Megabosslord

I missed this late change on scan results. A bit of a bummer, as I’d done a bunch of scanning recently to be ready for Demeter. Got up at 2:30am to check all my scans and they’re all gone. ?

That would just allow orgs to tie up resource rich tiles and sit on them till they're ready to mine.

Easy to say if you're not a solo player who also spent months scanning.

Agreed. Worst case, it doesn’t fix the frequent invalid voxels errors on large builds and all our in-progress builds trigger the magical complexity number meaning they’re nerfed, and can’t be finished. Best case: the invalid voxel error is fixed and the magical complexity value has enough headroom to finish the build. It really all depends how high this complexity figure is, does it scale off core size, and how it’s calculated (e.g.: does any irregular vertex add to the complexity ‘score’ meaning the limit can be triggered by any large angled plane?), whether this is going to be brilliant or terrible.

TBF I didn’t do any terraforming, always expecting a terrain reset. But then JC said they wouldn’t wipe terrain and undo players’ hard work. So I thought, okay, I’m safe. Now we know nothing is safe.

If they do respec, I hope they have a better way than last time. Just wiping all talents was a pain - trying to recreate the exact tree you had before so your ships fly the same, the same max core limit, etc. Mess it up and you're stuck. Ideally they could just roll back the one branch.

Sure, they could have made ore shallower, in a single lump. Or moved it to the surface. Or, made super-large longer lasting asteroids. Or, allowed vertical shafts only to lower tunnel poly count. Or, just made old tunnels collapse. But it’s a bit like when there were problems with screens: instead of whacking moles to fix the issue, they chose to throw out 30 yrs of accumulated development by thousands of the smartest people on earth creating HTML5 and make their own API. Hubris? Maybe. Could fail? Sure. Annoying for many? Yes. But even when it hurts - creating rework, mooting practiced skills and systems for beta players - I still hope their ambition, their unorthodox experimentation, the bold strokes, pay off.

Oh, PS: Since the only way to get dirt to recreate the terraforming above is to dig underground, I’m still going to have to dig underground galleries if I have to rebuild this. So maybe if you don’t want people still digging everywhere to get piles of dirt to terraform like this, give us a way to make or mine dirt.

Hey NQ, This would be a great opportunity to finally fix static BP placement! All you need to do is make static BP snap to the construct you're on, the same way new cores do. [EDIT: Maybe also add a way to indicate which direction the BP is facing. Or an ‘undo’/quick demolish for when you place it facing the wrong way.] This will allow anyone who wants to relocate their base due to terrain changes, or to avoid having to redo their terraforming, to save their base as BPs, and relocate a multi-core structure (which is currently an absolute nightmare). I have my tower up on dirt piles, and a ramp. I don't really want to redo it all, but the geometry reset will leave my tower hovering in the air, inaccessible (and you've only built a tool for digging underground?) If you made it possible to snap static BPs to on another I could just drop it all down to ground level. Thanks in advance.

Not sure if anyone has asked this, but can you pay territory tax in advance? Say, I'm going away on holidays and want to pay tax up front so things keep running. Will that be possible?

Dude, I hope you're still playing - despite the fact the game's core players (those who love building stuff, amirite?) are feeling a bit side-lined in the last few patches. DU needs players like you, or the building engine/interactive environment is pretty pointless. What are you doing to stay challenged now? The whole tile management sitch is a pain in the tuckus. See also ex-players keeping their tiles, forever even if they never play again:

A question for everyone: One of the guys next to my tile (I've tried contacting all of them, none are active in-game) is no longer subscribed. I know this, because he's the only one who answered my Discord messages - when he asked me to pay him, to sell me his tile, then pulled out of the negotiation saying he'd changed his mind, that it was too hard because he'd have to subscribe again to come in and hand it over. (Yes, I also offered to gift him game time to do it.) How many of the other tiles in DU are owned by people who are no longer subscribed, and not interested in logging back in ever? And should they be left that way, blocking us from expanding our bases forever and ever and ever? Stopping new players from getting good base locations. And stopping anyone from ever mining those resources till the end of time? Your thoughts?

Certainly player owned markets would help, but I’m not so certain the mechanics aren’t there for the formation of communities - if only multicore structures weren’t made so difficult. The limited range on transmitters is one mechanic incentivising close coordination of multiple cores. Imagine multiple factories producing different components, owned and run by individual players, contributing to each other in close proximity and communicating on a commonly agreed transmission format. Shared libraries of territory scans. Shared fleets of ships for different purposes hangared with scripted access to hangars based on status, points or role - all of which could be governed by centrally transmitted player metadata. Shared access to space elevators, taxi services, market runs, DSAT, rostered tasks, intel, voxel libraries, banks, insurance companies… There are many reasons a co-located collective could run much more efficiently than one that is dispersed. These structures and the embedded infrastructure for communication and coordination, could then be replicated via blueprints and scaled in multiple strategic locations. Nobody is thinking this way yet because the blueprint mechanics dissuade it.

I should have posted this here:

Since day 1, NQ has talked about cities as a feature of DU: - during the Kickstarter in JC's '10 Minutes of Dual Universe Gameplay', - in the 2018 pre-alpha 'Dual Universe Community-Made Outposts', and - just a year ago, at the 25 second mark in the 'Building Fundamentals Trailer'... So why are there only a handful of 'cities' in DU? As detailed in my YouTube video (link below) it is virtually impossible to align static core blueprints reliably, even when working hard to comply with the baked-in ray cast used to position blueprints. The lack of a snap to grid (as with placement of new cores) is just the beginning of the many problems. Static blueprint placement issues also include: 1) 'Nudge' moves the BP by 2 voxels instead if 1, 2) There is no visualisation of the structure being placed. Combined with placement inverting the direction of the structure by default, it is extremely difficult to predict which direction the blueprint is facing when placed, even moreso when rotation is called for, and 3) The inability to 'undo' a bad placement is especially burdensome on large structures as they have to be torn down in dozens of separate cut selections and the blueprint is effectively lost. For all these reasons, it is completely impractical to try to perform a number of tasks essential to large scale architecture, including: - Relocating an existing multicore structure, - Replicating a multicore structure, - Developing multicore structures for sale, - Selling any static blueprint with DRM (since bad placement consumes the blueprint). Because it is impossible to transact blueprints in a way that allows customers to reliably place their purchase, there is no profit to be made in multicore architecture. And because there is no profit in multicore architecture, there are no multicore architects. In essence, current gameplay mechanics actively inhibit the construction of cities. There are three levels of fix for this essential gameplay element: BASIC: Add snap-to-grid for static core blueprint placement, identical to new core placement. (Even with this basic fix, determined players can workaround the remaining problems.) INTERMEDIATE: Add a direction arrow on the blueprint being placed so players can see which direction the BP is being placed. (Blueprint sellers can then provide instructions to customers on which face of the construct the arrow represents.) ADVANCED: Full function - add a silhouette of the projected blueprint, and add an undo function or teardown with the blueprint recovered. To be fair, there are other problems as well - like the inability to use elevators to travel between cores, or more than half the width of a large core. But with the ability to design and build multicore structures, the largest hurdle would be resolved and the absence of any significant emergent architecture, aside from a small number of very determined players. It is my wish that rather than wait for the available development cycle to properly fix static blueprint placement, the 'basic' option above be implemented ASAP. *

Hey NQ, for future reference, when you make a rule change like this - forcing some of us to go around with a few days notice and remove constructs from a bunch of markets - it would be neat if you also gave us some tools to make deconstructing and fetching a bunch of constructs easier, e.g.: a 'deconstruct' option that just collapses a construct into parts/materials in inventory instead of having to go around and remove each element, and do a bunch of honeycomb select/cut. And remove the 24 hr cap and 4k range limit on 'fetch' for a few days.

It's still early enough in DU that it remains to be seen how long a large org can maintain its internal power structures, either due to fracturing at the highest level, or small highly motivated 'underground' movements within the org. Legion has only won round 1.

For the love of everything sacred can we please make it easier to give people who buy our ships and blueprints the ability to add, remove, replace elements without giving the whole IP away? Every time a new element (shields, DSATs etc.) or a change to elements (weapons stats) is announced, ship/blueprint sales die completely because all current builds are now obsolete, and ship sellers then have to spend weeks doing mods to past customers ships for them, and replacing all the BPs in our dispensers (which also costs money). If we could just sell BPs with an 'add elements' to go alongside 'edit element', or even (not as good but workable) make it so 'build' rights permission doesn't automatically deliver the 'create blue print' permission as well, releases like 0.26 wouldn't cripple the ship building industry for weeks/months every time. Players would be able to drop in the new elements, or swap out the superseded elements themselves. The only way to move any product at all right now is to leave placeholders for new elements (pic) and make them completely DRM free, which means infinite copying of the build, and handing your business to pirates.

Asteroid mining worked great for me, but a buddy when he got to an asteroid can't get his scanner to work (pic). Is there a mining talent requirement?

I've found in life that people generally deliver what you expect of them. If you doubt them, and expect them to fail, they usually will. If however you believe in them, and give them the benefit of the doubt, they will generally rise to the occasion. (Googe 'self-fulfilling prophecy experiment' by Drs John Darley and Bibb Latané. Also, Pygmalion or Rosenthal effect.) I choose to believe NQ will overcome current challenges, achieve their ambitious vision, and it will be glorious.

Xpost from similar thread on cell corruption: PSA! If like me you have a chunk within a construct that appears to have become permanently corrupted, i.e.: will no longer accept new voxels and restore, here is a possible workaround: Note that drawing a new voxel into a corrupted chunk will temporarily restore the chunk, but pasting voxels into a corrupted chunk appears to propagate the corruption and make it semi-permanent. This is important because EMPTY SPACE CAN ALSO BECOME CORRUPTED. I had an invisible corrupted chunk that rejected a paste of some voxels then escalated from there to appearing permanent. However, if you restart, then ON FIRST RELOAD BEFORE ANY NEW CELL VERSION ERRORS built a dendritic structure throughout the empty space in the area (pic) until you trigger another 'invalid cell version' prompt - indicating you have fixed the invisible corrupted space - you will then be able to proceed as normal (until the next time your corrupted construct loads and potentially becomes corrupt again.)

Cell corruption update! If like me you have a chunk within a construct that appears to have become permanently corrupted, here is a possible workaround: Note that drawing a new voxel into a corrupted chunk will temporarily restore the chunk, but pasting voxels into a corrupted chunk will propagate the corruption and make it semi-permanent. This is important because EMPTY SPACE CAN ALSO BECOME CORRUPTED. I had an invisible corrupted chunk when rejected a paste of some voxels then escalated from there. However, if you restart, then built a dendritic structure throughout the empty space in the area (pic) until you trigger another 'invalid cell version' prompt - indicating you have fixed the invisible corrupted space - you will then be able to proceed as normal (until the next time your corrupted construct loads and potentially becomes corrupt again.)

Worryingly my situation escalated in a week from 1 or 2 chunks I could repair and ignore, to dozens of chunks, to permanent corruption where the area is invisible and can't be edited at all - affecting a ship I'd spent weeks building, now unusable. If corruption is going to propagate this way for others, NQ need to jump on it fast as it can quickly make things unplayable. [EDIT: 3 videos of corruption escalating over days attached to ticket #51888]

I’ve been trying restarts and clear cache for 3 days, no joy. Others in this thread it looks like months.

My ‘invalid cell version’ chunk can’t be repaired. Rejects new voxels and paste.