michaelk

A player taking advantage of how elements load into the game to construct an invisible wall of death is clearly exploitative. It takes advantage of technical flaws with the game, not an intended game mechanic.
 
I don't really think NQ should step in, though. When issues like this are dealt with ad-hoc by GMs, it is sloppy and prone to inconsistency. It doesn't stop bad behavior, it punishes it after the fact. Frankly, NQ will never be able to afford enough GMs to monitor players for "good behavior". 
 
If they want to stop a behavior, it's easy -- just fix the technical issues or game rules that make griefing possible.
 
The rules of the game shouldn't be a guess. If you can do it, it is legal. If you shouldn't be able to do it, the game should not let you do it...not an underpaid and overworked GM prone to human error. 

When this eventually goes tits up, the people defending this sort of thing will be blaming carebears for the end times.

I use dongs to mark unclaimed tiles that I mined out because they are easier to spot than holes.
 
Removing these markers is griefing. Frankly I think they are a public service, if you see a dong, you know that tile has been mined. 
 
Please don't grief.
 

PS I need to get back to this even if it is off topic. 
 
Whose job will this be? I am looking for part time employment and am very good at recognizing dongs from a distance. I promise to delete all but the most artistic of them. 

My point isn't that everything you can do in the game is "okay" -- it's that if NQ doesn't want a player to do something, they can stop it by patching the game and fixing the game rules.
 
IMO fixing the game rules is the only way to stop "exploits" -- because the honor system or GM enforcement isn't realistic or scalable. 
 
 

The design team has been constantly utterly underestimating the players though.  Solving whatever riddle that was supposed to take 2 years,  range limits based on core size, and thinking that each tier of ore was 5x harder than the previous tier (to the detriment of market balance).  
 
thinking they get other player interactions balanced on a mechanic release/change is very optimistic.

A player taking advantage of how elements load into the game to construct an invisible wall of death is clearly exploitative. It takes advantage of technical flaws with the game, not an intended game mechanic.
 
I don't really think NQ should step in, though. When issues like this are dealt with ad-hoc by GMs, it is sloppy and prone to inconsistency. It doesn't stop bad behavior, it punishes it after the fact. Frankly, NQ will never be able to afford enough GMs to monitor players for "good behavior". 
 
If they want to stop a behavior, it's easy -- just fix the technical issues or game rules that make griefing possible.
 
The rules of the game shouldn't be a guess. If you can do it, it is legal. If you shouldn't be able to do it, the game should not let you do it...not an underpaid and overworked GM prone to human error. 

I've never believed in a company banning players because of exploits, especially for an MMO...if you don't want players to exploit something, how about fixing it, instead...? It's your programming error and you shouldn't be surprised that the "honor system" doesn't work. Bans are a fear-based way to buy the devs more time to fix their mistakes, which NQ isn't very quick to do. 
 
I also don't agree with people arguing that something should stay in the game because it "makes it more realistic".
 
Realism isn't the the main consideration for successful game design. 
 
There's always going to be lots of elements in DU that aren't "realistic" because it's a game, and it has to work as a game.
 
Features need to have an actual purpose cohesive to the design of the game beyond "that's how it might work in reality". There needs to be a certain level of fairness that doesn't exist in the real world -- e.g. having clear rules for when your ships are safe or not. If parking in a random tile is a risk, that needs to be reflected in the rules/tutorials and balanced into the game. 

Too many years of gaming has shown me otherwise.
 
Countless times I see a 'carebear' (a term pvp'rs came up with mind you), make mention of an unfair or unruly action which boils down to just a few despicable people griefing those who are not griefers. Pretty much like this thread was about someone doing something questionable in the name of lulz.
 
This mention is then immediately attacked by all the pvp'rs, throwing insults, name calling, and taking that mention into new heights of flaming high trolldom. Generally.
 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
 
PS: I've done my fair share of pvp, trolling, griefing in my life... I'm just too old to give a shit now.

There are a lot of practical benefits when it comes to ship aesthetics. Well...sort of practical. 
 
Your fleet ought to be recognizable. Everyone knows a Federation ship when they see it -- if you attack it, you'd best be ready for war with the entire faction. 
 
They design ships to look pretty and consistent -- sure, they could pump out a bunch of war ships, but the design is a reflection of their values as an organization.
 
If a Federation ship shows up to answer your distress call, you probably trust them more than a stranger. Even if you aren't familiar with their org, they don't look like warships. You wouldn't invest in pretty ships if your only concern is piracy/war. 
 
Cohesive ship design helps build the organization's reputation across the galaxy -- and this reputation helps each individual ship stay safer...or be more feared, or whatever values you want to reflect.  
 
For those of us that want to play a civilization sandbox, these sorts of things will hopefully be important. 
 
My hope is that generic cube ships (if they remain in meta) get treated as "pirates" on sight by more organized fleets -- e.g. if your ship looks like it is a generic cube built only for combat that doesn't belong to any faction...maybe you get treated like the dirty space rat you are by more civilization-focused orgs.  

There are a lot of practical benefits when it comes to ship aesthetics. Well...sort of practical. 
 
Your fleet ought to be recognizable. Everyone knows a Federation ship when they see it -- if you attack it, you'd best be ready for war with the entire faction. 
 
They design ships to look pretty and consistent -- sure, they could pump out a bunch of war ships, but the design is a reflection of their values as an organization.
 
If a Federation ship shows up to answer your distress call, you probably trust them more than a stranger. Even if you aren't familiar with their org, they don't look like warships. You wouldn't invest in pretty ships if your only concern is piracy/war. 
 
Cohesive ship design helps build the organization's reputation across the galaxy -- and this reputation helps each individual ship stay safer...or be more feared, or whatever values you want to reflect.  
 
For those of us that want to play a civilization sandbox, these sorts of things will hopefully be important. 
 
My hope is that generic cube ships (if they remain in meta) get treated as "pirates" on sight by more organized fleets -- e.g. if your ship looks like it is a generic cube built only for combat that doesn't belong to any faction...maybe you get treated like the dirty space rat you are by more civilization-focused orgs.  

It's not choosing the grind life, I was giving the Dev's an honest "first impression" that's all.  I'll dig a little deeper into the game proper, and probably join an org to get the most of the time I am in the game.   I think, for them, it would be useful to hear feedback from people in a beta, as honestly as can be done.  That's why I laid out my gaming experience, and my "first impressions".  First impressions are super important in life, you don't show up at a job interview in slacker attire, and then expect the boss to hire you because maybe later you'll be well dressed...

(Not saying that applies here just an example of First Impressions)

I know a lot of gamers whose first 2 hours with a game makes or breaks their interest in said gaming experience.   As I have a lot more experience in games and know that maybe if I push a little harder, there is a gem to be had I'll play out the beta, but my initial feeling on the matter is not a mostly positive long term view of the game.  Maybe it will change and I'll post an updated "My on going impression of Dual Universe".

There are a lot of practical benefits when it comes to ship aesthetics. Well...sort of practical. 
 
Your fleet ought to be recognizable. Everyone knows a Federation ship when they see it -- if you attack it, you'd best be ready for war with the entire faction. 
 
They design ships to look pretty and consistent -- sure, they could pump out a bunch of war ships, but the design is a reflection of their values as an organization.
 
If a Federation ship shows up to answer your distress call, you probably trust them more than a stranger. Even if you aren't familiar with their org, they don't look like warships. You wouldn't invest in pretty ships if your only concern is piracy/war. 
 
Cohesive ship design helps build the organization's reputation across the galaxy -- and this reputation helps each individual ship stay safer...or be more feared, or whatever values you want to reflect.  
 
For those of us that want to play a civilization sandbox, these sorts of things will hopefully be important. 
 
My hope is that generic cube ships (if they remain in meta) get treated as "pirates" on sight by more organized fleets -- e.g. if your ship looks like it is a generic cube built only for combat that doesn't belong to any faction...maybe you get treated like the dirty space rat you are by more civilization-focused orgs.  

And this, folks, right here is still the case after 6 years in development.

There are a lot of practical benefits when it comes to ship aesthetics. Well...sort of practical. 
 
Your fleet ought to be recognizable. Everyone knows a Federation ship when they see it -- if you attack it, you'd best be ready for war with the entire faction. 
 
They design ships to look pretty and consistent -- sure, they could pump out a bunch of war ships, but the design is a reflection of their values as an organization.
 
If a Federation ship shows up to answer your distress call, you probably trust them more than a stranger. Even if you aren't familiar with their org, they don't look like warships. You wouldn't invest in pretty ships if your only concern is piracy/war. 
 
Cohesive ship design helps build the organization's reputation across the galaxy -- and this reputation helps each individual ship stay safer...or be more feared, or whatever values you want to reflect.  
 
For those of us that want to play a civilization sandbox, these sorts of things will hopefully be important. 
 
My hope is that generic cube ships (if they remain in meta) get treated as "pirates" on sight by more organized fleets -- e.g. if your ship looks like it is a generic cube built only for combat that doesn't belong to any faction...maybe you get treated like the dirty space rat you are by more civilization-focused orgs.  

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

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

IMHO, there is no realistic vision for the game. It makes me sad. The promises are so vague and grand, people see everything in DU. 
 
After six years of dev, the foundations for this game should be done and solid as diamond.
 
You can't build a civilization on a cracked foundation, and this foundation is like a thick soup. If someone told me this game has been in dev for 10 months, I'd believe them. 
 
JC isn't a game designer. He's an ideas person. It's dangerous when someone like that is at the helm, because they have fleshed out exactly 0 real details about how the game will actually function. It is a collection of "great ideas" and "hey wouldn't this be so cool" without a comprehensive plan. A complex project requires a solid foundation. That means knowing exactly what's going to be built on top of it. 
 
The balance between building and PvP should have been hammered down years ago; instead, they seem to be completely winging it
 
Humility is really important in development. Ideas that seem easy rarely are, especially at scale. Everything is soul-crushingly difficult. Being a brilliant roboticist doesn't mean you're going to be a humble leader that listens to designers and engineers that have been down this road countless times. 
 
If anyone remembers Lionshead and their propensity to overpromise...try "Civilization Sandbox". 
 
I do hope NQ can focus and make some definitive progress in the next few months. They need a veteran in the field with fresh perspective that can challenge JC's inexperience and hasn't spent 10,000 hours staring at the game...

Getting joy from taking someone's queen in chess is being sadistic.

I don't think it's as bleak as that - but I do think that the devs have more ideas about WHAT they want rather than HOW they want it.
 
The devil is in the details and we just don't have them - especially in how territory control will work, what will and won't be PvP.
 
The fact that we do not know what will happen to Alioth is something I just can't wrap my mind around. Will it be pvp? Will it stay pve? What is this nonsense about half and half? How can we be committed into building large structures if we don't know what will happen to them?
 

+999 This so much. Jumping back and forth between inventory and market, splitting ore etc. into chunks that will fit the nanopack is a contender for most tedious game mechanic of the year..

I am in this game to build, period. So how the safe-zone ecosystem turns out, is going to be a deciding factor if I stay or not.
 
As to why. For a builder type the process of creating is just as fun as the process of destroying for PvP'ers. The challenge then is that destroying usually is much faster and easier then creating, resulting in builder types being pushed out of the game.

I agree with all accounts above.
 
As it stands, trying to 'look to the future', its hard to tell. It already gave me one sleepless night pondering "should I really invest my time here" ... "is this headed the right way". Granted I've got a year sub plunked in, so I'm here for that time. I hope during that time I see movement towards positive vast-audience changes, and less pigeon holing to one demographic. From a business perspective, rounding it out to entice all three kinds of gamers, is a good thing to push for. However, devs have visions too, and its still their baby to do with as they please.
 
In the meantime, our lil org is off building and fiddling around with what the game can do, slowly, cause crafting is a sloowwwasssspaaaaaaiiinnnn ugh  

You could say that about all music, art, fictional literature, beautiful scenery, infact any form of entertainment really - 'it's nice but pretty useless'  

Some people (like me) like nice things, so we will make nice things, if you just want 'useful' things, that is up to you.

My point isn't that DU must be AAA-level pretty...it's that their poor performance isn't a result of some mind-bending, cutting-edge tech that will make 30,000 person battles an effortless thing to handle. "Single-shard" is more of a marketing concept than a technical one; as I mentioned, most MMOs already use auto-scaling fleets of servers instead of singular machines. Server tech has nothing to do with client-side issues and GPU utilization that's far too high for the quality we see. 
 
The OP's point is that this isn't really a beta -- it has years before it is feature complete and a big part of that is optimization.
 
Anyone that's worked in any sizable software project knows that optimizing after the fact is much, much harder than writing a solid core. If the game is struggling at this point when most the features aren't even implemented...that means a lot more dev cycles will be spent fixing mistakes vs. improving the game.  
 
If you're going to set extremely ambitious technical goals and sell those ideas as a core feature that's fantastic -- but it's 100% reasonable to be skeptical of grand claims, especially when the game struggled so bad to become stable even with a small beta launch. IMO the only reason it even improved is because people are farther apart and there's fewer players logging in...
 
Of course DU has a lot of room for optimization and I have no doubt it will improve immensely in the coming years -- but it will be years of beta...and ultimately? Single-shard is just a cluster of servers like any other. It'll be subject to the same practical and financial constraints as any other IP...especially if the game continues to focus on a niche space. 

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