Atmosph3rik

I agree with this part. But everything else you're saying sounds like you want to watch one of NQ's PVP promo videos while you're doing PVP. You said you're a game dev, i am definitely not, so you may know better then me, but is that possible? In a large battle with 20+ ships, is the game going to be able to handle rendering a whole little movie for streamers to watch at the same time? Will changing the rules of PVP so all those ships have to be close enough to see each other affect performance?

But when you say you don't want to "chase a red square" what does that mean? What do you want to chase? Because I assumed you meant you wanted to chase a tie fighter or something like that. I'm sure the PVP needs lots of work still. But it will always be "lock and fire" combat. It's a sacrifice they decided on at the very start, so we could have everything else. I've just seen the result of people blindly complaining that this type of combat should be more "fun" or more "skill based" and it's the worst of both worlds. I would rather have lock and fire combat, with depth, then combat that's exciting to watch. I don't think we can have both.

These posts always seem to totally ignore the reality of technical limitations. If it was possible to have all the things that DU has, and hyper realistic visual combat, don't you think at least one or two other games would have that by now? There are plenty of other games with hyper realistic visual combat, so if that's what you want you can have it. And if you find a game with it all, please let me know.

Industry already makes scrap. Scrap is used to repair broken items. This is already done. Element repair is already a part of the economy. The only reason they added "lives" to elements in PVP is because they needed fights to end eventually. The idea is that you can't PVP anymore and have to go buy new elements. This isn't because NQ wants people to stop playing, this is just because in PVP, fights need to end eventually. So outside of PVP what would be the result of this? I have to stop playing and go buy more elements. Seems like that just makes the game worse. especially when element repair is already part of the economy so there is literally no need for it.

Elements already take damage. and we already spend ore, in the form of scrap, to repair them. What would be the point in requiring us to actually remove an element and replace it with a new one?

Well i'm a kickstarter backer who plays daily and i think the territory tax is a good idea. There's plenty of room to build without claiming multiple tiles. If you don't feel like paying any tax at all there's a huge sanctuary moon just sitting there wasting space. It's not a big deal. And claiming that people who left because the game wasn't finished enough, won't come back because they are inconvenienced by the game getting finished, is kind of backwards.

Brakes having obstruction makes sense. All the other functional elements have it. What doesn't make sense is atmo brakes not having obstruction all this time and then deciding to change it without telling us anything. I'm hoping NQ takes their time with this change and makes sure it works before they implement it. And I would really like to see some improvements to how obstruction works before they mess with the brakes. Right now it's pretty frustrating trying to figure out if an element is obstructed, and if it is, why. When it says an element is obstructed 10%, does that mean it's obstructed 10%, 100% of the time? Or that it's obstructed 100%, 10% of the time? Seriously though if an element is obstructed it should show as obstructed all the time. Why does the little fan icon turn on and off constantly??? it's driving me nuts. We need a system that shows you exactly what the size and shape of the obstruction cone is, so we know what is causing the obstruction, and we need a clear indicator whether an element is obstructed or not. I shouldn't have to wait 20mins for the little fan icon to blink once for exactly 2 seconds, to know an element is still obstructed at 5%. That's insane. NQ please consider fixing obstruction first, and then do the brakes.

Could you give us some more details on what the limitation might be? The sooner we know the sooner we can start considering it in how we are building now.

My nephew plays Minecraft on his parent's ipad. I don't think DU will run on an ipad... But when he's old enough, i'm sure he'll be tired of Minecraft, like i am, and looking for something new. Personally i hope NQ sticks to their vision, because i think that's why Minecraft was so successful. But if i wanted to play Minecraft, i would just play Minecraft.

To make a copy of the Blueprint, enter Build mode on the construct, and right click "Create Core Blueprint". That will make a new "Core Blueprint" with DRM on. There is also another option to make a Core BP with DRM off. I'm not sure what they mean by "put rights on it" though.

DRM is like copyright protection for the construct. It can be turned on or off by the original creator of the BP. With DRM on, no one except the creator of the BP can make another Blueprint from the construct, or copy voxels from the construct to another core. Blueprints can be made with DRM turned on or off by default when a construct is deployed. So if your Blueprint has DRM off, that means that you will be able to make more BPs from the construct, and copy voxels from it, even if you are not the original creator. If DRM was on, and you were not the original creator, then you can still edit the construct, you just can't copy from it, or duplicate it.

You need the BP and all the materials to be in the same place. Everything in your nanopack, with the nonopack set as primary, or everything in a linked container, with the container set as your primary container.

That is weird. I think you should be able to dock without any permissions if you own both ships. When you try to Dock i think you need to hit ALT-T to initiate the docking. Did you try that?

I haven't done any testing on this myself so i'm just going by what i've heard. But i think it affects the game's performance for anyone near the ship. When a ship has a few hundred engines or adjusters all firing at the same time, all those visual effects at once can't be good for performance. But it would be easy enough for NQ to give us an option to turn those effects off, so there is probably more to it then that. I think the ability to dock cores together to make larger ships is a bit like element stacking. NQ is letting us do it for now, to see how it affects the game. But i wouldn't expect it to work like that forever. It's not giving anyone an unfair advantage, so i wouldn't expect a big crackdown from NQ, but they might change how docking works in the future so it's not possible anymore.

You need to give the pilot permission using the R.D.M.S. (Rights and Duties Management System). There is an in game tutorial that will explain this better then i can here, it is a bit complicated. On the RDMS tab (F7), you need to create a "Policy". Then you need to add an "Actor", that is the pilot you want to give permission to. Then add a "Right" to the policy, "Dock Construct". And finally you need to add a "Tag" to the policy, and then Save & Close the tab. And then you will need to add that same Tag to the construct by right clicking the construct, Construct > Advanced > Set Construct rights, and find the Tag you created in the dropdown list and add it, then Save and Close. You might need to log out and back in for the Policy to take effect also.

Unless something changed with the last update, we've always been able to dock multiple cores together to build larger ships. The real limitation on ship size is elements. You can only use so many of them before it starts to affect performance. So until NQ gives us larger more powerful elements, there's not much point in building larger ships. But you can.

referring to yourself as "the community" is kinda weird.

Any element placement that requires an exploit is not allowed. Seems pretty straight forward to me. All that matters is how you were able to achieve S2. If S2 requires an exploit, then it's an exploit. If it doesn't, then it's not. Currently there is only S0 and S1. Anything else requires an exploit. Honestly i think the word stacking is making this whole thing harder for people to understand. Forget about stacking. There is element placement that doesn't require an exploit, and element placement that does. That's it.

One or two engines wouldn't be the max though, it would be the middle, or balanced. I'm over simplifying how this would work hopefully, but imagine each type of element needed one unit of power to function, and you had something like 14 units available on your core. two for atmo engines, two for space engines, lift, brakes, shields, storage and weapons. So if you don't need weapons, you've got two more points to spend somewhere else. That would still allow you to totally ignore PVP, or hauling, or build a ship that's space or atmo only, and dedicate all that power somewhere else. Hopefully it would be a lot more interesting then that, with different tiers of elements requiring different amounts of power, higher tier cores with higher power output maybe. But the goal would be that if you want your ship to be above average in one area, you have to give something up in another area, like you said. The docking thing could be a problem. But i don't think docking was really intended to be used to tow another ship that's the same size/mass. Maybe docking should disengage if the docked ship weighs too much compared to the parent ship, or something like that. Although that's the only way people are able to build larger ships right now, so if they changed that hopefully they give us XL cores too.

You have to right click the core element itself and there's an option to enable/disable DRM. Turning DRM on or off only applies to that individual construct also. When you create a Blueprint by default it should make a construct with DRM enabled, and only the creator can disable it. There's also an option to create a DRM free Blueprint that will create a construct with DRM off by default. At least that was how it was supposed to work when they introduced it. Who knows now i guess ?

From the perspective of a ship builder, @EpicPhail is right. A lot of people were using element stacking to build ships that looked good, but could still haul the most weight possible. There were other reasons people were using element stacking too. But all you have to do is read the OP to see that isn't the topic. So in my opinion the first thing NQ needs to do is decide how much thrust, lift, brakes ect they want each core size to be able to handle. Then they need to make the elements powerful enough that you only need one or two of each type of element to reach that level. Because having a thousand elements is bad for performance and it looks like crap. Then they need a new way of limiting the number of functional elements that we can put on a ship. Something like a power management system that makes you choose where you want to use power, instead of simply deciding how much power you want to pile on. Hopefully NQ is already working on it. And if they aren't, hopefully this whole element stacking thing makes them realize that we need it.

Except they're right. There's two totally separate issues here but your so caught up on the idea that someone might have gotten more stuff then you, that your just having your own little argument against element stacking and ignoring everything else. Stacking was an exploit and it needed to be fixed. Literally no one is disputing that. Stacking was giving people an unfair advantage in PVP. Stacking was also an easy way around the fact that the only method of balancing how many functional elements can fit on one ship is the choice to sacrifice aesthetic appeal. When building a ship you have to choose between a ship that looks good, or ship that can compete with other ships in terms of functionality. That's a terrible way of balancing it. and stacking wouldn't have been nearly as prevalent if that wasn't the case. Stacking was an exploit, but it was also a symptom of the fact that they need a better method of balancing power. See how the one topic leads into the other one? if you actually read the words. So do you think we could all go back to the other thread and have a nice discussion about engine buffs and power management now, without all the derailing?

This is the same idea from the other thread that you've posted in like 5 times arguing against it though lol It's too bad you worked so hard to derail that thread or we could have had a nice discussion about the idea.

Honestly element stacking has no real use in anything other then PVP as far as i know. I have no idea how effective it is in PVP, but i assume it must be making a difference otherwise NQ wouldn't be doing all of this. But for hauling weight, if you need more room for elements you can always use a larger core. So unless you are running out of room for engines and containers on a Large core, then you have no reason to stack elements. The exploit needed to be fixed. But the answer to your question is that no one was getting rich running missions because of element stacking. They could have made just as much Quanta running missions in a giant cube shaped pile of elements.

No i'm saying all the hitboxes are colliding. Because the normal placement rules allowed it in a lot of situations that had nothing to do with the exploit. That won't work as a way of separating exploited ships from non-exploited ships. What i'm hoping is that they make functional elements become non-functional depending on what % the hitboxes are colliding. So a slight overlap like an adjuster on the side of an engine wouldn't do anything. But two engines both in the same spot become totally non-functional. That way they can still allow some freedom in element placement, but all the old stacked blueprints will be useless.