Iorail

Seriously though, they need to get lots of other features sorted first.
 
I really hate how they worded territory pvp item as well.
 
"- Final safe-zone definition" is listed as a line item for it - I hate that. It should be defined already.
 
Asteroid mining is needed because frankly the mole man mechanic is tiresome and is burning people out.
 
Energy managment needs to come before territory pvp.
 
pvp rebalancing should come as part of that
 
Then all the voxel tools and graphics
 
Then avatar pvp AND atmo pvp
 
Then once all that crap is working and balanced, you can turn on territory warfare.
 
PvP needs to be well balanced and thought out before it become a major part of the game and it's going to be a major task - lots of other things can and should be done first.
 

Mine is but apparently yours isn’t, read it again, your own quote, pretty clear they mean one person playing multiple accounts not multiple accounts been playing by different people. Oh and I bold the parts for you, to make it easier.

Ok now I understand that you are just obviously and severely confuse and should seek professional help. You are the prime example of people reading things the way they want things to be. Doesn’t matter either way, my son, my wife, and me will continue to play together while you fester on your delusions, have fun with that.

You are really trying so hard at not wanting to understand this, do you? You need to get off your high horse before you fall off it, cause I’m the last person to advocate for cheats or exploits, and I will report my own son if I ever catch him cheating.
The game anticheat prevents you from running 2 accounts on the same pc, thus not allowed by game rules.
The game company can’t deny those with multiple game accounts to run the game in different computers on the same household at the same time if they are been run by different people, this will kill family gaming together.
Its virtually impossible to report someone and get them ban for doing so, as in how do you prove it’s the same person playing different accounts at the same time.
 
Stop trying so hard, it’s not rocket science.

Do you know what multiboxing is? Playing on 2 different computers, with 2 different accounts by 2 different people on the same IP is not multiboxing......
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-boxing
 
Multiboxing or dual boxing is when one person runs multiple instances of the game in the same or in different computers.
 
It will be impossible for JC/NQ to regulate this either way, as families play together on the same IP, college dorm students share the same IP, Internet cafes share the same IP, do you understand now?
 
 

I will take what JC says as gospel vs what anyone besides JC posts - everyone NQ- is his subordinate and JC is the ultimate source of policy when it comes to the game.
 
 

What is authorized or forbidden
Modifying the game files is forbidden, (except for the "Game/data/lua" folder (this is the only location where you can add or modify files). Modifying the game cache is forbidden (by default it is located in the directory C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local\NQ\DualUniverse\) ; Reading or modifying the game memory is forbidden. Disabling, modifying, or attempting to evade the anti-cheat in any way is forbidden. Playing at the same time with two or more accounts is forbidden (having several accounts is fine as long as you only play with only one at a time).
  multi boxing is still FORBIDDEN for those who can’t scroll up to the official rules.   Game never intended for solo players to run gunships.  And someone complained about others being antisocial ?. Instead of breaking the rules get a buddy on your gun.

Correct, but there are some minor issues when the child construct doesn’t have landing gear to “attach itself” to the parent construct.
So far:
-Using the maneuvering tool to place a smaller core into a larger core will not docked it and when you try to take off, the smaller core will damage the bigger core (the rule of immobile objects will always win against mobile ones).
-Landing a smaller core without landing gear on a bigger core to docked it, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t , could be bugged.
-Using landing gear will docked it 100% of the times so far, will update if this starts to fail also.
 
This fix also prevents other “issues” that people where abusing, so they better turn their container cores into proper ships, cause just adding landing gears and using the maneuvering tool don’t work either.

Correct, but there are some minor issues when the child construct doesn’t have landing gear to “attach itself” to the parent construct.
So far:
-Using the maneuvering tool to place a smaller core into a larger core will not docked it and when you try to take off, the smaller core will damage the bigger core (the rule of immobile objects will always win against mobile ones).
-Landing a smaller core without landing gear on a bigger core to docked it, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t , could be bugged.
-Using landing gear will docked it 100% of the times so far, will update if this starts to fail also.
 
This fix also prevents other “issues” that people where abusing, so they better turn their container cores into proper ships, cause just adding landing gears and using the maneuvering tool don’t work either.

There seem to be a lot of confusion on how docking works now due to recent changes, so I will explain how to do it and the conditions necessary for it to work:
We will call the bigger ship Parent, the smaller core Child.
 
-Core has to be at least one size smaller.
-You can’t use the maneuvering tool at all to guide the Child to dock it into the Parent anymore. Using the maneuvering tool will cause your Child ship to “fall off”, most likely blowing your Parent ship and killing you. It has to be flown in after you potion it with the maneuvering tool.
-You have to physically fly and land your Child ship onto the Parent ship,
-Elements from the Child ship can’t be touching your Parent ship, with the exception of landing gear or voxels. The Child ship will not dock even if you fly it and landed, this includes the core.
-When using landing gear, this has to be positioned all the way at the bottom of the build box. (New, from Ligator)
-The Child ship can’t be heavier than the Parent ship, I would stay at least 10t under.
-Make absolutely sure that you land your Child ship completely (speed is at 0 and the landing gear is touching, all of it, or your voxels are completely touching the Parent)
-You can use a remote control to fly it to your Parent ship and docked it on top, no sides or underneath (Thanks Emptiness)
 
This is all we have discovered so far, in case I missed something, I will update this post. If any other changes happen, we may have to rewrite this again. Enjoy everyone!

And with it, NQ killed off some really cool and emergent ways of playing, like hauling containers for customers by maneuvering them on your ship and off again at the destination. All because they do not want to put effort into actually dealing with exploits. Once more those who abuse mechanics win and everyone else loses.

Correct, but there are some minor issues when the child construct doesn’t have landing gear to “attach itself” to the parent construct.
So far:
-Using the maneuvering tool to place a smaller core into a larger core will not docked it and when you try to take off, the smaller core will damage the bigger core (the rule of immobile objects will always win against mobile ones).
-Landing a smaller core without landing gear on a bigger core to docked it, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t , could be bugged.
-Using landing gear will docked it 100% of the times so far, will update if this starts to fail also.
 
This fix also prevents other “issues” that people where abusing, so they better turn their container cores into proper ships, cause just adding landing gears and using the maneuvering tool don’t work either.

DU has never had a try before you buy option. Even the beta codes had a paying customer behind them. Certain backers got beta codes - and sometimes when JC does a live stream some get raffled off - but there is no case where you are going to get one for free.
 
Beta codes are extremely valuable.

Slightly confused why you think that someone who like aesthetic design is a 'kid', we tend to find that it is peoples love for good looking ships that increases the quantity and value of the ships that we sell.  I also like to 'min/max' the amount of quanta in my wallet.  Having one of the best designers in the game building ships for my org certainly does that.  Having nice buildings also bring recognition to my org and our activities.  You would be surprised how many leaders I have spoken to through the quality of our asset design.

I am all for quality design, and also for the devs doing everything they can to remove any benefits from having borg cubes / 'exploits to circumvent restrictions'

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

I know I know but it was announced on discord, game will be down for about an hour to fix the market issue, but they took the server out unannounced well because it was an exploit, should be back up in about 15 minutes, hopefully 

test servers are usually located on the left or right of the public server, please fasten your seatbelts before take off

Holy mother of conspiracy thread people!
This could be a test area
This could be a future site been built up to store whatever
This could whatever the hell the dev’s want it to be and they don’t have to explain why they have it
........
?‍♂️

That I can get behind. I am constructing pitchforks as I type... will be done in 8 days because for some reason they need 216 advanced casings.

I'm well aware of the docking weight exploit and see it abused regularly, it's infuriating as it's allowed a certain org to ferry their entire pvp fleet around the system for essentially free using ultra light warp platforms with their entire pvp fleet docked to it. It's absolutely bullshit.
 
It's also been reported back in Alpha...

Let me spell this out for the few of you who still think this is EVE 2.0, it’s not, get over it. You want EVE, go play EVE.
 
Second, it was already stated on the DU Press Discord that just because NQ is not talking about exploits and punishments, it’s not going to happen. They where very clear that they are going to take action against players abusing game mechanics, specially duping items and such, but not limited to that only. The information is there in black and white, and they even stated that there will be a general public announcement soon enough once they close the loopholes.
 
Third, you can not interact with any construct anywhere, including the PvP zone, that don't belong to you using the maneuvering tool unless it’s inside a tile claim by you, for obvious reason, or the construct’s core is destroyed. So the ability to “dock” a ship using that to another ship with the soul purpose of “stealing it” is not a valid game mechanic or an intended one, just a side effect that will be remove soon enough and screw over the legit player that will now get harassed by people parking huge cubes on their property. But I’ll explain this down below for those of you who still think this is all legit gameplay.
 
And last, just because you can do something in a game doesn’t mean that is legal, some stuff is not intended and it’s simply either a bug or an exploit. And if you find it, stop using and reported for review or continue to abuse it and face the consequences of your actions later, it’s up to you. NQ has been very clear that the safe zone is just that, a safe zone devoted of any PvP where people can be safe to leave their items. I’m all for PvP and I can’t wait for it to be worked on and expanded but this is not PvP at all. People found a way to circumvent a game mechanic to gain an unfair advantage, which is the very definition of what an exploit is. Territory PvP or actions are not part of the game right now, but like I already mention here before, there are 4 ways to get around this that allows players to steal ships, or destroy Satic/Dynamic/Space cores and steal everything anyone has, even on Sanctuary Moon or the markets or inside safe space which again, has been stated very clear to be safe areas that people can leave their stuff.
 
I’m not here to tell anyone to do or not do something, if you think you are right, go right ahead, just don’t come crying when actions are taken and the game changes for the worst. We can’t discuss moderation actions against players on this forums either, but believe me, action has been taken already against some players that continue to circumvent game mechanics for their advantage. Just go to the regular DU discord and ask in general chat, people will tell you.
 
I’m also 100% sure that what the OP think happens wasn’t really what happened. The tile was claim to be able to use a current exploit, because of the weight of the ship itself and the cargo weight, because His ship, M Core according to him, wasn’t maneuvered into an L ship to take it away to the PvP zone at all, it was destroyed right there and dismantled on that tile, and that took the 15 minutes to claim the tile and maybe another 5 minutes to destroy and repair the core and maybe any red elements necessary to fly it away, that is it. I’m all up for PvP and piracy but this wasn’t any of that. I want the game to evolved like everyone else but not based on exploits.
 
 

Let me spell this out for the few of you who still think this is EVE 2.0, it’s not, get over it. You want EVE, go play EVE.
 
Second, it was already stated on the DU Press Discord that just because NQ is not talking about exploits and punishments, it’s not going to happen. They where very clear that they are going to take action against players abusing game mechanics, specially duping items and such, but not limited to that only. The information is there in black and white, and they even stated that there will be a general public announcement soon enough once they close the loopholes.
 
Third, you can not interact with any construct anywhere, including the PvP zone, that don't belong to you using the maneuvering tool unless it’s inside a tile claim by you, for obvious reason, or the construct’s core is destroyed. So the ability to “dock” a ship using that to another ship with the soul purpose of “stealing it” is not a valid game mechanic or an intended one, just a side effect that will be remove soon enough and screw over the legit player that will now get harassed by people parking huge cubes on their property. But I’ll explain this down below for those of you who still think this is all legit gameplay.
 
And last, just because you can do something in a game doesn’t mean that is legal, some stuff is not intended and it’s simply either a bug or an exploit. And if you find it, stop using and reported for review or continue to abuse it and face the consequences of your actions later, it’s up to you. NQ has been very clear that the safe zone is just that, a safe zone devoted of any PvP where people can be safe to leave their items. I’m all for PvP and I can’t wait for it to be worked on and expanded but this is not PvP at all. People found a way to circumvent a game mechanic to gain an unfair advantage, which is the very definition of what an exploit is. Territory PvP or actions are not part of the game right now, but like I already mention here before, there are 4 ways to get around this that allows players to steal ships, or destroy Satic/Dynamic/Space cores and steal everything anyone has, even on Sanctuary Moon or the markets or inside safe space which again, has been stated very clear to be safe areas that people can leave their stuff.
 
I’m not here to tell anyone to do or not do something, if you think you are right, go right ahead, just don’t come crying when actions are taken and the game changes for the worst. We can’t discuss moderation actions against players on this forums either, but believe me, action has been taken already against some players that continue to circumvent game mechanics for their advantage. Just go to the regular DU discord and ask in general chat, people will tell you.
 
I’m also 100% sure that what the OP think happens wasn’t really what happened. The tile was claim to be able to use a current exploit, because of the weight of the ship itself and the cargo weight, because His ship, M Core according to him, wasn’t maneuvered into an L ship to take it away to the PvP zone at all, it was destroyed right there and dismantled on that tile, and that took the 15 minutes to claim the tile and maybe another 5 minutes to destroy and repair the core and maybe any red elements necessary to fly it away, that is it. I’m all up for PvP and piracy but this wasn’t any of that. I want the game to evolved like everyone else but not based on exploits.
 
 

Flying pig in DU? Too easy
 
Mate... really: destroy a core in safe zone without go in pvp zone are really easy. 
 
5 minutes?
30 seconds.
 
In a tile owned.

Exploit.
Clear and limpid.
It is not a bug. It is not a glitch. But an exploit yes, and it has already been amply explained why.
The "safe zone" must be "safe. It is not" safe zone but be careful ".
It's "safe zone" and that's it.
Sanboxes have always been full of these things and will continue to be. There will always be those who play by the rules and those who play by exploiting the rules.
Regarding this specific act: it is useless to talk about it. Many answers are only trolling. 
Report and hope they change the mechanics as soon as possible.

Oh cool.  Thanks for the reply.