Deathknight

By thrusters, do you mean engines? You can use engines facing in any direction and they will fire as needed (ex: upward facing engine will fire when you are pressing C to go down). This does not work exactly like adjustors do however. Adjustors will roll, pitch, and yaw on the center axis of the ship. Engines push the entire ship from the direction they are facing. So an engine at the top front will not tilt the ship downward like an adjustor, it will just push the whole ship down without changing the pitch.

This I would like. After scanning for hexes to claim, the exploration is done. It would be nice to have some way to locate surface rocks that have high value that maybe are the result of a meteor strike or something. So they just randomly happen and are not something where the location is broadcast to everyone. Just a reward for people out there looking with some kind of scanner.

This happens to me as well.

Has anyone noticed any crashing issues with DLSS enabled? I am still trying to determine if the issues I have been having are just related to this patch or specifically when I turned on DLSS.

So true. I skip over the colored text. Sorry to whomever is using it, but it is just too hard to read. It's not a thing of not being able to bother with it, some people just have vision troubles!

Milking would have been not even hinting that a wipe was being considered. NQ let us know what was being considered. It involved multiple scenarios. They explained the rationale for each. NQ gets roasted fairly frequently for its decisions and communications (and I am not going to say they are blameless in all those cases). At this point, it is pretty understandable that they are not going to give an update until they have something firm. There are a lot of really amazing multi-core constructs out in the game and I know NQ really appreciates the time that was put into them. If I had to guess, I would say that saving these constructs is the main reason they have not just said the wipe is happening and you get nothing but BPs. In the end, they may not have the time or money to solve this issue, but I appreciate that they are trying to do the right thing.

Milking would have been not even hinting that a wipe was being considered. NQ let us know what was being considered. It involved multiple scenarios. They explained the rationale for each. NQ gets roasted fairly frequently for its decisions and communications (and I am not going to say they are blameless in all those cases). At this point, it is pretty understandable that they are not going to give an update until they have something firm. There are a lot of really amazing multi-core constructs out in the game and I know NQ really appreciates the time that was put into them. If I had to guess, I would say that saving these constructs is the main reason they have not just said the wipe is happening and you get nothing but BPs. In the end, they may not have the time or money to solve this issue, but I appreciate that they are trying to do the right thing.

Milking would have been not even hinting that a wipe was being considered. NQ let us know what was being considered. It involved multiple scenarios. They explained the rationale for each. NQ gets roasted fairly frequently for its decisions and communications (and I am not going to say they are blameless in all those cases). At this point, it is pretty understandable that they are not going to give an update until they have something firm. There are a lot of really amazing multi-core constructs out in the game and I know NQ really appreciates the time that was put into them. If I had to guess, I would say that saving these constructs is the main reason they have not just said the wipe is happening and you get nothing but BPs. In the end, they may not have the time or money to solve this issue, but I appreciate that they are trying to do the right thing.

Yes, you need schematic for both the fuel and the T2+ pure.

I would consider the patch that was just released to be the anti 0.23 to players that just wanted to make their own stuff. If you are not looking to run a massive factory with all machines going at once on one account, this patch is closer to what the game was pre 0.23. There are some tedious aspects to how the new process works that I hope they fix, but it is once again possible to casually run a factory for just yourself (you will need to either buy schematic copies or plan ahead and queue your own).

Listen, NQ, I get that this release was probably locked in stone before you posted any information regarding it, but maybe you could acknowledge our feedback at the time the release is made, so that we understand that we are being heard and are not wasting our time to create our posts? I know that some people are out there to just complain, but there are a lot of people that really take the time to consider things from multiple perspectives and they have some great ideas. Just slapping something out after receiving a couple of weeks of feedback, and then not saying a word about all of these suggestions really doesn't feel that great. I'm not asking for promises, but you can say that "we hear you, yes this process is more tedious than it needs to be and we are considering your feedback". Or "we didn't have time to implement a wallet selection, but that feature is coming". That would go far.

Unless they change the batch size for warp cells (which is currently 1) then it would be one schematic per warp cell. And if I remember right, you get 10 schematics per copy for warp cells. Increasing the batch size would be a little problematic early on, where you would need a lot of supporting infrastructure just to keep one machine producing warp cells.

It looks like warp cells are going to be a whole lot more expensive.

I am running under the assumption that we will keep Core BPs and nothing else, including talent points. Before the talk of wipes, I had always assumed we would carry those talent points over, but I'm just trying to keep myself in a mindset where I will not be disappointed right now. If we get talent points (some or all) that will be a bonus as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, I am a much bigger fan of the carrot than the stick when it comes to game design. Charge me what you need to charge and make other areas of the game more enticing (the carrot) vs making one thing less fun (the stick). If too many people want to play one area of the game and that hurts the economy, that just means that other game loops need to be improved or introduced to attract a greater percentage of players to them.

I was not a fan of the 0.23 update either, but as painful as it was for me, there was no way I was going to bail on this game I love so much that easily. We are just here giving feedback to help improve the existing game. If the developers have chosen this path, I (and many other players) would like to help guide them from a player's perspective. I think that is all we really can do if we want the game to succeed.

I made a thread devoted to this topic, but it has been suggested to me to make this post here to ensure that NQ sees it. @NQ With the information that has been provided by since the schematic changes have first been announced, I thought I would give some more detailed feedback. As you are keen to rush this straight to the prod server, I think getting early feedback will be useful. Looking Good Adding an additional time component to the industry process looks like it will an effective and fair way to reduce the ability of any one individual to mass produce items, at least without a large quanta cost. This seems to have the potential to be fair, if the numbers are tweaked properly. The Economy This additional dependency on Quanta is problematic for the economy I think. It would not be the case if the economy was in better shape, but as it is we are suffering from massive deflation due to the large quantity of currency leaving the game. This is an entire topic of its own, but I will just say that I hope you have further plans to fix the economy. Your concept of "faucets and sinks" does not work in a real economy. Maybe in a single player game that works, but in a real economy, currency should circulate --not be created and destroyed--. Tedious If the system works as described, where players need to place schematics into each assembly machine, this will make the process quite tedious. This is not the tedium of hard work that is rewarded, this is tedium that is unnecessary and will not be well received. Existing industry players will react poorly, knowing how pointless this exercise is. New players will quickly find it laughable. The consequences of this type of manual process will be numerous and negative. Organizations that run factories will not be able to easily manage feeding machines with a small number of players. This means expanding access to factories to a larger number of players, which is a security risk and would be difficult to coordinate. Suggestion to Reduce Tedium Please create a way for players to interact with the factory as a whole. Since connections cannot be made across cores, a factory can be considered a core with industry elements on it. Perhaps an industry element, like a schematic catalog machine, could be created that would be one per core. Link a container as input to this machine and let schematics placed into the container feed into the catalog. Once stored in the catalog, any machine within the factory could be allowed to use the schematics within the catalog. This would allow management of a factory to continue much as it does now, with schematics becoming another resource that is consumed as it becomes available. Even smaller player factories would benefit from the design immensely, as this would remove one of the most hated aspects of the 0.23 schematics patch. Larger org factories would take much less tedious planning and tracking of schematics, as well as the chore of feeding the machines. Members could donate schematics my leaving them in a container and any schematic would be welcome and could eventually be used. The catalog machine could be quite useful in a factory, showing schematics that are stored as well as schematics that are needed to allow stopped machines to run. I understand from your most recent video that you do not want to further automate industry, and I understand that desire. Implementing some way to feed schematics into the appropriate machines automatically would allow factories to be managed in a very similar way to how the currently operate. It is rather fun running a factory currently. If you feel factories need additional balancing, please do it via means other than intentionally making it miserably tedious. Thanks for your time Deathknight

@NQ With the information that has been provided by since the schematic changes have first been announced, I thought I would give some more detailed feedback. As you are keen to rush this straight to the prod server, I think getting early feedback will be useful. Looking Good Adding an additional time component to the industry process looks like it will an effective and fair way to reduce the ability of any one individual to mass produce items, at least without a large quanta cost. This seems to have the potential to be fair, if the numbers are tweaked properly. The Economy This additional dependency on Quanta is problematic for the economy I think. It would not be the case if the economy was in better shape, but as it is we are suffering from massive deflation due to the large quantity of currency leaving the game. This is an entire topic of its own, but I will just say that I hope you have further plans to fix the economy. Your concept of "faucets and sinks" does not work in a real economy. Maybe in a single player game that works, but in a real economy, currency should circulate --not be created and destroyed--. Tedious If the system works as described, where players need to place schematics into each assembly machine, this will make the process quite tedious. This is not the tedium of hard work that is rewarded, this is tedium that is unnecessary and will not be well received. Existing industry players will react poorly, knowing how pointless this exercise is. New players will quickly find it laughable. The consequences of this type of manual process will be numerous and negative. Organizations that run factories will not be able to easily manage feeding machines with a small number of players. This means expanding access to factories to a larger number of players, which is a security risk and would be difficult to coordinate. Suggestion to Reduce Tedium Please create a way for players to interact with the factory as a whole. Since connections cannot be made across cores, a factory can be considered a core with industry elements on it. Perhaps an industry element, like a schematic catalog machine, could be created that would be one per core. Link a container as input to this machine and let schematics placed into the container feed into the catalog. Once stored in the catalog, any machine within the factory could be allowed to use the schematics within the catalog. This would allow management of a factory to continue much as it does now, with schematics becoming another resource that is consumed as it becomes available. Even smaller player factories would benefit from the design immensely, as this would remove one of the most hated aspects of the 0.23 schematics patch. Larger org factories would take much less tedious planning and tracking of schematics, as well as the chore of feeding the machines. Members could donate schematics my leaving them in a container and any schematic would be welcome and could eventually be used. The catalog machine could be quite useful in a factory, showing schematics that are stored as well as schematics that are needed to allow stopped machines to run. I understand from your most recent video that you do not want to further automate industry, and I understand that desire. Implementing some way to feed schematics into the appropriate machines automatically would allow factories to be managed in a very similar way to how the currently operate. It is rather fun running a factory currently. If you feel factories need additional balancing, please do it via means other than intentionally making it miserably tedious. Wallet It is not clear in the video where the money to pay for the schematic copy will come from. I take this to mean that it comes from the players wallet? If that is currently what is planned, please consider adding an org wallet selection. Transferring money between players constantly is a real pain and that is what the wallets are there for. Thanks for your time Deathknight

I love this game, it has captured my heart like no other. I have seen the massive potential from the first time I played. I have always had this wistful fantasy of what it could one day be. Over the course of the beta, there have been many changes, the game has become much more stable, and these changes touch on many different avenues of gameplay. One area that doesn't seem to have received any attention at all however, is making the game more social. The best memories I have in DU involve coming together with other players. It might be pure shenanigans, or to mine together, or maybe to build collaboratively. All of the scenarios I mentioned eventually stopped happening. There are many aspects of this game that heavily incentivize players to do particular things. For example, taxes heavily incentivize players to make money, not to hang out with friends and race ships. How can we expect there to be any social scene in the game when both carrot and stick are being used to drive people toward things that NQ wants us to do? We can build really awesome creations, player designed marketplaces full of gorgeous player made ships, but how do we get the bustling "living" feeling in the world, where people are together in an area, like is shown in promotional material and has been spoken about as a desire of NQ through development? In my opinion, if this game is going the route of having so many costs and those being balanced with carrots that the players will want to pursue, then there needs to be a currency or commodity for socialization. My proposal is that some form of influence system is created, which will reward players and orgs that contribute to projects that cause players to gather and build together. This system would also need to provide a benefit to players that visit these areas. We currently have a job system that lets us hire people to pick up our market orders and deliver them to us, without ever seeing the hauler. Super convenient! It does not feel like a massively multiplayer game however, when we never go to a place and see other people. Now if we had player created market areas (these types of locations have already been created, but many get no traffic) we could incentivize players for using them. Builders that gather and build with other builders that have accumulated some influence, could grow their influence. Orgs that provide these market areas could gain influence as people visit. The visitors could gain some small degree of influence by just shopping. There really are a lot of directions this could be taken. Maybe an very influential player or org might see a benefit from other players claiming hexes around them, and also building influence. The core driver of this player interaction should be rewarded for helping players gather. Players should in turn be rewarded for their part in creating this living part of the game world. Maybe the most influential player/org in the area gets reduced taxes, or a portion of the tax revenue of those tiles around them? I leave it to you to flesh out the mechanics and how the rewards should work, but I will suffice it to say that players have been asking for social features for a long time, and now that the game is less free-form and you are strongly encouraged to do specific –profitable– things, we really could use a reason to interact, now more than ever. Deathknight

Based on the explanation you have given so far of the changes, it appears that running a factory will involve running between machines, stuffing punch cards into them. This concept is laughable. We can access all of the industry machines on a core via lua, and see their status. The technology exists in both the game and the game lore. Why are we physically putting things into these machines? If your goal is to reduce the number of industry players and factories, I do think you will be successful, but not due to clever design. This will so tedious that many people will want nothing to do with it. Understand your product. What makes industry fun in the first place? I love designing the factory. Creating the layout, managing the connection limits, figuring out how to maintain a high throughput. These are all cerebral tasks. The people that are attracted to this style of gameplay don't want to put punch cards into machines. This is what automation in a factory is supposed to eliminate! I am sure at this point the punch card design is too far into development to change. Could we at least have a way to interact with the entire factory (all industry on the core) and not deal with putting punch cards into individual machines? This would remove much of the tedium while also making it easier for multiple people to maintain a factory.

First off, I would just like to state up front, regardless of whether the proposed org changes are the right decision or not, I feel that the approach that has been taken, where this change is introduced independent from and after the introduction of mining units, is just flat out wrong. I was not pleased by the loss of traditional mining, but I drank the kool-aid and committed to trying mining. Many benefits to this system were touted by NQ. For example, the adjacency bonus. This system requires cores to use and incentivizes going bigger. The more tiles you mine (and thus cores you use) gives a larger benefit. So instead of a 1 to 1 benefit from each core used, we were encouraged by this system to grow the number of cores used. Only then, after all this work is done, do we get the carrot replaced with the stick. Now that this ugliness is out of the way, my thoughts on the actual change: In the right ballpark, but missed by a wide margin. This is a game of building and unlimited possibilities. All I see recently is limitations. In this solution, all constructs are treated equally. I don't think that this is the right approach. We have little or no in game reasons to collaborate, outside of the human need for socialization. There is nothing in the game that actually benefits players coming together to work on projects. Where are the social features? Where is the benefit for orgs that add content and culture to the game? I would like to see an influence system added to the game that would allow creators (either individuals or traditional orgs composed of many distinct players) to be incentivized for creating content in the game. If we the players are supposed to create the game content, we should not be punished for doing so, we should be rewarded. There are many large projects in the game that NQ uses to advertise DU. This is the content and is what makes DU special. These projects consume cores and add value to DU. These projects should be rewarded. If we had a system of influence that rewarded content creators and gave a benefit to visit these constructs, this would be a giant step in the right direction. As it stands now, many multi-core creations that enrich the game are at risk. These constructs are treated the same as a core that has mining units and nothing else on it. Now if we had some system of influence, where players and orgs that create content that the community enjoys, we could be rewarded for creating excellent content. The rewards could be a decreased cost in core count because of the benefit to the game, decreased tax, etc. Beyond this, many game systems could be created or enhanced a great deal. We could vie for influence over a region and have some type of governmental control. Territory warfare doesn't need to be the only way we can impact the world and control an area. Just like music, art, and religion can shape our real world, works of art in the game should have an equal impact on the game world. I want to see more wild creations from the mad scientist builders. All I see is that these players in particular are going to be hindered the most, yet these are the very players that provide the most benefit to the game and community. I would gladly pay an additional amount for my subscription to have the sandbox I fell in love with. I was sold a dream of player created cities and empires. The future I see is massive stress from monitoring tile taxes and core counts. Who wants to suddenly lose a project they have been working on for a couple of years, because they are ambitious and then have a real world problem take them away from the game for a bit? My challenge to you NQ: I would like to know who is the creative lead on this game now. Please have this person come introduce themselves and explain what is the overall direction of the game. In spirit, DU does not seem to be heading to the same destination that we set out for at the start of beta, let alone what was pitched in the Kickstarter. I think we all would appreciate a better understanding of what the end goal is.

It may be possible to get this error for multiple reasons, but I did figure out one reason it happens, and perhaps it will help you. Regardless, this is something that NQ needs to address to make using the mining units more user friendly. So what can happen is that you might have a player owned hex with an org owned core on it. Really, it can be the opposite, it just needs to be a different hex owner vs the owner of the core. Then you place the mining unit on the core and try to mine, and you get unauthorized request because the org that owns the core does not have permission to use a mining unit on that tile. This is the key point -- the player is not what is getting the permission checked -- it is the owner of the core. To get this scenario to work, you need to create a policy for the owner of the hex, add the org that owns the core as an actor, the mining unit right, and the tag for the hex. There really needs to be an easier way to make this work. I get how RDMS works and I was able to troubleshoot this issue, but that is a lot of hoops and many people will not understand why this doesn't work. You own the hex and the org you are super legate of owns the core, but it says you are unauthorized. Clearly RDMS is working like it should, because the org indeed does not have access to use a mining unit on the tile. Expecting people to figure this out and set it up on their own is a big ask however.

@NQ Please reconsider ending this testing session on early Monday morning. This test is extremely important and the players that are committed to thoroughly exploring the jns and outs of this change were given several obstacles to contend with. First, many players have been dealing with the geometry reset. My base is underground and I needed to spend a good amount of time to just asses to the impact to my area and reach my linked containers. Next, there was the utterly incomprehensible decision to test a change to airbrakes simultaneous to the actual Demeter testing. Experimenting to discover what will and won't obstruct brakes so that I can just fly mining units somewhere is crazy to ask in such a short timeframe. Lastly, consider the full lifecycle of operating a mining unit. Calibrate to get it running, then recalibrate as the percentage gets low. Well you have a 48 hour cooldown on calibrations for a test that spans only a weekend. This entire test seems to be more of a formality than a legitimate exercise to assure the quality of the product and give players a chance to provide meaningful feedback.

Yeah, I think that is just how it is showing existing scans. If you run new scans on PTS, you only see the pool column and not the ground resources. This looks like it is just terminology they are using with auto mining. You have a pool available to mine from and you can select only from that pool.

Much like Helvetian, I have done the same thing, where I claimed tiles around where I was building for a buffer. I do also perform money making activities in the game, but I have claimed tiles just for their natural beauty and then build on them. It would be a shame to just give these tiles up because they are not profitable. Taxes in real life are based on the assessed value of the land and the zoning of said land. There should be an option to own land without mining. I also feel that the adjacency bonus, while a good mechanic for auto-mining, is contrary to the goal of creating cities and empires in the game. If players are encouraged to claim land in clumps of tiles, we won't connect together as the game world grows. In many areas this won't be an issue, but on Alioth, Freeport, some places on Madis, I could see this being a problem.