CptCabalsky

Your 1.4 joke update is not funny at all. It's just looks stupid, and is a waste of time.

New planets are a stopgap at best. If you think ore was found quickly up til now, imagine how quickly it will be found by groups who have already established fleets of scanning ships and efficient procedures. 
 
each subsequent planet will be owned in days. 
 
there needs to be a fundamental change in the overall game principle in order to support future growth / ingress of new players. 

At this point after all these years, we are just hanging around to watch this thing come to it's conclusion.
 

 

How did you get this data as this is under privecy law.
 
Well blaming players and giving al sorts of bullshit reasons is just like we by now know NQ.
 
This feels like bad industrial practice all over and if this is the way you run a business or the main investor that actually calls the shots i must say its a wonder the business is still running because as a person working close with all kinds of industries and seeing firsthand how businesses need to be run under ISO and many others like it, this is just not professional.
 
Blaming a wipe that you perform for reducing server load on players while the whole concept of the game is to use your imagination and be limitless in it is a contradiction in itself.
 
I am one of the people glad to see any NPC element GO as you proclaimed DU would have none and all should be player driven.
 
But the removal of a single part in the whole closckwork makes the clock stop and my reason of being against npc elements is much larger as stopping bots.
Your whole economic system is build on bots and quanta sinks but now you only remove the generation part and not the counterpart of the quanta sink and by that you just added another limitation and nothing is fixed. By reducing all t2 and up surface ores/minable ores you deliberately made sure only a handfull of people could get them and by god i hope the people that found them are not the same as those who knew by forehand in beta about upcoming changes but frankly i would not be surprised if maps with deployed ores would have gone missing. And by doing that, the reduction of ores without a single moment of testing that system in beta you made a full known risk on release of DU knowingly that the game is advertised as you can build your dreams and be anyone, do anything.
 
As the terms white knight and black knights come around more often these days, well i was your regular white jedi but by now the color grey is getting darker with every patch with "improvements"
 
I know listening is not your best point but would it hurt to try?  Or are we getting pink voxels next because that is the communities largest wish?

Well, in early days the community page was used for all kinds of news and warfare, it would be nice to have it back also so that organizations can present themselves and for the attached mail box, atleast if we get that back also.
 
Is there a timeline for the return of it?

So just to recap. You are wiping all of our player made content and progress from the last two years, going from Beta to Launch with almost no real new content/systems ready at launch (only quality of life improvements) and now you are more than doubling the price of the monthly subscription? Do you guys say these things out loud in meetings before you announce them? You know it sounds crazy right? 

I appreciate the idea to release the game through Steam, but I have an intense feeling it's going to get crucified in the reviews.
 
Steam will open the game up to a wider audience as it deserves and needs the playerbase, but releasing as a full release with a sub when it's still missing its core pillars and features will not go down well. If it was through an early access system players may be more forgiving but as it stands I feel it will not go well.
 
I hope I'm proved wrong.

Disappointed but not surprised.
 
Thoramine was a lovely dream and it really sucks that it was never realized. Missed opportunity imo.
 
Question: Will NQ still honor the rewards from Kickstarter packs (DAC’s, lifetime subscriptions, pets etc)? 

So, after a bit of time to gather my thoughts on this I figured to share what my opinion is on the changes in the coming patch.
 
At face value I actually see very little wrong with any of it, most of the changes makes sense or I can understand. It's a bit of a shame that the small but useful additions of RGB control for lights and canopy glass arriving were snowed under due to the massive change in Industry.
 
Is the idea of using schematics a terrible idea? Not really, it actually makes sense and would offer a great deal of additional gameplay IF NQ actually properly implemented them in the context of the game itself and not just looking at how to slow down industry and pretty much shoehorn "specialization" into the mix.
 
As the concept is pretty much the same as it is in EVE where any industry job starts with a blueprint I decided to transpose the way this works in EVE and build the mechanic for DU from that. This assumes that there would be gameplay currently not in game but I wil get back to that later..
 
The Schematics:
T1 schematics are seeded through bots on the market. These would not be usable in industry by themselves and be relatively inexpensive starting at around 5K for XS components. L and XL component and element schematics would obviously be more valuable but still affordable with some effort.
 
Making "working" copies: 
Players can use a "research" element to make copies of these for several runs and/or increase the batch size per run, for smaller items batch size could go as high as 100 per run and have a total use of 10 runs, bigger items would see smaller batch sizes wil L and XL size elements being 1 per run only. Once all runs have been used, the copy is consumed. Copies will always succeed
 
Doing research:
On these copied schematics, by using specific materials (at a future date these could be items found in events/sites but at the start these could be "regular ore" as a placeholder), through research, players can upgrade these copies which would reduce material cost and/or runtime for batches. A talent will determine the RNG factor of these upgrades succeeding
 
The inventions:
In the world, on planets, moons and asteroids, items can be found which will allow players to research and upgrade blueprints. Several of these items can be combined to craft higher tiers of these. As with research, these could initially be ores (of higher tier than for research) as a placeholder. The player can choose a desired outcome for the invention based on the input materials for the schematic copy and the higher the tier of the outcomes set, the lower the chance of this invention being successful will be. Talents again will increase the chance of success.
 
Copied, researched and invented schematics can then be traded on the markets by players. All of this means that not only can Industrialists use the original schematics if they want, they can buy better quality, higher tier or multiple run blueprints with higher batch sizes, possible lower material requirements and/or time reduction for production from other players creating another income stream and another "profession" in game.
 
It also creates opportunity for explorers top  go out and find the materials needed to do research and invention, this again, creates an income stream for player and a profession in game as well as promotes use of markets and interaction between players.
 
 
Clearly, this all hinges on something NQ seems to try and avoid like the plague... creating in game content themselves. Frankly, while the idea of no PVE content is all wel and good, i think it should be clear by now that this wil not work and NQ, by excluding the option, is only making the game more of a grind and harder to enjoy.
 
 
Explorers also would not need big/expensive ships. The materials they look for may require nimble small ships which could be relatively cheap. That also means they would not suffer a devastating loss if they get caught by PVP players. The loss is relative and they can get back into things pretty quickly. In turn the PVP player gets their reward in loot which in itself still flows back to the markets where researchers can buy them to do their work regardless of whether the explorer or the pirate brings them to market. So for the game, and the players, it's a win-win. 
 
 
But NQ already is about to release this update, how can they make the change towards this you ask? It's fairly simple.. Reduce cost for the schematics to get the base mechanic in game without too much of an impact and then see how this might work .. That is not difficult, it's a matter of changing numbers in a pricing table..
 
 
All this sounds familiar? Sure it does, it's pretty much the industry loop from EVE but why is that bad, it's certainly different enough, being "physical in the world" and if you let yourself be "inspired" by the mechanic in the first place, which IMO is clearly the case here, why not go all the way.
 
 
 probably missed a few thigs here and there but let's discuss and hope NQ pays attention..
 
 
 

Hello there,
 
First off, thanks for the feedback. 
 
So there's a couple of different things to touch on here:
 
The internal balance of shields sizes CCS/honeycomb health vs Shield Health per mass Venting
I’ll try to address in that order but they will mesh a little since they have some obvious links.
 
First of all smaller shield sizes are at an advantage in regards to HP/mass. So something to keep in mind is that as you go up in size, as it pertains only to shields, you are losing out on the HP/mass ratio (in simpler terms, each HP weighs more on larger shields). This is an inbuilt advantage smaller sizes simply have.
However, the main and primary reason we have different shield sizes at all, is to support constructs of varying sizes and mass. This is the key center-point around which everything else mostly revolves.
 
If you are intending to make a larger, heavier construct, that is going to trend towards or go past the max mass, then the large shield becomes the obvious choice. However, should you want to make something smaller, more agile, and quicker, you may start to use shields of smaller sizes. We already see people experimenting with constructs of smaller sizes using S and M shields to take advantage of the speed, this is a great direction, as long as the pendulum does not swing too far in the favor of smaller constructs.
Now, if the weight penalties do not sufficiently affect the design of the ship, and large shields are still too mass effective even on smaller designs. That's a subject we will continue to address. We do not want to see S designs using exclusively L shields because the additional mass from larger shields doesn't matter in regards to acceleration, max speed, and rotation speed.
 
To answer your question clearly, there is no direct goal for an M shield and an equivalent 95t of voxel to be worse, equal, or better than an L shield and I’ll try to explain why as we go. You should take the shield of the size that makes sense for the design of your ship. If you have the mass available, or are willing to “spend” the mass to have a larger shield, then go for it.
 
Don't want to get into the venting subject too quickly, but using an M with a bunch of honeycomb could allow you to vent once or twice during a battle, especially on a lighter design that can also evade some damage. Maybe the balancing on that isn't perfect, but it should be an option.
At the end of the day the inbuilt advantage of an M shield over an L shield is that it's significantly lighter. You say it's always worth going to an L shield because M+HC is worse in HP, maybe this is the case (more on that later) but the point is that for that 95t you could probably build out a good part of a fully equipped construct, allowing you to have a quicker, more agile construct with a superior max speed, that's the upside.
 
Talking concretely in regards to the mass, if I made a competitive light-ish design with an M shield around 250t ( I don't have one on hand, this is probably on the lighter side after the changes). I'm going about 38-39k km/h max speed, just switching from an M shield to an L shield, I drop down to about 35k km/h. Now adding an extra 95t to a 250t design is probably going to seriously hurt my acceleration as well, so now I'm probably at least looking at redoing my engine setup, which likely adds some more mass as well.
So now the question is more along the lines of, do I prefer an extra 5mill HP from the L shield, or about 5000-6000km/h extra max speed and some extra rotation speed. Well that's a question I’d love feedback on, maybe the max speed and rotation speed isn't enough, I could see that.
 
Secondly there could be an advantage to being able to “modulate” your weight while still gaining some tankiness from honeycomb. An M shield with some honeycomb unlocks some venting on that design, while retaining some/most of the mobility.
 
In regards to your reasoning about M vs L shields. Roughly you're going from “it only makes sense to use the largest shield mass wise, so I can never vent on xs-m because I'm not going to be using voxels on anything smaller than the L”.
 
Well honestly, I don't particularly agree with that, at least not in theory. The interest of voxels is that it's scalable, and you can choose how much voxel you think you need. If you're going to use an M shield because that makes sense for your design mass wise, you don't “have” to use 95t of honeycomb. You can use 30t of a good hc over your ship. That's already going to give you a chunk of armor to help you get some venting going, and probably not endanger your cross-section too much. If that honeycomb buys you enough time for 2 vents (probably optimistic), then you’ve essentially caught up on an L shield in raw shield HP and you’re operating at more than half the mass. 
Now maybe that's not viable, maybe the honeycomb itself is too weak and even reasonable quantities of honeycomb get blown apart too quickly, that's possible and that's something we can look at. Perhaps at that point the subject is more that voxels are generally weak.
 
It's also important to note that in regards to your “real HP”, some amount of the incoming hits are also going to be hitting elements, elements that can be repaired which can give you more tankiness down the road. That means that when comparing raw HP to CCS, you have to take into account that CCS is counting every hit no matter where it's going, as opposed to your raw voxel HP which will, in effect, have additional health from elements.
 

For point 2, there's a couple things to say here. Shields are not inherently in competition with honeycomb, as mentioned we don't want them to be magnitudes apart in terms of HP because it wouldn't make sense, but fundamentally they are supposed to be complimentary.
 
Now in regards to your chart and conclusions. You didn't quite explain what “mean raw HP” is but I can guess it's the actual HP value of the deployed m3 HC multiplied by the average resistance, or at least I get close enough to your numbers using that.

Internally, in our tests using real ships CCS almost always goes first as opposed to the direct destruction of the core, I’d say in general this is situational depending on the design of the ship. In my experience, when constructs actually have a good amount of voxels, it's very difficult to dig your way to the core, and between the HC and the elements and the (occasional, hopefully fewer and fewer) lost shot, I believe that most of the time, you can count on your CCS HP being your “real” HP bar.  If that's not the case, especially on ships that have a good amount of HC, I’d love to see/hear more about it, since that would be contrary to what we’ve tested. Perhaps certain voxels are outliers.
 
My gut feeling is that in the “nano-age” during which CCS was introduced and voxels were rebalanced, people haven't been using voxels a ton in pvp. The goal is for that to change and honestly, if people start using voxels in some quantity, that's already good progress. If it does come out that cheaper voxels, or certain cheap voxels are always way better than more expensive voxels, I'll be more than happy to take a look at that (and to be honest, I’ve started already since I had to look at a bunch of stuff for this).
Lastly on this, you’ve defined that plastic is the best material on the basis of it having the most “mean HP” for the mass. That may be the case, but seeing how much effort players have put into reducing cross-section at almost any cost, I don't think 6700 m3 of plastic is always going to be the best solution.
 

For the last point in regards to venting, I feel like I’ve partly answered the question already but I’ll answer more broadly. Venting isn't something that will or needs to be used. It's a tool at your disposal and it's up to you to figure out how and when you're going to use it depending on the situation and the design of your ship. In contrast it's our job to make sure that those avenues can exist in the game.
 
In view of that, lighter ships now can try to disengage using their speed and try to get away and disengage to vent and come back, some ships may have honeycomb to tank on the CCS, some ships may not be able to reliably vent. If you design your ship in such a way that it cannot vent, then that's on you. However, if it is the case that there are NO competitive designs that allow you to vent at all, I agree that's a problem we need to change.
 
It will come down to the design of your ship, and it's possible that venting will be more usable in certain situations, and certain circumstances than others. For example, I don't expect smaller and lighter ships to have enough CCS/voxels to tank more than a couple hits (let alone all the elements that will die on a compact design) so if they can't escape the firepower using their speed/agility, they are likely dead. But who knows, it might be worth it now to dedicate some amount of HC on ships, specifically to be able to tank a handful of shots to get some shield HP back, even if you don't manage a full cycle off.
 
Essentially from my perspective, if you go no honeycomb, you are accepting that venting is going to be a tougher proposal than if you had dedicated some mass to HC protection, there's a tradeoff there. Now maybe that tradeoff isn't balanced, and there's one obvious better choice than the other, in that case we will take a look (that was sort of what was happening up to 0.29, there wasn't much point to using HC, but I think between the shield mass and health changes,  and the speed changes, HC could have merit again in at least some designs, but maybe it's not enough).
 
For an example on a relatively light design, even just 100m3 of that grade 5 titanium is going to give you around 1.2milll CCS health for 4-5~ extra tonnes. Is that enough to tank serious damage for a while? No, probably not. Is it enough to absorb a couple hits as you try to pull out of range, get your transversal speed up and start venting some HP back, probably yes. The downside is your cross-section may suffer and you'll lose some speed (honestly the speed loss won't be much, even at the most severe parts of the speed curve). Is it worth it? I’d say so yeah, in some designs and some situations, especially now that heavy L ships can’t easily rotate to keep up with smaller constructs, having a slightly larger cross-section probably isn't such a big deal in certain scenarios now.
 
To be fair in regards to that point, I agree that on lighter and more compact constructs, the damage dealt to elements will sometimes be what ends up killing you rather than CCS, or even the core being killed. If you take a nasty hit that blows up half your elements, you are essentially dead. My question is are you able to use some HC, to reduce the chances of a good hit taking you out of the fight entirely.
 
I did a quick test, put up 50m3 of grade 5 titanium and blasted it with a fully talented laser L. It took 3 shots to get through and kill the core I had placed  just behind the material. To be honest though, based on my hit chance on a totally immobile target with zero cone or range issue, I would actually expect an actual S design to take almost 0 damage from L weapons. The shield and the CCS at that point is more of an insurance policy for the occasional hit, or to fight off other smaller constructs.
 
There's also something to be said about balancing cross-section vs compactness. Not having all your elements in the same spot, even on smaller designs, means a single shot has less chance to obliterate half your elements.
 

Anyway, I'm just spitballing on a lot of things, I certainly don't have all the answers, and likely there's some things I’ve missed, or some things I've overestimated the importance of or underestimated the importance of.
 
 
Now to address your “problems to be solved” directly as a conclusion of sorts.
 
   Point 1: In regards to this point, if people start using any honeycomb at all it’ll be a good direction. Once we get to the point where we’re saying “we’re using HC and these honeycombs are all clearly better than these honeycomb”, we will be in a good place to start addressing HC internal balancing. The second thing is I do currently believe that especially on larger ships, CCS is a better representation of health than raw HP, and this is likely the opposite on smaller ships.
 
   Point 2: I‘m not totally set on this. Unplayable seems like a strong word here. I think lighter, smaller constructs have more opportunities now to disengage from fights in order to vent, or potentially exploit larger ships' slow rotation to stay out of the cone of the guns. Additionally, in my mind, some honeycomb can be a valuable addition to smaller designs, to give yourself some room to vent. However, If this isn't enough, we could explore more powerful and quicker vents for smaller shields, that's certainly a possibility.
 
   Point 3: Maybe, I’ve gotten some info by looking into it again today, and it's possible some changes can come down the line on this. In the past we’ve had the opposite issues, so it's possible we went too far.
 

I know this is a big blob, I hope my numbers were right, my brain is a little hazy, and hopefully I’ve answered most of your questions and made this a little clearer for you guys.
 
 
Thanks.
 

i log in and log out imediatly after
 

I do Not understand Why a Wipe is even contemplated. ? The loss of time and effort would be impossible to calculate.
I don't have a lot of game cash, I don't care how much anyone else has. Its literally of no importance to me.
 
You need methods for fixing the problems you see with out wipes. You will need them going forward to deal with unforeseen issues when the game is out of beta. I only have one account, One character.
 
I sell resources to buy schematics, So I can build the parts I need to build ships. Witch is what I enjoy doing.
 
If your going to remove Schematic, then you have to tell us what you intend to replace it with. other wise the concept of removing them is nothing more then noise.
 
Please be far more specific with what you intend...
 
because what is seems to be I will loos every thing and have to start again.
If you cant fix the game with out wiping it, what's to stop you from doing this every time you run into a problem without a simple fix.
 
You have outlaid the options you are discussing, But there are no details of howe each option would be accomplished.
You want to take the monopoly money away, because you think some have too much?
you want to remove schematics from the game because What?? its too much strain on the server??
 
 
 

If you are paying a monthly sub to a game that promised no wipe from the start. 
 
NQ IS RUNNING A SCAM

That's your opinion, mine is: there is no valid argument for a wipe, not even a partial, because a wipe does not solve a single problem with the game in the current state, including the next Athena patch.

Absolutely NO wipe!!
 
First, the talent points - not only did we pay for them through monthly subscriptions, but more importantly OUR TIME!! We earned them, and in no way would it be fair to wipe them "for new player experience", what about existing player experience? Do you care so little for the players that have helped you fund and develop this game from the very beginning, that you would abandon our contributions of time and money, as well as all the bugs and exploits and loopholes and cheats we have identified for you over the Alpha & Beta phases?
 
Second, our constructs don't take away from new players experience. How does my space station or ship take away from a new players game? How? I have a ship, you don't - uh....big deal. Even if you wipe, with our experience we will be making new ships and stations quickly anyway, so you aren't doing anything for the new players you are merely punishing existing p;layers.
 
Schematics - I never liked them, but they are here now - BILLIONS invested in schematics for my factory......the time it took to hunt megas, mine them, process them, and EARN that quanta through something that you should both acknowledge and respect - MY TIME. I could have been playing Star Citizen or any of a hundred other space games out there.....but I gave you my time and my money. For you to STEAL what I have earned through that time is not only unethical - I imagine (and hope if you do) it will be disastrous to your game as well. How can anyone trust NQ if this is how you treat your players. 
 
Because this post you made points out one thing - you value the prospect of new players, which don't yet exist - over your current players who are here, active, and paying NOW. You addressed the issue of people who have unsubscribed or don't play anymore by letting us deconstruct their constructs. You make us pay land taxes. There needs to be an already set up economy and structures for new players to really enjoy the game, as well as to see what they can do. The super factories is what inspired me to make my super factory. The giant cities are what inspired me to make my buildings, the existing architecture of other players INSPIRES new players. Other players ships inspired me to build mine. New players NEED to see what we have figured out, they need to be inspired. Blank worlds starting from scratch will just be boring for them.
 
And finally - you TOLD us there wouldn't be a wipe. Are you liars? Yes, there are super rich people and orgs in the game - but they don't detract from the new player experience as much as you apparently think they do. They are going to be a part of the game no matter what you do. And if this game is what it advertises - player generated cities, organizations like nations, there will be the rich and powerful and there will be the small loners - but guess what - we LIKE it that way. Don't let the envy of non-existent players rob the time and money of the actually existing players.
 
Read general chat. If you wipe, you will lose about 80% of your players that chat at least. It is the most feared and most unpopular decision of the game currently. And not everyone posts here in the forums - so read the daily discussion about the prospect of a wipe - WE HATES IT!!! 
 
I love this game - I don't want to play another. But if you wipe, take away my earned quanta, take away my earned talents, take away the constructs I have bought from other players that I can't make blueprints of (did you think about that!?!?) and take away my constructs and elements I have spend thousands of hours earning or building - you lose all of my accounts. I will quit. And you may lose more current players than you will gain these "new players" you seem to care more about. But when they see that they cannot trust NQ either, when they see how you treat your player base, don't count on them rushing in to buy your game. Trust me, this community will not go quietly into the night.

OK, so I can see where you're going with the 'delete schematics and wipe' thing.  Around 0.23 the playerbase was a lot larger and it the thing which provoked most of the players to leave at that time (it probably wasn't the only reason, but it was the push) was the introduction of schematics.  I can see how tempting it must be to try to 'undo' that mistake and try to go back to where things were before it and to that extent this is a clever play -- get rid of the problem feature and wipe so those players who left feel like they can come back without having fallen so far behind in the meantime they can never catch up.
 
The problem is, IMO, that this would have been a clever play about 9 months ago but it is now far too late for this sort of thing.  The players who quit after the 0.23 update quit about 15 months ago now (some perhaps a month later as a result of there not being people to play with any more).  Many hung around on the forums, in discords, etc waiting for things to get sorted out and eventually they just accepted their disappointment, left and moved on to other things.  The ones who stayed, on the other hand, either liked schematics, didn't care or have accepted them in any case.  Most who played since then have made large time investments into obtaining schematics and are now invested in the system to an extent where they don't want to see it removed and lose the advantage they obtained with their efforts.
 
You can see this in these forum responses.  There are a lot of "I don't want to lose my schematics" and "What's wrong with schematics anyway" types of posts, but where are the "Yes!  I've been waiting for this to happen for a long time and will definitely start playing again if you wipe+delete schematics" ones?  They're not there because those people aren't even on the forum any more.  They're gone.  And by and large they aren't coming back.
 
I circulated your post on a discord which had a few hundred active and semi-active people pre-0.23 but has been a graveyard ever since.  Even 6 months ago I see occasional posts on there from people coming back, complaining about schematics and leaving again.  Now, however, the org leaders which made the discord have themselves left it, the majority of messages are people leaving in dribs and drabs and the only response I got to my post was from someone who is still playing and has already commented in this thread.

I think the players are gone and you are too late to get them back.  IMO if you wipe+schematics reset you won't regain these players but you will clearly lose a lot of existing ones based on the opinions expressed here.  I think you need to build on what you have and start adding new things without breaking old things, restricting or taking features away at the same time and slowly growing the playerbase like that.

Also, since we are about to get the last update before release, isn't it a bit late to remove schematics now?  Doing so without having anything to replace it with would just break the economy like before by rendering the act of making things valueless so only huge-scale players can profit from industry.  Trying to fit a new solution to that a few months later would surely lead us to another situation where it's hard to introduce the fix without a wipe.  Really I think you need to settle on a 'final' solution which works before release and if schematics aren't that then the game is not ready for release because it will take months to find out if an alternative solution actually works.
 
Full marks for the mission nerf on the PTS though!

I am against to a full wipe or half wipe or quarter wipe or 12% wipe and so on. Reasons?

Reason 1:  You say that new players are in disatvantage because there are well established players and huge orgs which have bilions of quanta.
Guess what?  
that will be case in max 1 year after the wipe and the situation will be exactly the same like now with huge orgs and fresh starters, what you gonna do? wipe again because big ones have advatanges? 
 
Reason 2: You say that the game is unbalance. 
Guess what?
this game will continuously evolving ( if it stays alive) and more larger feature will come with time. Those huge feature will cast imbalances in other places of the game. You will have to learn how to make changes on the go to the game WITHOUT wiping every now and then 
 

I am against to a full wipe or half wipe or quarter wipe or 12% wipe and so on. Reasons?

Reason 1:  You say that new players are in disatvantage because there are well established players and huge orgs which have bilions of quanta.
Guess what?  
that will be case in max 1 year after the wipe and the situation will be exactly the same like now with huge orgs and fresh starters, what you gonna do? wipe again because big ones have advatanges? 
 
Reason 2: You say that the game is unbalance. 
Guess what?
this game will continuously evolving ( if it stays alive) and more larger feature will come with time. Those huge feature will cast imbalances in other places of the game. You will have to learn how to make changes on the go to the game WITHOUT wiping every now and then 
 

Yeah, wipe is very demotivating. Any kind of it. I will quit, when you do it. 
The pros and contras in your post are by far not all arguments for the suggested solutions. 
And...if you wipe, that is the ultimative proof that NQ is not trustworthy. 

I am against to a full wipe or half wipe or quarter wipe or 12% wipe and so on. Reasons?

Reason 1:  You say that new players are in disatvantage because there are well established players and huge orgs which have bilions of quanta.
Guess what?  
that will be case in max 1 year after the wipe and the situation will be exactly the same like now with huge orgs and fresh starters, what you gonna do? wipe again because big ones have advatanges? 
 
Reason 2: You say that the game is unbalance. 
Guess what?
this game will continuously evolving ( if it stays alive) and more larger feature will come with time. Those huge feature will cast imbalances in other places of the game. You will have to learn how to make changes on the go to the game WITHOUT wiping every now and then 
 

I am Vyvacia
The single player who placed about 80 cores over about 7 tiles for making a race track on feli. I have been playing since Alpha.... I am waiting an entire month Just to be able to keep the cores with only 20 slots for constructs left in my org que. I play with a larger org besides that personal one that owns the race track but the idea of having them donate construct points is just SILLY they want what they want and for the most part theres a lot of solo play in a game like DU.
So.
As I look at purchasing a ruby account from someone I wonder on your direction NQ.
 
It will take almost another month to keep the constructs youre talking about nerfing and dont even think about trying to tell me you would bp them all.
its a massive project but ultimately its difficult and long. just look at how you cored out the area to make the planet look all ugly and now i have to reterra....
I honestly do not know what to say about you wiping the game.... you cant. youve backed yourself into a corner.... AGAIN....
 
Schematics disappearing? HAHAH
I have spent soo much money on fixing all of that and automating that ....
see why would I start writing lua for this?
I again understand you all are wanting to provide a better FUE
but let us as the players do that. we like to play because we still can and we have all of these beautiful things to show for it.
 
I do not find the idea of planet revamps important really..... for why? diversifying planets isnt really necessarry.
Are you going to change ore distrib again?
 
SO many ?s but I dont write this game......
I vote no wipe.

It's scary how much players here would be happy with a partial wipe, if only these players are always allowed to keep their own advantage in the process....
There are currently players who support wipe, but only if....
- I get to keep my quanta
- I can keep my talent points
- I can keep my BP
- I get a magic BP
- I get talent points much faster than new players
- me, me, me, me, me.....!!!
None of this is fair!
But fairness is what NQ and a wipe are "supposed" to be about. So, either no wipe or a complete one, without an advantage. (Maybe you could offer the beta subscription players a refund as compensation or, they also get t-shirts, etc, as it was promised to the Kickstarters.
 

I also don't think schematics were the demon everyone thought they would be. but i like the idea of a "research" mechanic to get them rather then a ridiculous quanta sink.
 
keep in mind at least that one of the original reasons for schematics were to make it a bad idea to have factories filled with industry left running and doing nothing.
 
Make it possible to do things, make it impractical to bloat server load.

I have never read a bigger pile of one-sided bullsh*t basically advocating for full wipe in order to easily do away with schematics.  Just announce the decision and get it over with.

At beginning of beta it was announced "no more wipes except as required for updates" (like the mining update that was done).  So if NQ do decide to wipe, it would be yet another promise broken.  This also completely ignores that people have been paying monthly to play...

As for "removing unfair advantage" and "level playing field". These are fallacies to help people sleep better at night.  The players with the know how will return to the positions of abundance they have now in short order.   There will always be "haves" and "have nots".   All a wipe does is a slap in the face of the people that put time into the game after being told a wipe would not happen.
 
Make a system that creates schematics rather than remove them.  The problem with schematics, like the markets, is that they do not give player agency.  A player cannot make a schematic at all, they have to be bought.  Make science research a thing.

Cons for wipe have already been mentioned:   As I said, the "NQ thoughts" are heavily aligned to a wipe disregarding promises and small details like leaving an empty world, avid supporters of the game just leave, and paying customers just get their stuff removed.  

What a wipe also does is remove the history of DU such as it is... like Thoramine.  Deleting a piece of DU history like that is unforgivable.

Its a no to reset as  I have played the game for 5 hours per day for over 12 months (over 2000 hours), to get resources and warp cell factory up and running etc, i would have to quit and go back to eve if I lost all that time and effort.