Deathknight

You can actually use this to your advantage if you understand how it works.  So long as you log out with an active job you can have jobs queued against a linked container which doesn't yet have all the materials for the jobs.  When you log back in it will try to catch up the queue and this will work so long as the requisite materials are there when you log back in. 
 
So you can bank some manufacturing on an alt and then go gather what you need.  When you have enough raw material you log the alt back in and insta-build.
 

The photo is in dutch but i think people will get it. My appologies.

Why do you care about why he cares if you don't care?

Why do you care about why he cares if you don't care?

Why does civilization building equate to more ways to blow stuff up? I recognize that in RL, civilization does equal bigger wars, I just find it a little sad that this is just a matter of fact thing.
 
IMHO, we need a good foundation before all these features are dropped down. Just adding TW and AvA for the sake of blowing up more stuff doesn't help the game at all. We need a framework for all of these features that gives purposes to all of it. Civilizations go to war for reasons (usually). 
 
After improving the game we already have, I would rather see social and civilization type features added that act as as foundation that ties all of the other aspects of the game together. Politics, culture, trade, warfare should all be connected. Any actual civilization building game ties all of these together with benefits and consequences to pursuing any of those goals.

When an org is set to allow recruiting the only options legates have is accept or refuse.  We cannot ask questions or even give a reason for refusal. Would like to send a message or communicate with a person who applied. Seems basic and needed. 

Will anyone be streaming this? Sounds like The Morning Brew Show, Geo! If not I may (if not working) be around to lend a hand. Poke me in creators Disco

Confirmed, been using that method for a long time. 

Getting the scroll bar to 2/3rds of the way to the bottom just to see the first unpinned comment is excessive.

You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't make it true. You're also wrong. Hex ownership is all that matters.

Wow, what a time we're about to experience.
 
No, I'm not dead. I normally don't post on the forums, but I am returning back to Dual Universe after being away for a few years and boy lemme tell you. 
 
I'm glad to be officially back and I see we got new stuff. I got a lot of catching up to do so, thought I say hello 

I am not sure that NQ ever acknowledged that this was a bug, but they did say it would go to the active container, so I assume this is a bug that they just have neglected to fix.
 
It does surprise me though that this type of stuff happens. I would think that however they code this, linked container support would be baked in and it would go to your "active" container unless overridden. There are only a few cases where it should also go to your nanopack, like when compacting a ship.

Will NQ display the entries somewhere, so that we can see them all?

The average eve player isn't going to want to play DU any time soon of ever for a number of reasons including the culture of the comunity.  What DU needs to do is stop chasing away the people who *do* want to play by trying to get them to play in a different way.  It really is that easy.
 
I'm in a discord where there are lots of people who used to play DU.  Most don't any more since 0.23.  Many of them were never interested in the quanta-market based game but wanted to mine/build everything themselves and the current changes don't really seem to have them excited.  They should have let people play the way they wanted to play and built features on top to make that easier.

Looking forward to it. these next few months will be interesting.

I would also REALLY like to know what is happening with Element stacking and obstruction.
 
The current system is still very unpredictable and broken.  Elements that possibly should be affected by the stacking detection, are not.  And Elements that should not be affected, are.
 
I really don't think that it is a good idea to launch the game with a system that allows you to place an element in a specific position.  And then two days later, after you blueprint the construct and deploy a copy, you discover that some of the elements are considered to be in an incorrect position and need to be moved.
 
We need to know where it is legal to place an element, as we are placing it, not two days later.

Yes, this is a discussion forum. Posts like the 2FA one are kept around because it is important information, but it is no longer a topic of conversation. Move all this stuff to its own section and let some player posts get up near the top!

If NQ needs those topics to be easy to find give them their own section.

Date of the event: Saturday September 10
Time: 1900 UTC
Type of Event: PvP, Last Stand of Beta,   Public Fleet Battle
Description:  A homage to the great battleships of Beta, Ships also provided.
The last in the series of highly successful public fleets. 
Location
::pos{0,0,-2815953.4907,618689.9485,-302327.5077}
VR Station: Public Fleet Battle
Organization: Blackbriar Mercenary Inc
Contact: Devian ingame and discord 

It is absurd that release is scheduled and we don't have this mechanic in game, so that we can go to release with ship designs that work. People have tried to build ships that they thought were going to conform to the occlusion rules for brakes, once implemented, and then the orientation was changed. Now we still don't have the final version to test against.
 
If the UEF ships will be fixed in time, why can we not get the fix in beta, to confirm that it actually works with all of the beta resources?

this needs to be addressed before launch, as it is now you have ships in the UEF store with airbrakes stacked on top of each other and obstructed by other elements and honeycomb, is it staying like this or changing, this really needs to be finalized before launch

Because the person who created the "Talent Point Booster" graphic either failed statistics or aced marketing (or both), some people are confused as to what the graphic actually means. At best guess it means that:
1 month of 2x talent point gain; 3 months of 1.5x gain; 2 months of 1.25 gain.  
Now, why might people be confused at coming to this conclusion? Well ...
The x-axis on the graphic is extremely unhelpful/misleading/plain-wrong. November means "start of November" (or just before start of November); February means "start of February" (or just before start of february). However, March either means "end of March" or "a few days before the end of March" (to give exactly 6 months). One means start, the other means end. No wonder you're confused. The only reason we're able to figure the above out is a) because we were told elsewhere (not in the graphic!) that this is a 6 month event. This is not useful! (Yes, we can also look at the relative width of the bars as an extra hint, but see the below point ...) The y-axis is on a completely made up scale. It's not linear. Zero is not at the x-axis. So the height of the "2x" bar is not 1/3 more than the "1.5x" bar, and is certainly not 3/5 more than the "1.25x" bar. This is just plain misleading (i.e. marketing) to make the "2x" bar look much bigger than it actually is. [Edit] Finally, in terms of accessibility, colour-blind people will only see one bar colour here.  
This public service announcement brought to you by the Crusade Against Marketing Crap.

This is my personal opinion, how about you?

I think it matters a great deal how big or small your industry is. The impact is minimal for a small setup where you are just making a few things yourself. Sure it is annoying, but it is almost back to where things stood pre 0.23.
 
For a large factory, the impact is huge. It is not impossible to do a large factory, but it is so tedious it sucks the joy out of it.
 
Try out the FTEU and start building from scratch. The schematics are not bad on that scale. I sure hope they address the need to put the schematics into each individual machine before we get too far beyond release, because people are going to burn out on that fast.

Just raising the suggestion (again) of not requiring schematics for T1 products. If NQ is happy with T1 factories, then schematics on the final elements is ok and (mostly) managable for assemblers. Then if the player wants to go to T2+, sure, have pure and product schematics.

With T1 product schematics, the schematic tedium hits too quickly in basic industry. Make the game a little fun, please! 🙂