Mod-Mondlicht

This is correct. The reason for the delay is that it's currently a bit hard to keep up - some people don't seem to have read the forum rules and working through reports takes its time.
The forum rules can be found here:
 
Excerpt
This is the most relevant forum rule and reason why that thread was hidden. @Cytoxx please remove the link and title-quote from your original message - thanks! The only two things to do with exploits are 1. report them to NQ and 2. avoid using them.
 
I'd like point out this recent announcement by @NQ-Naerais
 
A bug or exploit does not need to be listed there in order to be prosecuted if used, so I'd strongly advise to always report at support.dualthegame.com if there is any doubt. I'm not familiar with the development schedule, but I'd think that every issue gets tracked, assigned a priority and will be taken care of as soon as possible. If the support is delayed or the issue doesn't get fixed within a day, a week or even a month it doesn't invalidate the forum rule posted above: promoting exploits is prohibited. As posted by @NQ-Naerais: exploiting is prohibited as well.
 
I'm not a GM or CM, but as it's hard to keep up with the frequency of forum rule violations, I imagine it might just be as time consuming to keep up with in-game rule violations - so I'd personally advise to not mistake it as okay or not prosecuted to use an exploit, just because there's no notice or sanction shortly after. Analog to this I too have my todo list for threads and members to address/sanction for spamming, trolling (provoking), flaming (insulting, attacking), profanity and so on. Meaning: better not let yourself be inspired by other's violations  
 
If it's just one answer on a thread the moderation team would just hide that one answer. But if others already quoted and commented it can get very difficult to clean up. If it's too difficult or the original posting already violates the forum rules (which can't be cleaned up either) the according thread will be hidden entirely. Sorry for the resulting inconvenience - in order to avoid it I suggest to just report clear violations of the forum rules and not engage the violation on such a thread.
 
If there's a valuable discussion to be had in line with the rules it's always an option to open up a new thread for this. But as thread starter be mindful that if it's a sensitive topic it can easily get out of hand and might be treated as mentioned above - so it's in the interest of everyone who wants to have a friendly and open discussion, to not engage to provocation, but just report the according comment and keep it calm and polite otherwise. Thanks!  
 
@LouHodo no, he just wasn't sure why that thread was gone and made a suggestion for improvement. Your posting reads as if you think this was wrong, but please try to see the positive side of it and keep it constructive, as I take the positive from your posting and agree that issues with moderation should be taken to moderators and not discussed directly on the forums. Two reason for this are that 1. the moderation staff can miss such topics while 2. members on their own can't answer the question "Why?" or solve issues or change how moderation is done without talking to us, the moderators.
 
Next time something vanishes and it's unclear why, please just send a private message to me and I'll look into it to provide an answer  
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

@Mod-Mondlicht: Thanks for your informative reply, highly appreciated. Removed link including title-quote from my posting as requested.

This is correct. The reason for the delay is that it's currently a bit hard to keep up - some people don't seem to have read the forum rules and working through reports takes its time.
The forum rules can be found here:
 
Excerpt
This is the most relevant forum rule and reason why that thread was hidden. @Cytoxx please remove the link and title-quote from your original message - thanks! The only two things to do with exploits are 1. report them to NQ and 2. avoid using them.
 
I'd like point out this recent announcement by @NQ-Naerais
 
A bug or exploit does not need to be listed there in order to be prosecuted if used, so I'd strongly advise to always report at support.dualthegame.com if there is any doubt. I'm not familiar with the development schedule, but I'd think that every issue gets tracked, assigned a priority and will be taken care of as soon as possible. If the support is delayed or the issue doesn't get fixed within a day, a week or even a month it doesn't invalidate the forum rule posted above: promoting exploits is prohibited. As posted by @NQ-Naerais: exploiting is prohibited as well.
 
I'm not a GM or CM, but as it's hard to keep up with the frequency of forum rule violations, I imagine it might just be as time consuming to keep up with in-game rule violations - so I'd personally advise to not mistake it as okay or not prosecuted to use an exploit, just because there's no notice or sanction shortly after. Analog to this I too have my todo list for threads and members to address/sanction for spamming, trolling (provoking), flaming (insulting, attacking), profanity and so on. Meaning: better not let yourself be inspired by other's violations  
 
If it's just one answer on a thread the moderation team would just hide that one answer. But if others already quoted and commented it can get very difficult to clean up. If it's too difficult or the original posting already violates the forum rules (which can't be cleaned up either) the according thread will be hidden entirely. Sorry for the resulting inconvenience - in order to avoid it I suggest to just report clear violations of the forum rules and not engage the violation on such a thread.
 
If there's a valuable discussion to be had in line with the rules it's always an option to open up a new thread for this. But as thread starter be mindful that if it's a sensitive topic it can easily get out of hand and might be treated as mentioned above - so it's in the interest of everyone who wants to have a friendly and open discussion, to not engage to provocation, but just report the according comment and keep it calm and polite otherwise. Thanks!  
 
@LouHodo no, he just wasn't sure why that thread was gone and made a suggestion for improvement. Your posting reads as if you think this was wrong, but please try to see the positive side of it and keep it constructive, as I take the positive from your posting and agree that issues with moderation should be taken to moderators and not discussed directly on the forums. Two reason for this are that 1. the moderation staff can miss such topics while 2. members on their own can't answer the question "Why?" or solve issues or change how moderation is done without talking to us, the moderators.
 
Next time something vanishes and it's unclear why, please just send a private message to me and I'll look into it to provide an answer  
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

This is correct. The reason for the delay is that it's currently a bit hard to keep up - some people don't seem to have read the forum rules and working through reports takes its time.
The forum rules can be found here:
 
Excerpt
This is the most relevant forum rule and reason why that thread was hidden. @Cytoxx please remove the link and title-quote from your original message - thanks! The only two things to do with exploits are 1. report them to NQ and 2. avoid using them.
 
I'd like point out this recent announcement by @NQ-Naerais
 
A bug or exploit does not need to be listed there in order to be prosecuted if used, so I'd strongly advise to always report at support.dualthegame.com if there is any doubt. I'm not familiar with the development schedule, but I'd think that every issue gets tracked, assigned a priority and will be taken care of as soon as possible. If the support is delayed or the issue doesn't get fixed within a day, a week or even a month it doesn't invalidate the forum rule posted above: promoting exploits is prohibited. As posted by @NQ-Naerais: exploiting is prohibited as well.
 
I'm not a GM or CM, but as it's hard to keep up with the frequency of forum rule violations, I imagine it might just be as time consuming to keep up with in-game rule violations - so I'd personally advise to not mistake it as okay or not prosecuted to use an exploit, just because there's no notice or sanction shortly after. Analog to this I too have my todo list for threads and members to address/sanction for spamming, trolling (provoking), flaming (insulting, attacking), profanity and so on. Meaning: better not let yourself be inspired by other's violations  
 
If it's just one answer on a thread the moderation team would just hide that one answer. But if others already quoted and commented it can get very difficult to clean up. If it's too difficult or the original posting already violates the forum rules (which can't be cleaned up either) the according thread will be hidden entirely. Sorry for the resulting inconvenience - in order to avoid it I suggest to just report clear violations of the forum rules and not engage the violation on such a thread.
 
If there's a valuable discussion to be had in line with the rules it's always an option to open up a new thread for this. But as thread starter be mindful that if it's a sensitive topic it can easily get out of hand and might be treated as mentioned above - so it's in the interest of everyone who wants to have a friendly and open discussion, to not engage to provocation, but just report the according comment and keep it calm and polite otherwise. Thanks!  
 
@LouHodo no, he just wasn't sure why that thread was gone and made a suggestion for improvement. Your posting reads as if you think this was wrong, but please try to see the positive side of it and keep it constructive, as I take the positive from your posting and agree that issues with moderation should be taken to moderators and not discussed directly on the forums. Two reason for this are that 1. the moderation staff can miss such topics while 2. members on their own can't answer the question "Why?" or solve issues or change how moderation is done without talking to us, the moderators.
 
Next time something vanishes and it's unclear why, please just send a private message to me and I'll look into it to provide an answer  
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

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

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

Thank you for that clarification - in context that nuance slipped past me. When you addressed joao and questioned his social abilities directly, it seems to have biased me a bit towards interpreting the rest as criticism of his character. After that I've read "I wouldn't make such a stupid assumption" as if you were referring to his opinion/assumption about "most ppl playing MMOs". Sincerely sorry for calling that out, but at the same time I'm a bit happy I did too, because this gave the chance to make it perfectly clear. Reading again with your additional statement your comment comes across less aggressive and takes a bit off the edge in the sentence before that. Still a bit fierce, but I guess not enough to be called out like that.
 
Well, he said "most ppl" and not "anyone doing x" - a small but significant difference as well. But yes, it's not ok to storm into a biker's bar and announce something negative starting with "Most bikers..." either, as too many might feel addressed and provoked by this. When doing something like this one should at least start with "In my opinion..." or provide some statistic to back up the claim. Even better to replace "most" with "many" or if not provable "some" at best, just to make it less bold and keep it humble, which always sits better on the receiving end and takes them into maybe fruitful consideration instead of defense.
 
However, choice of words ain't always perfect (especially since many of us don't have English as their native language) and the receiver might make a mistake too - as seen above that doesn't exclude me either. So by default I'd prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, as I should have doubted my initial interpretation of your posting when writing that small foreword above my wall of text
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

I never called anything but my own possible assumption stupid.  A small but significant difference.
 
I'd wished you'd called out the "Anyone spending too long in Dual Universe is socially stunted and/or incapable" assumption instead, but you do you, I guess.

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

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

Hey folks,
 
while it's perfectly fine for you to wonder about the ways and motives behind certain actions, I'd like to remind you that this should not be reason enough to dive into a heated argument
 
It's also fine to point out that there's no way to force a statement out of people or make them explain themselves facing accusations. Sure, asking is ok - as is hoping for an answer. Just consider if it was the other way around - would you be more inclined to answer such a question if it was asked nicely with no strings attached, or if the question got a bunch of worst case scenarios and hypothetical reproach in the package?
 
Both sides made some nice arguments that I personally can relate to and which made reading through the thread fun. But at the same time both sides already overstepped the fine line of civil discussion a bit as well, which made my key ring tingle. So please, when you have a good argument let it stand on its own feet and without evil support-spikes that might hurt someone else.
 
If you can manage that, then I can keep this thread open so you might actually see an answer to your question at some point. Just keep in mind that this is not a promise, as I don't know the answer, intent or plans myself and so far didn't inquire about it either - my guess would be just as good as yours.
 
I don't know about that area, but if you may accept a piece of my faith: Novaquark is developing this game and building the Dual Universe for you - not against  
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

so turns out it was still " a bit too big " or something ? so with your code.. i used this https://petercollingridge.appspot.com/svg-optimiser  and now it works ! thank you  

Hey folks,
 
while it's perfectly fine for you to wonder about the ways and motives behind certain actions, I'd like to remind you that this should not be reason enough to dive into a heated argument
 
It's also fine to point out that there's no way to force a statement out of people or make them explain themselves facing accusations. Sure, asking is ok - as is hoping for an answer. Just consider if it was the other way around - would you be more inclined to answer such a question if it was asked nicely with no strings attached, or if the question got a bunch of worst case scenarios and hypothetical reproach in the package?
 
Both sides made some nice arguments that I personally can relate to and which made reading through the thread fun. But at the same time both sides already overstepped the fine line of civil discussion a bit as well, which made my key ring tingle. So please, when you have a good argument let it stand on its own feet and without evil support-spikes that might hurt someone else.
 
If you can manage that, then I can keep this thread open so you might actually see an answer to your question at some point. Just keep in mind that this is not a promise, as I don't know the answer, intent or plans myself and so far didn't inquire about it either - my guess would be just as good as yours.
 
I don't know about that area, but if you may accept a piece of my faith: Novaquark is developing this game and building the Dual Universe for you - not against  
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

Hallo @MagnusElectron
Die Idee finde ich klasse. Dann bekomme ich einen GM-Account im Spiel (Game Master) und kann dort Spieler aus der Bre­douil­le ziehen  
 
Bis dahin kann ich aber leider nur hier im Forum aushelfen. Im Spiel gibt es die Game Master und im Discord die Community Manager - ich habe allerdings nur das Mod-Präfix. Bezüglich Discord: Wie im oben verlinkten Thread von Luukullus erwähnt, habe ich das Anliegen intern weitergeleitet und drücke persönlich beide Daumen.
 
Danke übrigens an alle in der Starting Zone (DE), dass ich hier bisher einen so angenehmen Job habe  
 
Liebe Grüße
Mondlicht
 

Hey folks,
 
I got a bit tired reading through this seemingly endless fight and couldn't find the silver vein of constructive communication that I was looking for.
On the contrary - it was pretty easy to find multiple violations of the forum rules. So here's a reminder what they contain.
 
I don't think this thread will turn around anymore. Closed.
 
Sincerely
Mondlicht

Hey folks,
 
I got a bit tired reading through this seemingly endless fight and couldn't find the silver vein of constructive communication that I was looking for.
On the contrary - it was pretty easy to find multiple violations of the forum rules. So here's a reminder what they contain.
 
I don't think this thread will turn around anymore. Closed.
 
Sincerely
Mondlicht

Hey folks,
 
I got a bit tired reading through this seemingly endless fight and couldn't find the silver vein of constructive communication that I was looking for.
On the contrary - it was pretty easy to find multiple violations of the forum rules. So here's a reminder what they contain.
 
I don't think this thread will turn around anymore. Closed.
 
Sincerely
Mondlicht

Hallo @MagnusElectron
Die Idee finde ich klasse. Dann bekomme ich einen GM-Account im Spiel (Game Master) und kann dort Spieler aus der Bre­douil­le ziehen  
 
Bis dahin kann ich aber leider nur hier im Forum aushelfen. Im Spiel gibt es die Game Master und im Discord die Community Manager - ich habe allerdings nur das Mod-Präfix. Bezüglich Discord: Wie im oben verlinkten Thread von Luukullus erwähnt, habe ich das Anliegen intern weitergeleitet und drücke persönlich beide Daumen.
 
Danke übrigens an alle in der Starting Zone (DE), dass ich hier bisher einen so angenehmen Job habe  
 
Liebe Grüße
Mondlicht
 

I think I've been here already and contacted some of you to keep things constructive. Yet I come here again to find horns locked along with these:
 
This adds nothing to the topic and just looks like an attempt to provoke.
 
A rather unnecessary and snappy accusation, also just looks like an attempt to provoke.
 
Just a quote taken from the forum rules. They can be found here in case anyone forgot about them:
 
 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Disregarding the above may I further remind all participants about the initial posting by the title: ,,Does anyone find the game playable without owning industry?´´
 
As I see it this was a simple enough question which turned into a discussion about it's right to exist in the first place. I'd like to ask everyone to please pay a little more respect to the original topic in the future and not drag other's threads off-topic so much. Thank you!
 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Given this thread's development since my last posting I don't expect there will be any positive side to keeping this open. Thread closed.
 
 
Sincerely
Mod-Mondlicht

Hey fellow Noveans,
 
I can see two passionate sides in this argument and some rather provocative stances. So please, to everyone, remember our forum rules and keep things constructive, civil and friendly. Your postings will be just as content rich if you skip the strong language and focus on the statement
 
Both sides hint at valid arguments. Nobody can force anyone to associate with others just for the sake of production. On the other side, if you chose a path that leads away from civilization, you probably will struggle with supplies and have to do/create/organize more things on your own or accept long travels. At least for now.
 
A personal note on the topic, not speaking on behalf of Novaquark: as I'd like to see Dual Universe evolve, expand and prosper, I do hope for some more game mechanics in the future that give people new paths to follow. As an example and I don't even know if this is on the table: I hope that at some point there might be a player contract system that lets players complete tasks in order to gain ℏ, elements or other rewards.
 
I say this because I think statements like the above could steer this thread in more constructive direction. Please join me looking for ways to improve, rather than just to oppose each other 
 
Thank you!
Mod-Mondlicht
 
 

Hey fellow Noveans,
 
I can see two passionate sides in this argument and some rather provocative stances. So please, to everyone, remember our forum rules and keep things constructive, civil and friendly. Your postings will be just as content rich if you skip the strong language and focus on the statement
 
Both sides hint at valid arguments. Nobody can force anyone to associate with others just for the sake of production. On the other side, if you chose a path that leads away from civilization, you probably will struggle with supplies and have to do/create/organize more things on your own or accept long travels. At least for now.
 
A personal note on the topic, not speaking on behalf of Novaquark: as I'd like to see Dual Universe evolve, expand and prosper, I do hope for some more game mechanics in the future that give people new paths to follow. As an example and I don't even know if this is on the table: I hope that at some point there might be a player contract system that lets players complete tasks in order to gain ℏ, elements or other rewards.
 
I say this because I think statements like the above could steer this thread in more constructive direction. Please join me looking for ways to improve, rather than just to oppose each other 
 
Thank you!
Mod-Mondlicht
 
 

Hey there.
 
Once things on the optimization site calm down the staff will probably have time to address things properly. Right now and until instructed otherwise I will uphold the NDA to the letter. Thanks for your understanding.
 
I think enough has been said here. Closed.
 
Mellow greetings
Mod-Mondlicht

Falls du einer Gruppe/Organisation innerhalb von Dual Universe beitreten möchtest, aber noch keine passende gefunden hast, dann kannst du gerne das folgende Muster benutzen und an diesem Thread teilnehmen. Dies ermöglicht es dir dich vorzustellen und macht es den Organisationen einfacher dich zu finden.
 
 
Anleitung zum Thread (Bitte zuerst lesen!)
Im Folgenden findest du vier Abschnitte, welche stets farbig mit "ICH BIN" beginnen. Bitte such dir zunächst den zu deiner Situation passenden Abschnitt heraus und beachte die Regeln, welche du weiter unten findest.
 
LFO steht für "Looking for Organization". Zu Deutsch: Auf der Suche nach einer Organisation.
 
_________________________________________________________________________
ICH BIN - auf der Suche nach einer Organisation!
 
Bitte folge diesen Schritten zur Teilnahme in diesem Thema:
 
Kopiere zunächst den Inhalt des Musters und füge diesen im Antwortfeld dieses Threads ein. Passe den Text an, indem du deine eigenen Infos an Stelle der Platzhalter einsetzt. Absenden und fertig!    
...oder fast. Noch zwei wichtige Details:
 
Bitte antworte zeitnah auf eingehende Anfragen und lass deine potenziell zukünftigen Freunde nicht zu lange warten. Wenn deine Suche beendet ist komm wieder hierher zurück, denn dann trifft der gelbe Bereich weiter unten auf dich zu. Danke!  
Außerdem möchte ich dir wärmstens empfehlen, das Community Portal zu durchstöbern, sowie die Forenbereiche Novark's Registratur (Deutsch) und die Novark's Registry (Englisch) zu besuchen, um die Listen der verschiedenen Organisationen in Dual Universe einzusehen. Das Community Portal bietet dir eine vollständige Liste über den Navigationspunkt ORGANIZATIONS, während du hier im Forum die Vorstellungsthreads jener Organisationen finden kannst, welche bereits einen solchen erstellt haben.
 
 
LFO Beitragsmuster
(den Inhalt folgender Box markieren und kopieren)
 
_________________________________________________________________________
ICH BIN - nicht mehr auf der Suche nach einer Organisation!
 
Wenn du eine Organisation gefunden hast, oder aus anderen Gründen nicht mehr auf der Suche nach einer Organisation bist, dann bearbeite bitte deinen Beitrag entsprechend (z. B. alles löschen und mit "erledigt" ersetzen). So ist es für die Anderen übersichtlicher und es kommen keine unnötigen Anfragen zu Stande. Ebenfalls können wir Moderatoren so dafür sorgen, das dein Beitrag ausgeblendet wird und der Thread aufgeräumt und übersichtlich bleibt.
 
_________________________________________________________________________
ICH BIN - auf der Suche nach neuen Mitgliedern für meine Organisation!
 
Du hast also schon ein Zuhause - großartig! Ich hoffe du wirst hier fündig. Bei Interesse kontaktiere die Person bitte direkt über das private Nachrichtensystem.
 
Sollte jemand mal nicht innerhalb einer Woche antworten, dann kannst du den Beitrag melden (bitte mit entsprechendem Hinweis) und ich versuche selbst Kontakt zu dem Suchenden aufzunehmen - sollten auch ich keine Antwort bekommen, kann ich den Beitrag ausblenden, bis sich der Suchende bei mir meldet. Aber bitte nutze diese Option nicht zu früh! Gib dem Suchenden wenigstens eine Woche Zeit um auf deine Nachricht zu antworten. Danke!
 
_________________________________________________________________________
REGELN
 
Kontaktiere potenzielle Bewerber bitte NICHT über diesen Thread!
Das private Nachrichtensystem dieses Forums ist das perfekte Werkzeug, um eine Unterhaltung unter vier Augen miteinander zu führen.
  Dieser Thread is KEIN Ort für Organisations-Werbung oder -Vorstellungen.
Hierfür kannst du gerne ein neues Thema in der Novark's Registratur erstellen.
  Bitte antworte nur dann, wenn du aktuell auf der Suche nach einer Organisation bist.
Off-Topic Antworten, Ausschweifungen und Diskussionen in diesem Thread werden entfernt.  
 _________________________________________________________________________
ICH BIN - gut in Englisch und suche international!
 
Dann bitte hier entlang. Dies ist der ursprüngliche Thread im englischen Bereich:
 
_________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Ich wünsche allen viel Spaß und Erfolg bei der Suche! 
 
Herzlichen Dank an @Luukullus, der für den Großteil der Übersetzung aus dem Englischen verantwortlich ist und die Idee hatte, selbigen auch hierher zu holen ❤️
 
Sanfte Grüße
Mod-Mondlicht
 
 

Hello fellow Noveans,
 
being tasked with keeping this forum a place everyone can enjoy, I agree with the original request and took the liberty to forward this. As I see it following your conversations, members could benefit from finding the announcements on the forums too.
 
Please take note that this is not an official statement. In my personal estimation I'm not sure if there is enough capacity to make it happen just now - or even decide on it right away. But rest assured you've got my support when it's on the table. Not as replacement, but as addition to announcements on Discord 
 
Regarding the current discussion I'd like to ask you to keep things civil. There's room for every voice on this matter - irony, sarcasm and attacks won't help this thread move forward
 
Thanks for all your commitment, suggestions and constructive comments!
 
Mellow greetings
Mod-Mondlicht

Hello dear NQ Team,
I would like to discuss a problem, that I am sure many others would agree with.
 
I ask you to share information about restarts, updates or problems with the server here in the forum.
For example, you could create a new category for this (mayxbe something like: server status or server status messages). But this would also be possible in the area of announcements.
 
I have already received a lot of feedback on the Discord Server and I also share the following opinion.
The DU Discord server is way too confusing and restless. It is very uncomfortable for me to even bother with it.
 
If you create an area for such messages on this forum and make sure that no one can reply, only the information can be read, everyone can relax and read the information they want to have here on the forum and see what's going on.
 
Personally, I think communication is a major weak point at Novaquark, and this is able to create a lot of frustration and anger.
 
Let's fix that together.
 
Thanks and Greetings,
Luukullus
 
 
(Sorry for my bad english, i hope you all are abe to unserstand me correctly)