the first time you did it, if it remains the only time you did it. This is just in case if it will actually be considered an exploit that you just discovered. I think exploits don't need to be specifically listed in order to be punished, because you can't list anything that has not been discovered yet  
 
Here's the promised short version. The whole essay above boils down to:
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

What is "interesting" to me is that this is a rather serious exploit and NQ has been aware of it for at least several days with no comment or action from their end either way.
 
I say it is an exploit since the mechanic used here is not intended to be used as such and while I'd agree with the inevitable "PVP" players coming in and saying that you should not park on an unclaimed territory (which is fair enough), this is also a safe zone and that is where this becomes an exploit.
 
IMO the ability to move another players construct on your tile should only apply to constructs that are parked _once_ you claimed the tile, and not _as_ you claim it. While I understand that at this stage of development a lot of mechanics may not be complete, there are so many half done features and mechanics that the amount of technical debt this creates wil take NQ months to work through. Many things are "quick fixed" (or not even fixed, just the symptoms worked around) with hopefully the intent to come back later and properly resolve an issue but the mountain of to-do items is getting bigger and bigger while NQ is already looking beyond these which leads me to fear we'll be left with these for a long time to come.
 

Hello everybody, 
 
Today i woke up, and learned some lesson in "Hard way" 
 
I was flying around on Alioth with my Medium sized ship, that had some nice L sized parts on it, some of them were Military grade, + territory scanner. I was scanning some unclaimed territories for ores, and found 
3000 KT of Hematite, landed my ship there and started to mine on that spot, I mined for an hour or so, and got only 100k of that hematite in my ships container. It was late, and I thought I am gonna go to sleep and then return on morning to continue my findings to that big Chunk  
 
Woke up, and territory was claimed by another player, also noticed that my ship wasn`t there anymore, I thought hmm strange...  At the end i checked Discord some help, and in notifications window i saw that my ship was destroyed by another player.
 
So, what happened is, I left my ship on unclaimed territory and went OFF , then some other player found me, Claimed that territory while i was offline, then using Maneuver tool moved my ship and placed it on another Dynamic Construct, which on this case was L core sized ship, took it to space outside of safezone, attacked it and destroyed it, and claimed it, at the end they got all my parts from ship. 10 or 12 Vertical booster L, 8 atmo engines L, 2 Military grade Atmo engines L, 4 Space Engines L. 1 Space Engine XL, Large Container with 100k of hematite in there and Territory scanner.
 
What do you think ? Is it and exploit ? 
 
Personally I think that`s and amazing stuff to do in this game, never ever have thinked about this one. Even i learn`d it in hard way and the loss was pretty painful.

Dear Noveans,
 
When we set out to launch our beta this summer, we also envisioned a series of major changes and improvements outside of the game. A major one was the complete redesign of the game’s website, as well as the migration to a brand new tech stack for the site’s front and back ends. We were also planning to launch several programs, such as a Content Creator program and a Recruit-a-Friend program, which relied on a new, versatile code system. That code system is also being used to grant our backers the beta invitations which are part of their Kickstarter or Alpha packs.
 
Unfortunately, things don’t always go as planned, as you’ve been witnessing over the past few days (2020 strikes again...). We had to revert part of our tech migration, and postpone the move to a new authentication platform, among other things in our backend. So for the past few weeks we have been struggling to try and reconcile the new site and the code system with our legacy backend. This task has honestly been way more difficult than we had imagined. 
 
We already missed the boat when it came down to allowing you to invite your friends a week earlier, and we’ve come to announce more delays, sadly. As we approach the launch of the beta, we have to be realistic about what we’ll be able to deliver, as we had to make tough choices:

We will launch the new Dual Universe website tomorrow; it will have the most essential content and features, with some visual and quality of life improvements missing. We’ll add more content after beta.
 
The Content Creator program will be ready, using the above code system (see potential limitation below). You should be able to get the invitations included in your beta packs on day 1, though the system may not be as easy to use as we wanted. Making sure you have these codes ready is one of our top priorities (see potential limitations below). You should be able to go to the website and upload images for publishing in Dual Universe, which will go through an internal review process to ensure that they follow the game’s Code of Conduct.  
The Recruit-a-Friend program didn’t make the cut… and that sucks. We worked hard on it and we were really excited about it. The in-game content is ready, but the entitlement system isn’t. Unfortunately, we couldn’t work on all the entitlements in the limited time that we had these past few weeks.

There is a potential limitation with the code system, for both content creators and beta keys: in the next few days the codes may not be redeemable with existing accounts - only with new ones (like for the load test). We are trying to lift that limitation as soon as possible, as we know it’s not ideal. 
 
So what’s next? All these new systems, the new website, and these new programs will be constantly improved in the days and weeks to come. Our priority will be to lift the code limitation and to launch the Recruit-a-Friend program as soon as possible. We don’t want to give you a date that we may not be able to hold, but know that we are doing everything we can to make it as early as possible. 
 
Finally let’s tackle the question of “Why did we announce the Recruit-a-Friend program if it wasn’t going to be ready?” Well, that’s the point; we really thought it was going to be ready, just as when we announced the ability to invite your friends a week prior to beta. It’s disappointing, for you and for us. But we believe these programs are worth it, so we want to make them right.
 
We hope you’ll bear with us, and that you’ll be able to enjoy the Dual Universe beta in the meantime.
 
Sincerely,
The Novaquark Team
 
*Note: we unfortunately won’t be able to retrofit any recruitment that you may do between now and the official launch of the program. Recruitment will only count from the day of the launch of the program, when we can track who’s recruiting who properly.