Atmosph3rik

They can't possibly expect people to constantly create and restock these expendable schematics for things like Warp Cells, Fuel, or Pures.  That's a horrible idea.
 
 
 
 
 
 

They can't possibly expect people to constantly create and restock these expendable schematics for things like Warp Cells, Fuel, or Pures.  That's a horrible idea.
 
 
 
 
 
 

They can't possibly expect people to constantly create and restock these expendable schematics for things like Warp Cells, Fuel, or Pures.  That's a horrible idea.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Im not sure I like the idea of consumable schematics. It feels wrong and annoying. And I don't understand the reasoning behind the choice.
 
Suggestion
Use the new schematic system. But instead of consuming schematics for every element production, use a schematic to "fix" an industry to produce that element. The schematic is consumed by this action but the industry can produce this element as long as it's not picked up. Another schematic can be applied to the industry overriding the previews one. Essentially fixing the industry to produce the new element. This kinda works the same in reality when you want to change a factory to produce something else it costs money. That way you don't constantly have to refill the schematics but they are still consumed. It feels really odd, unrealistic, not immersive and possibly annoying otherwise.
 
edit: you can even include all the parts and other items that way.

They can't possibly expect people to constantly create and restock these expendable schematics for things like Warp Cells, Fuel, or Pures.  That's a horrible idea.
 
 
 
 
 
 

They can't possibly expect people to constantly create and restock these expendable schematics for things like Warp Cells, Fuel, or Pures.  That's a horrible idea.
 
 
 
 
 
 

They can't possibly expect people to constantly create and restock these expendable schematics for things like Warp Cells, Fuel, or Pures.  That's a horrible idea.
 
 
 
 
 
 

The warning was partially due to a post that was removed completely.  And the OP was edited slightly, so there's a bit of missing context.
 
As you pointed out though, there are several non-geopolitical reasons to not want to do business with Xolla.
 
I hope NQ considerers finding a better payment system.  On top of everything else, I think it looks unprofessional for customers to have to deal with a shady 3rd party company when they want to cancel their subscription.  It's not a good look.

The warning was partially due to a post that was removed completely.  And the OP was edited slightly, so there's a bit of missing context.
 
As you pointed out though, there are several non-geopolitical reasons to not want to do business with Xolla.
 
I hope NQ considerers finding a better payment system.  On top of everything else, I think it looks unprofessional for customers to have to deal with a shady 3rd party company when they want to cancel their subscription.  It's not a good look.

And they said that if another wipe was required, they would do everything they could to preserve player progress.
 
That last part is kind of important.  NQ can obviously do whatever they want, but they said what they said.  You can't rewrite history.
 
But honestly all of that aside, i don't understand the rest of your argument at all.  If you think paying a sub is relevant to the discussion, how exactly do you expect NQ to handle it?
 
Are you suggesting that they wipe Alpha backers' talents, but not wipe anyone's talents who bought a sub after Beta started?
 
Because unless that's your plan.  The entire argument makes no sense.

And they said that if another wipe was required, they would do everything they could to preserve player progress.
 
That last part is kind of important.  NQ can obviously do whatever they want, but they said what they said.  You can't rewrite history.
 
But honestly all of that aside, i don't understand the rest of your argument at all.  If you think paying a sub is relevant to the discussion, how exactly do you expect NQ to handle it?
 
Are you suggesting that they wipe Alpha backers' talents, but not wipe anyone's talents who bought a sub after Beta started?
 
Because unless that's your plan.  The entire argument makes no sense.

Can you provide any examples of this high league?
 
From what i've seen everything they are selling looks like garbage.  I think most "web3" companies would absolutely love to have a product like DU, if they could afford it.
 
Personally, i hope NQ continues to attempt to compete in a real market, with real customers, that produces a real product, that people want to buy with real money.
 
There's nothing wrong with making good old fashioned Video Games.

Way back in the beginning when there was nothing but a website with a few pieces of concept art and a few dev blogs, JC was throwing around the term Metaverse, and i think it was fine the way he was using it back then.  But at this point i'm afraid the word has too much baggage.  If NQ wants to continue to make a game that has many similarities with the concept of a Metaverse, i think that's a great idea.  But the more they use the term, the more they're going to associate themselves with all the scams and grifts that are going on in that area.
 
Let's say NQ heard that a lot of people were excited by the Brooklyn Bridge.   So they decided to build and sell a scale replica of it.  If that was something that people were interested in, that might be a good idea.  As long as they made it clear that it was a replica, and if you gave them money, you wouldn't be getting an actual bridge.  You wouldn't own any property in Brooklyn, and you wouldn't own any bridges.  You couldn't drive your car across it, or sail a boat under it, and you sure as shit wouldn't be able to resell it for a profit.
 
That would be great.
 
Unfortunately, the "Metaverse" at this point is just a bunch of grifters yelling "Who wants to buy the Brooklyn Bridge".  
 
And the sad part is none of them even have a "replica" that is half as good as what NQ is/was working towards.
 
I think building an MMO that is as close as we can currently get to the concept of a "Metaverse" is a great idea.  But i don't think throwing the term around a lot is going to do anything but damage their reputation.
 
 

Way back in the beginning when there was nothing but a website with a few pieces of concept art and a few dev blogs, JC was throwing around the term Metaverse, and i think it was fine the way he was using it back then.  But at this point i'm afraid the word has too much baggage.  If NQ wants to continue to make a game that has many similarities with the concept of a Metaverse, i think that's a great idea.  But the more they use the term, the more they're going to associate themselves with all the scams and grifts that are going on in that area.
 
Let's say NQ heard that a lot of people were excited by the Brooklyn Bridge.   So they decided to build and sell a scale replica of it.  If that was something that people were interested in, that might be a good idea.  As long as they made it clear that it was a replica, and if you gave them money, you wouldn't be getting an actual bridge.  You wouldn't own any property in Brooklyn, and you wouldn't own any bridges.  You couldn't drive your car across it, or sail a boat under it, and you sure as shit wouldn't be able to resell it for a profit.
 
That would be great.
 
Unfortunately, the "Metaverse" at this point is just a bunch of grifters yelling "Who wants to buy the Brooklyn Bridge".  
 
And the sad part is none of them even have a "replica" that is half as good as what NQ is/was working towards.
 
I think building an MMO that is as close as we can currently get to the concept of a "Metaverse" is a great idea.  But i don't think throwing the term around a lot is going to do anything but damage their reputation.
 
 

Way back in the beginning when there was nothing but a website with a few pieces of concept art and a few dev blogs, JC was throwing around the term Metaverse, and i think it was fine the way he was using it back then.  But at this point i'm afraid the word has too much baggage.  If NQ wants to continue to make a game that has many similarities with the concept of a Metaverse, i think that's a great idea.  But the more they use the term, the more they're going to associate themselves with all the scams and grifts that are going on in that area.
 
Let's say NQ heard that a lot of people were excited by the Brooklyn Bridge.   So they decided to build and sell a scale replica of it.  If that was something that people were interested in, that might be a good idea.  As long as they made it clear that it was a replica, and if you gave them money, you wouldn't be getting an actual bridge.  You wouldn't own any property in Brooklyn, and you wouldn't own any bridges.  You couldn't drive your car across it, or sail a boat under it, and you sure as shit wouldn't be able to resell it for a profit.
 
That would be great.
 
Unfortunately, the "Metaverse" at this point is just a bunch of grifters yelling "Who wants to buy the Brooklyn Bridge".  
 
And the sad part is none of them even have a "replica" that is half as good as what NQ is/was working towards.
 
I think building an MMO that is as close as we can currently get to the concept of a "Metaverse" is a great idea.  But i don't think throwing the term around a lot is going to do anything but damage their reputation.
 
 

Way back in the beginning when there was nothing but a website with a few pieces of concept art and a few dev blogs, JC was throwing around the term Metaverse, and i think it was fine the way he was using it back then.  But at this point i'm afraid the word has too much baggage.  If NQ wants to continue to make a game that has many similarities with the concept of a Metaverse, i think that's a great idea.  But the more they use the term, the more they're going to associate themselves with all the scams and grifts that are going on in that area.
 
Let's say NQ heard that a lot of people were excited by the Brooklyn Bridge.   So they decided to build and sell a scale replica of it.  If that was something that people were interested in, that might be a good idea.  As long as they made it clear that it was a replica, and if you gave them money, you wouldn't be getting an actual bridge.  You wouldn't own any property in Brooklyn, and you wouldn't own any bridges.  You couldn't drive your car across it, or sail a boat under it, and you sure as shit wouldn't be able to resell it for a profit.
 
That would be great.
 
Unfortunately, the "Metaverse" at this point is just a bunch of grifters yelling "Who wants to buy the Brooklyn Bridge".  
 
And the sad part is none of them even have a "replica" that is half as good as what NQ is/was working towards.
 
I think building an MMO that is as close as we can currently get to the concept of a "Metaverse" is a great idea.  But i don't think throwing the term around a lot is going to do anything but damage their reputation.
 
 

Way back in the beginning when there was nothing but a website with a few pieces of concept art and a few dev blogs, JC was throwing around the term Metaverse, and i think it was fine the way he was using it back then.  But at this point i'm afraid the word has too much baggage.  If NQ wants to continue to make a game that has many similarities with the concept of a Metaverse, i think that's a great idea.  But the more they use the term, the more they're going to associate themselves with all the scams and grifts that are going on in that area.
 
Let's say NQ heard that a lot of people were excited by the Brooklyn Bridge.   So they decided to build and sell a scale replica of it.  If that was something that people were interested in, that might be a good idea.  As long as they made it clear that it was a replica, and if you gave them money, you wouldn't be getting an actual bridge.  You wouldn't own any property in Brooklyn, and you wouldn't own any bridges.  You couldn't drive your car across it, or sail a boat under it, and you sure as shit wouldn't be able to resell it for a profit.
 
That would be great.
 
Unfortunately, the "Metaverse" at this point is just a bunch of grifters yelling "Who wants to buy the Brooklyn Bridge".  
 
And the sad part is none of them even have a "replica" that is half as good as what NQ is/was working towards.
 
I think building an MMO that is as close as we can currently get to the concept of a "Metaverse" is a great idea.  But i don't think throwing the term around a lot is going to do anything but damage their reputation.
 
 

As I've pointed out before, NQ's new CEO (Nouredine Abboud) is huge on the metaverse concept. 
 
If you look at Abboud's LinkedIn, they dedicate their posts to discussing the metaverse and user generated content. They even call it a "user generated content game". 
 
Here's some very revealing bits from their posts:
"We don’t deliver content, we deliver game mechanics" "We are nurturing a number of new projects in other new crowd-pleasing settings" "We don’t dream about the metaverse, we build it" "As the Metaverse is eating the world, Massively Multiplayer Online Game economy building, Play2Earn controversy and NFT versus real life debates are all over the place. 🚀 One game has pioneered those topics since 2014, Dual Universe..."
 
From this, I think we can learn a few things about why Dual Universe has seemed to have no direction or leadership:
 
As people have mentioned before, NQ is moving on to other projects. That's a big deal...resources are likely not entirely focused on DU.  Abboud doesn't believe in creating content, he believes in creating a "user generated content platform". When you ask "where's the content in DU?" the answer is that NQ's leadership actually doesn't believe in content.  NQ's apparent arrogance problem is showing with these posts...or at the very least, upper management's complete disconnect from the reality of their product. DU has nothing to do with some of these topics, never mind "pioneering" them.   NQ's leadership seems more interested in making them look like a "metaverse company" vs making DU the best game it can be -- as many have speculated, they're likely trying to make themselves appealing for a buyout or for more investment.   
Like many NFT/web3/metaverse people, he's all about huge ideas that lack specifics, follow-through, or an explanation of how these disparate concepts translate into a solid game design. 
 
No wonder there's been no decision-making for months, here...their new CEO is just as "head in the clouds" as JC! 
 
Do you think NQ should abandon their obsession with the metaverse?
Or are they actually right to let DU fail and pretend like it was never supposed to be a game, just a platform for user content...? 
Is this all coming back to claims that DU is "little more than a tech demo"...? 

I think it's funny that the majority of self-proclaimed "PVP" players all demand to get to be the pirate.  But none of them seem to be interested in playing the game in a way that creates PVP for other players.  Get out there and haul something in the PVP zone, build something in the PVP zone.  Do something in the PVP zone.
 
Everyone wants a shooting gallery.  But no one wants to be the duck.
 
Have you considered that's because shooting galleries are boring, and no one wants to be the duck?

I think it's funny that the majority of self-proclaimed "PVP" players all demand to get to be the pirate.  But none of them seem to be interested in playing the game in a way that creates PVP for other players.  Get out there and haul something in the PVP zone, build something in the PVP zone.  Do something in the PVP zone.
 
Everyone wants a shooting gallery.  But no one wants to be the duck.
 
Have you considered that's because shooting galleries are boring, and no one wants to be the duck?

I think it's funny that the majority of self-proclaimed "PVP" players all demand to get to be the pirate.  But none of them seem to be interested in playing the game in a way that creates PVP for other players.  Get out there and haul something in the PVP zone, build something in the PVP zone.  Do something in the PVP zone.
 
Everyone wants a shooting gallery.  But no one wants to be the duck.
 
Have you considered that's because shooting galleries are boring, and no one wants to be the duck?

I think it's funny that the majority of self-proclaimed "PVP" players all demand to get to be the pirate.  But none of them seem to be interested in playing the game in a way that creates PVP for other players.  Get out there and haul something in the PVP zone, build something in the PVP zone.  Do something in the PVP zone.
 
Everyone wants a shooting gallery.  But no one wants to be the duck.
 
Have you considered that's because shooting galleries are boring, and no one wants to be the duck?

I can't speak for anyone else.  But as someone who was here before there were even screenshots of the game.  I knew this is exactly what the combat would look like.  Because NQ was always very clear that it would be "target lock" style combat, because that's the only type of combat that would work with the game they were trying to build.
 
Anyone who's ever bought a video game should know the difference between a cutscene or a cinematic promo video, and actual gameplay footage.  All you had to do is read one of the Dev blogs on PVP and you would have known everything that you need to know.
 
The mistake that NQ may have made is in thinking that people would accept that style of combat.  Or i guess in underestimating how many people would just put their fingers in their ears and ignore the reasons and just demand better combat anyway.
 
Complaining that target-lock style combat is bad is just a waste of time.  The only solution to that is waiting for technology to catch up.  
 
What this game could have right now, is good target-lock style combat.  When i say that i'm picturing World of Warcraft, except you are a spaceship instead of an Elf.  We need depth and specialization, customization.  All the things that made games like WOW so successful.
 
I've been playing a game called Dark Deity.  It's a tactical RPG, basically a Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics clone.  And I absolutely love this type of game, but the "combat" is just hitting a button that says ATTACK and then watching a cutscene of two people whacking each other with swords.
 
The fun is in building your team of fighters, equipping them, learning their strengths and weaknesses.  Preparing for battles, considering geography and positioning, and attempting to give yourself an advantage against your opponent any way you can.  Most of the game is in the preparation, but the combat part is still fun, because it's fun to watch all of your hard work pay off when you win.
 
Just because a game has "combat" or "PVP" doesn't mean it is required to have hyper realistic simulated one on one combat.
 
  

Well....that's not really an example of emergent gameplay. That's an example of classic gameplay. Emergent gameplay is gameplay that arises from mechanics in ways the developer didn't explicitly implement. Alien cores aren't that...they work exactly as the devs intended. Racing in DU is an example of emergent gameplay, alien cores really aren't. 
 
 
This sentence...doesn't even make sense to me, but there's a love of false dichotomy when discussing valid criticisms of DU's implementation of PvP. The reality that PvP in DU is underdeveloped, buggy, not performant, and boring doesn't mean we loathe the concept of PvP.
 
That's the classic false dichotomy -- "if you don't agree that safe zones need to be abolished, you hate PvP and therefore the game will fail".
 
No, that's not it at all. 
 
Personally, I like PvP games -- but I play games designed for PvP where teamwork, skill, and strategy make all the difference. Games where your opponent has as much chance to win as you do. Games with mechanics designed around PvP and balance. DU isn't that. It isn't anything close to that. It's an obscure, niche implementation in an already-niche game that only will ever appeal to a highly niche group of players. 
 
You're allowed to believe ripping down safe zones will inexplicably and magically make this game popular...but calling everyone that doesn't share that view self-absorbed and "embittered" is exactly the sort of ad hominem that makes people think PvP players are childish. 
 
Anyone that's played DU's version of combat and believes "yeah, this is what will make the game popular!" is not seeing some obvious realities about the gamer market and the ability for combat in DU to support a paid monthly sub. 

I think it's funny that the majority of self-proclaimed "PVP" players all demand to get to be the pirate.  But none of them seem to be interested in playing the game in a way that creates PVP for other players.  Get out there and haul something in the PVP zone, build something in the PVP zone.  Do something in the PVP zone.
 
Everyone wants a shooting gallery.  But no one wants to be the duck.
 
Have you considered that's because shooting galleries are boring, and no one wants to be the duck?