Mornington

Really sorry to disagree with you on this Vertex, but "have a negative impact on their gaming experience" really does need rewording. It's so vague that it becomes meaningless or makes rule-breakers of everyone (e.g. am I having a 'negative impact' on your gaming experience by disagreeing with you on a forum? Pretty sure ONIXXX had his game experience negatively impacted, I read about the theft happening on the support forum). This game has aspirations to be a PvP game, like EVE. Player conflict is actively encouraged. What DU are failing at is drawing the line between what is ok and what isn't. Between player and avatar. Between PvP areas and 'safe zone' areas. If the model they have drawn up for player run markets, at a time when orgs are stealing assets through both RDMs and exploit theft, can so easily destabilise more than just the voxels maybe they need to rethink that plan? It genuinely troubles me that this incident has raised an issue that could make player run markets not viable. Or do NQ have to add in a mechanic / rule that territory warfare is not allowed to happen in tiles with markets, because that could have a 'negative impact' on third parties trying to buy at those markets? That would be so open to abuse, everyone would just put a market in every tile.

Please be honest with us here - was this something they did by pressing B due to bad RDMS, or did they do something else to cause a glitch (we don't need to know what)? Right now it looks to many observers that you have said theft through bad RDMS is fine, not an exploit, and you can't/won't get involved in that, but when these players did exactly that they should have known that you (NQ) did not intend for them to be able to steal a game asset or be annoyed because you have changed the rules on them. Well, guess what, all those players who had constructs stolen didn't intend for them to get stolen either. Your clause about reporting and not abusing bug exploits has been written into game rules since anti-cheat was published August 27th, but you have not even banned anyone (to my knowledge) that was involved in bug related ship-jacking, or base-jacking. You have not even responded to my question about why a Youtuber is telling people on his channel that NQ have told him it's ok to ignore one of the anti-cheat rules forbidding simultaneous two-boxing. If you want testers to stay and have any respect for your endeavours, you need to be consistent, not playing favourites at the expense of paying testers. I love what you're trying to achieve here, but right now, you're Nero, not Neo, fiddling while Rome burns, not saving anyone.

Yeah, you'd think so. I mean, it clearly stated in anti-cheat policy weeks ago that finding a bug and not reporting it was forbidden, exploiting it was also forbidden. But where were the bans for Desolation for their ship heists? Oh....? "Oh, sorry Mr Dev, we thought you intended for us to exploit a bug in the safe zone to drag ships into pvp so we could shoot and claim them." That is absurd.

Are you doing anything about content creators telling people NQ have told them it's ok to ignore parts of the anti-cheat rules (see my post on anti-cheat rules)?

Has anyone developed any Lua / other methods to enable container audit logs? I've played plenty other MMOs, and most of them have some method to show who takes what out of any shared storage. This game seems sorely lacking in this department.

Did anyone get the name of this ship / owner of ship? Is it a deliberate cause of fps drop? How close did you have to be to get FPS drop? Will ships like this totally destroy the viability of pvp in this game? If it is deliberate then is it a breach of the anti-cheat forbidden actions (namely degrading game performance for other players)., or is it ok, because it's done through in game Lua?

Couple of things I picked up from listening to the interview and what people have said here. This Easter egg hunt was in one key way the opposite of Ready Player One. Three Org leaders with hundreds of players in their Orgs were principal Gunters, they also involved players in their Orgs. That does not really equate with RPO (where a small band of plucky individuals, not Corporation leaders) are the heroes. Amusingly it also sounds like Whitemeat (around 22-24 minutes in) reveals that Knoober betrayed his own Org members by selling out that they were close to the discovery, so DSI reinforcements were brought in to blockade and destroy ships. Interesting leadership choice that. Congrats f you're an Infinity Corp member that got your ship trashed that weekend. If I'm wrong about that and IC were told in back channels to stay away, fair play, but that's not how the interview sounds. For clarity, I'd also joined Wayfarers, as a new player during Beta, and can say players were openly encouraged to find and discover the artifacts, but not spoon fed the keys to solving the puzzle.

For anyone who has watched Red Dwarf there is a problem with time based fines. It could end up costing a new player whose PC crashes (or whose internet goes down) more quanta than they have before they get the chance to log back in and fix their parking.

It's a contradiction of worldview that your nano-suit can sustain you indefinitely, with no input resources required, but ores are finite. I know this is not a survival game, that is clearly stated. What is odd though is that the only argument for finite ores is that they want some sort of realism. If this is a social experiment, Neo_O, then what this game is showing is exactly what your namesake was told by Agent Smith. Orgs are behaving like locusts. Descending, stripping, leaving, providing no added value at the point of extraction. That is not civilisations building. Unfortunately this is also realistic, but I won't cite examples, real world politics is not a subject we can discuss on forums. I think they need to go one of two ways, and I'm not sure which would be better. They need to say this is a game, not an attempt at realism, and respawn ores by whatever means, so that the game is accessible to new players. Without that this game dies quickly as any new players that don't want to be org drones leave almost as soon as they start. The game would still get a steady supply of org drones and people happy to just sit in a gunner seat and gank noobs. Alternatively, try to be more realistic. Even in the goldrush miners had to stake caims with a third party before they mined. Try opening up a deep mine next to my house in the real world, and you'll get so many lawsuits your feet won't hit the floor (but we have no legal system yet, and I doubt this game ever will have one). Build a house and then undermine it with vast caverns and you get subsidence in the real world, in DU we just get a static that is now floating. The main problem is not only that big orgs have the assets and players to strip mine, it's that the cost to benefit ratio is totally skewed. Even within the designed mechanics the only cost is fuel and time, plus maybe to slim risk that you get shot up. Yes, pvp is a risk, but no, currently it is not stopping savvy, small orgs from getting access to T3-5 ores. Add in known exploits, especially mass exploits and warp exploits, and the cost becomes even less than intended. That ratio should be addressed.

Could we get an official response to this YouTuber's very public statement about simultaneous two-boxing being allowed, and that he was told by an NQ employee that it was allowed?

Apologies for any offence, but your stance sounded confused / internally inconsistent. I like clarity and this game is full of wolves pretending to be sheep. You should meet Gliderion. I made 2 posts, both were edited, one was just a typo, I added extra words into the other. Maybe the forum counted that as 2 separate posts each time? Your opinions about this topic I find interesting. Your opinions about me are irrelevant. Please don't trip up over that inflated ego. For me this is pretty simple. The RDMS allows construct owners to consent to other people having access via rights. It should be obvious to anyone that you should not have any rights to any construct, unless you built the construct, were explicitly given rights via RDMS by the owner or acquired rights by fixing an ownerless construct. 'Maneuver construct' is a right. I'm honestly surprised that anyone could argue that 'not knowing' it was an exploit is anything other than willful ignorance. Ignorance is not a defence against conviction in any criminal court. I can't comment on Desolation, as I have no contact with them, and have not been a victim of this exploit (so am unbiased). I do hope they followed the EULA on discovering the bug and reported it. I too would like to see actual figures on how many players were affected by this and whether they were compensated. I'd also like to see which players exploited this bug and how many times over what period. Until there is access to Alt links there can be no 'in game justice' for in game actions. I find it odd that other people don't want to apply justice retroactively, but also want to retroactively acquire rights to tidy up the territory they buy. IMHO, you buy territory with a ship on it, you should be stuck with the ship (like buying a house with bad wiring), you buy a territory and someone crashes their ship, that's a different story then you should be able to move them off your land, to closest unclaimed territory. What next? "Hey NQ, I bought some land, and someone had dug holes in it, can you put some ore back in those holes??". My real concern here is that this game is not full pvp, but some people don't seem to understand PvP by consent. Game elements in an MMO are either PvP, PvE or meta (like this forum). If you're not stealing from NPCs, then newsflash, that is a player you're "versus". If that player was in a non-pvp zone, then how can you not realise that you have violated their consent regarding how they play this game? There are already ways in place to steal ships in pvp zones, go ahead, do that. I don't think you really need the ability to steal any ship universally, anywhere in the game. This game is still very far from a full release. RDMS is not 100% stable. I've deployed territory and been told I have no rights to it. I'm curious if the opposite is true (RDMS assigning open and universal rights with no player writing any policy). I'm curious what bugs will come in when static constructs become valid targets for weapons and damage. I'm honestly curious how people will react if Desolation argues that it didn't know, because it had not been explicitly told 'no' that propelling 2,000Kt of mass through a construct on Sanctuary and then fixing the wrecked core to claim ownership of it could possibly be a bug. Rather than trying to mass exploit bugs to gain "advantage" players at this stage should be focused on reporting when the game is not working as intended. Exploiting this bug, as others have said, is not an accident, it is very deliberate. As an aside, I'm also very concerned that many of the arguments used to say why Desolation should not be at the very least be reprimanded in public by NQ for the alleged deliberate and repeated abuse of mechanics in non-pvp areas of the game are the same arguments used by rape apologists. "I didn't know", "they didn't explicitly say no", "I'd got away with it for two weeks already", "it's the victim's fault for letting me get away with it". If anyone reading this honestly believes any of those arguments, please get professional help, as soon as you can.

So the phrase "don't DU it" is just a challenge for you to try to get away with doing breaking rules you disagree with because complying with them would require you to self-censor abuse of unintended gameplay features?

Please clarify your statement - you "don't" see this as an exploit, even after NQ have stated plainly that it is? Or did you intend to use the past tense, and are admitting now that your 'opinion' was misguided, and this is, in fact, an exploit?

Hi, so, new player here, was on my way to deploy my sanctuary territory unit, had paused (i.e. 0 speed) on my way up the lakeside out of Sanctuary 1 to F4 to check the map and set a way-point. When I closed the map I was stuck under ice and don't seem able to get out? Re-spawning will just put all my start inventory (including territory claim unit?) in bottom of lake / destroyed, so I'd rather not do that. Any advice? cheers, Mornington