Emptiness

Yeah I liked Space Engineers while I played it. The medieval one was interesting but not as good as the space version. Fun while it lasted though.
 
I think if they would allow for core links to either customize your ship shapes in lines or any other shape you could chain on could work for section breaks if the  core links were severed or the voxels as well acting like structure failure could work well. Not sure if it would ever make it in the game but it would be nice.
 
Regardless I think they need to approach this from a different direction altogether.
 
Where as there should be some way to actually customize all the parts and items through alloys, different mats making up the item (think carbon fiber vs aluminum vs steel vs titanium for instance or even the bamboo composit materials that are harder than steel), mod-able parts in general (high performance, think of what you can do with say a stock mustang), hardness values, the HP tree, and allow us to customize our ship to what we thing we need. But instead up punishing people from the bottom up it needs to be from the top down.
 
Such as T1 crafted parts or items should have 25 crashes base before you add Talents or mods. The newbies still need a chance to learn to fly.
 
Where as if you are using T5 parts you should know what you are doing where as 3-5 crashes base before mods or talents should be much higher stakes for stronger items or higher performance parts really matter in flight, frieght, transport, or battle truely matter. Most large org could swing that where as if you are just some solo random guy you dont need a car with 500 horse power you just need a car that will get you from point a to b reliably that does not require as much maintenence as a F1 race car does and will last you 10-20+ plus if you take care of it or baby it.
 
Edit:
 
Been kicking the idea around in my head all day and if I were to make a constructive suggestion on how to make a fair top down approach to Destructive Elements that fair to both vets and newbies it would be this:
 
Scrap could use an additional Talent Tree branch called Equipment Manager Technician / Mechanic which allows for more repairs to to extend the life cycle of crashes for both putdowns & better functionality of the Repair tool.
Repair Tool Efficiency for additional hp per second when repairing Repair Tool Optimization for additional rate at which you can heal Durability Optimization for extending the amount of crashes any part can have on put down Auto Repair Tool Optimization for how fast your auto repair device can heal via scrap / parts to bring an item from destroyed to damaged  
In addition to this I propose for the amount of crashes that are base before any talents are added to be:
XS items: 50 base crashes before being completely destroyed for stock items S Items: 40 base crashes before being completely destroyed for stock items M Items: 30 base crashes before being completely destroyed for stock items L items: 20 base crashes before being completely destroyed for stock items XL items: 10 base crashes before being completely destroyed for stock items XXL items: 5 base crashes before being completely destroyed for stock items (future additions for frigate/corvette/ cap ships)  
Or alternatively you could give a buffer for crashes to newbies measured in total exp accumulation by the million to give some kind of grace period of still allowing newbies to learn to fly before it eases in. You could assume that by 10mil exp they would lose that buffer as the 10mil could equal 100% grace perhaps. You cant just throw them to the wolves and expect someone just starting the game to be able to constantly replace their ship after 3-5 crashes. I think by the time I both learned how to fly and also how to balance a ship in terms of progression of each of the core sizes and balancing and adding parts to make it actually flyable 50 base crashes for an XS is not out of the question or 30 crashes for an M is not that much out of the real of a learning/testing/optimization cycle.
 
Beyond the base crash buffer I would like to see a new Talent Tree added called Engineer in which adds additional destructions for all the element types to add durability to them on putdown or additional efficiency to repair each type of element or optimization. It is still independent of the effects in the piloting tree as well as the HP Tree. You could sepperate the two branches for Space Engineering and Ground Enginering which should be able to cover all the parts for ships and industry. I would also like to see another branch for Static Core Engineering and Dynamic Engineering which should add more links to both types of cores along with additional crashes or destructions to both cores.
 
Beyond that I would like to see grades added to different items:
Stock: Balanced for speed, durability, weight, and hardness) Performance: Optimized for speed over all other aspects Armored: Optimized for hardness and protection over all other aspects Composit: Optimized for specific functions or using sliders to some how choose what you exactly want High performance: Extreme power at a cost  
Beyond grades I would like to see all materials have additional traits added beyond just weight for:
Heat: Atmo Burn to allow people to travel faster in/out of the atmosphere with ores like silver, gold, copper, etc with each having a range of heat dissapation Hardness: How much damage absobsion a material has in terms of like titanium vs steel or bronze. Conductivity: Where specific weapons work differently vs different metals  
After that I would like to see another Talent Tree called Scientist in which you can alter the properties of metals / voxels or in a sense re-engineer the molecular properties of each of the ores. I think the Scientist could also have its own kind of industry in which you can mash different types of metals together to make alloys or composit materials which are completely custom or that can be used after that in industry crafting to make the Grades or Custom after market parts.
 
Or alternatively allow players to simply choose what kind of materials they want to add bsed on the values listed above which could make them completely different then they are now and help crafters to make various options for protection, speed, weight, durability, etc listed above into any item and where as the stock recipe would be balanced you could make the same item uniuqe which could break much faster or last a whole lot longer at the cost of something else.
 
A modular system would be a whole lot better then just pre-baked Tier versions of industrial machines which should focus more on the properties or mods you already get into the tree like byproducts, stats, bonus parts, numbers of mats, etc.
 
I also think that there should be wear and tear based on how long you fly or that other planets might be highly acidic and wear down your ship if you are on the surface. Industrial crafting should also have wear and tear associated with running the machines and require maintenence to keep them going too or even if you dont get PvP'd flying you will still incur damage over a long time requiring scrap repair. This should not be quick without allowing some kind of talent or using the material properties listed above.
 
The last thing I want to add would be to add random defects while producing items which could generate less crashes or durability, etc every so often.
 
The main thing here is to allow for stock items, grades, custom parts, after market parts and items that suit people for what they want to do. If you want the best of the best then it is highly desireable and gets destroyed faster making more money for those items along with grades. That way if you want to go cheap but last longer you can. If you want to risk more for more rewards or power you can at the cost of the life span of that item. If they add the Talent Trees mentioned above you could extend that lifespan a little more. Or customize any part to fit your style, color, etc.
 
You want to punish people from the top down who want to risk more not the bottom up people trying to claw their way up. People need time to learn the basics of how it works with some margin for error for each of the cores since you add over time for what you need before you test it or find out in that action that it aint going to work. Lots of test pilots have died doing experimental things. It takes a lot of trial and error in this game to get any ship off the ground as you go, but also that its the same story for each core progression as you see what you can actually handle. Its not our fault its just the nature of the beast until you finally fill it all out or you can get to the point a ship is fully optimized which again is a time based thing as you gain talents for putdown and other factors. You should not be punished for that.
 
The people who need to be punished the most is the Large orgs who are nabbing everything under the sun and set up to pvp. You need to give them more risk for more power within the confines of the system as it is now. Not the newbies or the smaller Orgs as they need to be allowed to grow in this system too as you can afford higher performance items or armor. It makes it more of a gap between the haves and have nots but it also comes with more risk, wear and tear, and other factors.
 
This way you get a lot more mileage out of your ship while still removing items from the game. Some people are way better then others at active flying if you arent using a flight script. The stock flight controls are not the best and honestly whoever re-wrote the whole flight system, NQ should buy it from them and add it to the game or hold public competitions for solo or group scripters to improve the game for custom exotic parts / recipies that use alien mats, or something. And just say hey we want to see what you can come up with for X and add the best ones in as stock standard scripts you can run since not everyone is good at coding. Its the same thing with art based assets or skins as people could make them for NQ through community events and add the best ones in. They should also consider adding a marketplace outside the game where people can sell them for cash and NQ takes their cut doing none of the work for stuff a fraction of the public would normally like or want since colors and skins are highly subjective anyways and you can do pretty much the same thing already with screens. Win/win.
 
I think this sums up everything this Destructive System needs to make it viable and semi realistic and less punishing for this trying to climb up the ladder while still giving leeway and options for those who want to push the limits and properly punishing those people while still taking items out of the game at an acceptable rate which wont cause everyone to kill the market because they are hoarding items in case their whole fleet breaks at once unexpectedly or that because you can blow up containers will cause scarcity along with mass inflation in the proposed system which will pretty much kill off any newbies joining with such stringent limitations.
 
.02

Are the devs completely out of touch with how people have been playing their game for the past few months? And what's the point of calling it a sandbox if stuff is only supposed to be used in certain ways even if it seems like it could be used in a lot more?
 
May as well rename DU to "JC's Vision(tm)" and put as the description "Follow JC's Glorious ViSiOn and adhere to rigid rules as you fulfill his WiShEs".
 
I've had about enough of this nonsense.

Agreed  spell it out like we are kids, obviously we don't understand how "anti gravity" is supposed to be used .      In orbit only down to planet,  only dropping down to pick stuff up and drop it off ? 

Then I see no use at all for AGG as described...IF the ship can lift the weight without AGG and navigate from the ground anyhow....What then is ANY use of Agg as it can already obvously navigate at 1000M in atmos. Could JC provide a scenario so we understand the intended use? Also how the heck do powerful engines and fuel park anything above a base?
 

Here's something fun to consider. Someone on the discord was able to create a script that, with 3 points for triangulation, can tell you exactly what angle and direction to dig to find the closest node.
https://github.com/d6rks1lv3rz3r0/DU-Prospector
Why couldn't this be baseline?

Excuse me? Are you saying no blueprints were made of those markets? 'Fixing' it should be as simple as deleting the old construct and replacing it. A task that would take a couple minutes, maximum, with the blueprints.
 
This is a reaction I would expect from children in a sandbox, not mature adults.
 
edit: Apparently the 'quick fix' is a reference to the market orders.
 
To which I have exactly one reply: What?

Market orders should be stored in the database and no removal of market constructs should EVER affect those.

You do realize that a large core ship can be up to 128m on a side, yes? How does a flat 50m total make sense, given that info?
 
Make it 250m total, instead. 
 
Yet another change made by devs who don't play their own game.

Just gonna quote this gem from Discord from ~1.5 months ago:
 
Womble said: "Their materials science and geology is %&$#ed. Eff You Bee Ay Arrr. Quartz as the source for silicon, when there are oceans and oceans of sand. You can get Calcium out of Limestone, but not Carbon. Coal existing as discrete pockets all over the place on every planet. Viciously reactive metals and gases being used as structural materials, and Gold being the toughest armour. Hope they change much of this because it's just %$&#in' ridiculous when they're aiming at "plausibility" with their Newtonian physics and "complex" manufacturing chains, and adds nothing at all to gameplay."
 
  
True. It's possible to surface mine up to 24k liters of T1 ore per hour, or 14k liters of T2 ore per hour. Tedious and boring, as well.

These two explain one major use nicely, albeit log out/in, not alt+f4.
 
Fix AGG staying up BEFORE this change goes through.

Here's what I suggested in another thread and I feel it deserves it's own thread here and the option to discuss what I believe would be a much better solution to damage/repair/element deterioration:
Elements can be patched up when damaged, destroyed elements can only be removed/replaced
 
Damaged elements
Players can craft "repair kits" which are tailored to the purpose for which they are used (engines/airfoil/adjustors/furniture.. etc) Repair kits will restore a damaged element to enough health to "get home" where the element needs to be removed and replaced. A repair assembly element of the correct size will then be able to repair the damaged element with new components. A repair assemble element can be fitted to a dynamic construct with M or L core to allow en-route repair as long as the needed components are in store on the construct. A patched up element is a most 80% functional and has less HP and so is at higher risk of getting destroyed. This creates the requirement to have it actually repaired and not left as-is.
Destroyed elements
Players can remove these elements and replace them Destroyed elements can be recycled for a return of some of the original components/resources
Additional elements
Mobile Nano Crafter which can craft any T1/T2 component up to L size and any T1 element up to M size at less efficiency/speed than industry. It can also craft Space Fuel. Can be placed on an M or L dynamic core. The purpose of this element is to provide a "patch up" availability to be able to make it home and can craft repair kits.
 
 
..discuss..

These two explain one major use nicely, albeit log out/in, not alt+f4.
 
Fix AGG staying up BEFORE this change goes through.

They don't think. That's the problem. There doesn't seem to be anyone on NQ's dev team who can think the slightest bit creatively about how these changes will impact gameplay, let alone play their own game like a regular player.

You do realize that a large core ship can be up to 128m on a side, yes? How does a flat 50m total make sense, given that info?
 
Make it 250m total, instead. 
 
Yet another change made by devs who don't play their own game.

First of all, I would like to say that for me it is ok to have to mine resources in order to be able to build. I like the idea that I am not forced to earn money to be able to do what I was looking for: build and fly. 
 
In general, I found quite fun the building, industry, and fly ships aspects.
 
What, however, is becoming too boring (after 3 months of play), is actually the mining process:  even with talents, it is too much time-consuming. I spend more time to look for ores and mine them rather do what I bought the game for: build and fly
 
And flying heavy ship (S or M cores, 500 to 1000 tons) require a lot of time of mining: both for building and for warp driving them. I'm in a stage where I start to avoid building new thing only because the Idea to have to do endless hours of mining bore myself so much that I do not even launch the game.  If this aspect won't be improved (cosnidering also that there are not other mechanics to play like PVE, PVP,  exploration, missions, etc), I do not think I'll renew my 3-month subscription (that by the way I've already canceled).
 
I like the idea that mining, in the first stages of the game,  must be process that requires time and efforts: it helps to make the player the value of the ores he is looking for and of what he is try to build. But after several months of playing, advanced players should have more tools to make it less boring and maybe....maybe...funny. In my case, it find so boring to actually find a tile with the ores I need and then mine them that it even prevents me to play the game.
 
Some ideas:
Advanced territory scanners that tell exactly where to mine to find specific ores (not just only a report of which ores there are in a tile), with a cooldown higher than the current territory scanner Drills or any mechanic tool that helps players dig in depths and return back to the surface: this would give a chance to build new vehicles! Any automatic unit that generates X ores every Y time (working even when the player is offline). Slower that hand mining, but It won't require players to be forced to do endless and boring hours of hand mining. Find a tile, eventually claim it, plant this automatic thing and then return to empty it every Y time until the tile is not drained.  
I hope that the NQ staff is however, already planning to improve this aspect in the next beta release.
 

I 'liked' the post above yours emotionally, then after reading your post, realized it wasn't quite logical and un-liked it and liked yours. A lot of good points there...

And I need a dislike button for people pushing their own agenda on completely unrelated topics  
 
But I think dislike buttons don't foster constructivity or lead to good relations - all they do is giving people a way to vent at the expense of the receiver who might not feel welcome anymore, even if there would be plenty of others who share their view. If we want to keep the general spirit of the community on the constructive side and people commenting in a way that's adding to the topic and kindness and prospering conversation instead of flame wars and trolling, a dislike button is out of the question. If someone wants to disagree, like I do with the request for a dislike button and thereby give somewhat negative feedback, they should be willing to take the effort and extra step to address it and provide a reason, as I feel I'm doing right now.
 
Someone I don't remember once said that it takes 10 positive interactions to make up for 1 negative one. Yet I feel that some frustrated or vexed people are more likely to vent by smacking a dislike button than people who are satisfied are likely to remember to like something before moving on. Speaking for myself only, but if I encounter something I strongly disagree with, it makes me slow down and try to fix it, while something I like makes me want more and carry on, getting in the flow and being more likely to forget about giving feedback. The like button enables me to give that feedback, even if I have nothing to add, which is fine in that situation. The dislike button on the other hand enables me to give feedback too, but leaves the reasoning behind it completely in the open - just saying "that's wrong" doesn't help anyone improve. "How do you like my new ice cream flavor?" - "I don't!" - "Why, what's wrong, too sweet?" - "I just don't like it." - "Too fruity? Too sour? Too soft? What shall I do?" - "Search for another job!" ... there will be some grinning but it doesn't help the producer move forward and improve.
 
Some people would hit the dislike button for bad grammar or errors in spelling, targeting a non-native language writer, while some would hit the like button for a violation of etiquette or trolling. In my opinion both is wrong, but the dislike does more bad to the non-native writer than it would do good on the troll, while a like on the writer could encourage him to overcome his reluctance to continue to write in that foreign language he's learning, boost his confidence and in time he might improve on his language skills, whereas the troll may experience positive reinforcement too, but be handled by forum staff sooner or later. A constructive member that turned away is harder to be reached out to.
 
A "disagree" button maybe, but again, if people want to disagree they should do so by writing a reply and provide a better idea or at least explain what they think is wrong with it.
 
However, I think we could do with a "please don't quote like that" button... shamelessly pushing my own agenda here after I feel I wrote enough to make up for it above ?

These two explain one major use nicely, albeit log out/in, not alt+f4.
 
Fix AGG staying up BEFORE this change goes through.

This is strictly talking pve.
 
Just like you can not be good at waiting for the bus, there is little to be said about ship building skills.
 
More voxels mean more mass without any non cosmetic benefit.
Obstruction is bad, but easily avoided.
Mass (HUB) to the middle, adjuster to the outside.

Those are the basic rules, as long as you follow them any ship is only a partlist. Give me and 5 other players the parts and we will each end up with a roughly equally good ship, and character (not player) skills have far more impact compared to any amount of thought put into the design, and that is sad.
 
It would be quite simple to fix this without killing any "normal" ships:
-get rid of the "what propels you can not turn you" rule, ships with all wings in the back should pitch forward.
-Wings/Ailerons/stabs keep their current stats, but try to counter any unintentional rotation by increasing lift by up to 50% (or whatever) at the cost of increased drag. So an unbalanced ship still works perfectly fine but may start tipping at high cargo mass. It will also have slightly higher fuel consumption/decreased topspeed.
-Same with engines, if you have most engines high up, they will have to run at reduced power so your ship does not tip forward. Which means you still fly, but less efficient.

So this would allow practical builder to actually shine and at the same time not destroy all other bots, it would just mean thoughtless building is less efficient.

Currently what you see on the pic works, just sort everything alphabetically and smack it on.

Can I take a moment to say it's very nice to see NQ in here actually engaging in the conversation.. what's this I feel? A breath of fresh air?
 

You need experience to sort out the genuine responses from the trolls who just want to incite heated 'discussion'.
 
 
The problem with 50m is that it's a universal constant when core sizes are so wildly disparate.
 
For an XS core, 16m max length, it's fine. 3x the length.
 
For an S core, 32m max length, it's still fine, but starting to get iffy. 1.5x length.
 
For an M core, 64m max length, it's now less than the max size of the ship. I foresee problems arising.
 
For an L core, 128m max length, it's now less than half the max size of the ship. I foresee significant problems arising.
 
And XL cores are planned, 256m max length. 50m would be less than a FIFTH of that.
 
 
My personal opinion is that maneuver tool "max movement distance per unit time" should be 3-4x the size of the core being maneuvered.

The proposed changes would keep the forward speed of the ship when you log back in.

Now, the question is: is the speed kept when you log in, or when you get back into the control seat?
 
Should be when the player gets back into the control seat IMO.

You do realize that a large core ship can be up to 128m on a side, yes? How does a flat 50m total make sense, given that info?
 
Make it 250m total, instead. 
 
Yet another change made by devs who don't play their own game.

These two explain one major use nicely, albeit log out/in, not alt+f4.
 
Fix AGG staying up BEFORE this change goes through.

These two explain one major use nicely, albeit log out/in, not alt+f4.
 
Fix AGG staying up BEFORE this change goes through.

They don't think. That's the problem. There doesn't seem to be anyone on NQ's dev team who can think the slightest bit creatively about how these changes will impact gameplay, let alone play their own game like a regular player.