Zamiel7

That's true. Mercifully, this has only happened to me on a few occasions, so I count myself as lucky.

I will say that some of these suggestions are actually really creative and interesting! I think they could absolutely be implemented in the long-term to add some spice to the game. But long-term is the operative phrase here. Adding any of these in right now when mining is essentially the only PvE experience (other than, you know, gravity) will most likely just make people hate it even more. However, I think moving forward it would be cool to see new planets that incorporate some hazards like these to add some extra challenge. Of course, hazards of any kind should also yield more significant rewards, such as rarer ores in larger quantities, valuable artifacts, you know, cool stuff like that. As ever, one of the key aspects to engaging players is balancing risk and reward. If you were to simply add these challenges to the experience without adjusting the rewards, most people will loathe them, myself included. Also, as an addendum, let's agree to never add anything to the game that interferes with the scanner too much. Most of your ideas are pretty cool, but the idea of worthless ore giving false readings to throw people off seems like a nightmare of tedium to me.

If anything, repairing isn't punitive enough with the lack of element destruction. But yeah, being able to toggle the repair tool with middle mouse might be nice.

Yes, it means nothing. Much like this tangent that has no meaningful relationship to the conversation.

My friends and I are invested enough in this game and its promises that we would probably keep playing even if they announced a wipe at the end of the beta and then just start from scratch. Mind you, we wouldn't be happy about that decision at all, but we like this type of game enough to power through something like that.

The main concern of this post is absolutely valid: changes to industry to make it more difficult could very easily favor the larger organizations far too much by making it too difficult to get into. That being said, I would like to point out that this statement: does not necessarily have to be the case and should not be taken as an absolute. Surely it is possible for NQ to find a way to balance industry in a way that increases operational costs for larger scale factories without impacting smaller-scale industry. I don't pretend that this will be an easy solution, but it ought to be possible. Additionally, as has been stated, I think a major contributor to this problem is the fact that elements are not technically destroyable, only transferable by means of PvP. There will likely be more demand for things when they are actually permanently lost.

This is a really thoughtful plan for a ship! Especially if you're new and this is your first serious ship, you've clearly put a lot of thought and work into it. This Reddit post has a useful spreadsheet for planning how much thrust you'll need to carry certain weights out of the various planets' atmospheres because as Elrood said, the design of your ship and what you'll need on it is going to heavily revolve around weight. Additionally, looking at your planned materials, I would recommend upgrading the retro-rocket brakes to larges. In my experience, having an abundance of braking power is very useful.

Yes, yes, the OP's idea isn't great given the design focus of this game, but there's no reason to dunk on him out of the gate for sharing a viewpoint. Just plain rude. But yeah, splitting the community in any capacity is not a good idea going forward. Additionally, in a game that is primarily player-driven, having well established players and organizations that are already actively contributing to aspects of the game like the economy is likely to be beneficial to new players. They might have missed an opportunity to get in on the ground floor, but that's hardly the only appeal of a game like this. Also, with the plans to add more planets, solar systems, and things like that, there will hopefully always be fresh things for people to do.

Insofar as game mechanics is concerned, "PvP" is defined as using weapons to shoot another player. That's it. This point of view is at least partially supported by the website's own information regarding PvP, and that's being conservative. Scamming, theft, corporate espionage, competing for resources, and undercutting people in the market are not "PvP" in the mechanical sense, even if there are competitive elements to them. As such, the safe-zone is "safe" in the same sense that a kitchen stove is: it's not designed to hurt you, but you can still burn your hand on it if you don't know what you're doing.

Challenging the validity of someone's claims is foundational to rhetoric; that necessarily involves calling out examples as valid or invalid through reasoning and discussion. And, yes, while the product of that is technically my opinion, it's based on logic and reasoning that I've laid out. It's no different from what you've done, and if you want your opinion to be take seriously, you have to be willing to defend it. I agree with this, up to a point. Gaining new players and keeping them is incredibly important, obviously, and griefing should be addressed quickly and efficiently. But determining what is and is not griefing has to be more deliberate and specific than merely saying "don't be a dick." Establishing this concept has been the entire point of my posts. Game balance is an important discussion. Player interactions and behavior guidelines is an important discussion. Broadly labeling certain players or actions as "being a dick" does very little to forward either of these discussions.

So again, all the real world comparisons you bring up are totally invalid and don't contribute to this discussion on how NQ delivers rulings in their game: it is apples to oranges, my dude. But speaking to this specific point you are making about in-game rules, you undermine your own point: it is totally, 100% possible to create rules to govern the vast majority (if not the entirety) of gameplay. As you say, mechanics in a game have a limited number of outcomes, and those outcomes can be clearly defined and understood by both developer and player. If one mechanic and its respective outcome(s) is deemed exploitive by NQ, they have two clear steps they can can, and should, take: Declare the behavior against the rules in clear, specific terms, and punish those that do it. If possible, render that behavior/mechanic/exploit impossible to do in the game through subsequent patches. It's just that simple. Moreover, it is NQ's responsibility to address new concerns as they appear and continue to balance their game. You can certainly suggest they are unable to accomplish that task, but I think it's reasonable in a videogame to be able to address at least a majority of major and minor issues. At no point in the conversation do we need to discuss what it means to "be a dick" or "live in a society;" these are tangents that have vanishingly little to do with legitimate conversation about the impact of gameplay mechanics and whether or not they should be allowed. That's not how subjectivity or opinions work; the degree or extremity of a thing does not render it more or less subjective. Perhaps more or less consequential, but not subjective. It is also not an issue of concurrence; even if everyone on the planet agreed that an action was "dickish" it doesn't suddenly become objective as a result because it is still possible for people to change their minds. This is literally the difference between facts and opinions. Rules can certainly be influenced by player and developer opinions, and that's a good thing, but those subsequent rules should never make use of subjective language. Less room for interpretation = better rule.

But again, being a "dick" is totally subjective and has no value in actual rulings. I am loath to compare a video game to society because, despite certain people claiming the contrary, they are two completely different things when it comes to human behavior. Certain games straight up require you to engage in behavior that would be deemed sociopathic in society (e.g. killing someone in Among Us and then lying about it), and Dual Universe is no different. The only difference in DU is that there are more ways for players to interpret what the goal of the game is and some of the ways are in direct opposition to one another. The burden lies with NQ to deliver clear, focused rulings and develop the game in such a way that behavior they have deemed exploitive is impossible and/or punishable.

I feel it's valid to point out that your actual issue is not with these new rulings, but with the fact that they are not retroactively punishing the organization in question here. The rulings seem sensible to me, and the issue in question regarding stealing ships is clearly addressed, so going forward this will punished. I agree with Haunty that this is an appropriate response in a beta environment; retroactive punishment here when there was no explicit ruling does not seem warranted.

Except this is actually a terrible way of thinking about rules. The more specific and technical rules are, the better because it leaves no room for interpretation. "Don't build walls in adjacent tiles to adversely affect neighboring players" is infinitely better than "don't be a dick" because that the threshold of "being a dick" is going to vary wildly from player to player. A person can realistically say that it's a dick move to blow up a tiny, unarmed hauler, but that is absolutely not an infraction against the rules. There are far more ways to argue and circumvent "being a dick" than a specific, clearly worded ruling. Ideally, it will become difficult or impossible to take an exploitive action that goes against the design of the game as time goes on, but until then, NQ should endeavor to be as clear and technical as possible in rulings.

Not that I know of, but there are some good crafting recipe/calculator's out there that you can use in browser that do a good job of presenting recipes and calculating how much ore/materials you'll need. My organization uses the Hyperion one.

I honestly think $20 for three months is an incredible bargain, but I can see how many might consider it a potential waste if it turns out they don't like the game in the first week.

I do understand the OP and the likeminded people's frustration: it feels bad when someone interferes with your gameplay and prevents you from having fun in a way that feels cheap or mean-spirited. I've played hundreds of hours of games like Ark, EVE, Rust, and the like. I've been on both sides of problems like these: griefed and griefer. My initial gut reaction in a sandbox game of this nature is to support the freedom of players to play the game however they like because that is, after all, the central ethos of this game and why it appeals to me and so many others. Some people will choose to grief and harass other players, and I consider them an important part of the game's ecosystem. Much in the sense that playing a game like Minecraft presents you with obstacles in the form of creepers or skeletons, a game like Dual Universe that will be driven primarily by players ought to present similar obstacles created by other players. Therefore, one of the most important aspects of gameplay becomes a player's ability to circumvent those obstacles by their own power. However, that is where we enter complicated territory. If the actions of one griefer have the ability to inordinately impact the game experience of other players (both in number of players and intensity of the impact), then that is something that needs to be addressed quickly and efficiently. As has been mentioned, there are technically ways to mitigate or prevent the aforementioned grief from happening, and that's a good thing! But there should be even more options for retaliation on the part of the affected party here. You build a wall around my base? Well, I do X to respond to that, basically. And in this case X response to retaliate should be greater in effort than the initial offense, but not so great as to feel like you are required to invest a ridiculous amount to just avoid a simple grief.

It also occurs to me that a potential solution to this that NQ could implement is the ability to link to more than one container and treat those multiple containers as all "active" for the purposes of building things; that way, you could link to two or more maxed-out container hubs. They could introduce a new skill that affects this ability and gives a person the ability to increase that maximum number of links. I'm sure there would also be potential ways to exploit this, and it might not be easy to implement (I know precious little about game coding/design), but that would definitely solve this particular problem.

Are you trying to move it to your personal inventory? It might be the case that it's too big of an item to even fit in your person inventory (the volume is 3,305L, so it should fit in your personal inventory, though I forget what the base amount is without skills). If that is the case, just link to the container it's in and place it from there.

I am also interested in a potential solution for this. We're in the process of building our own large ship, and I was thinking this might be an issue.

Ah, that's right! We made it last week before the change when it still required the T4 ore. Forgot about that change. Hopefully they fix it soon because it can definitely be useful!

That is certainly the case. In my own organization, we've already gotten into some "Market PvP," as it were, trying to sell certain items.

Ah, gotcha! Careful though! Perhaps even by invoking the name, you're in danger of giving us mere mortals too much information...

It's crafted in a small assembly line. It doesn't require a lot of resources to make, but it does take some T4 ore (Gold and Cryolite). It's a pretty fun little tool, actually. We successfully used it to project an image of a ship one of our friends designed in Space Engineers.

I'm not aware of any resource that has logged the atmospheric limits of the various planets, unfortunately, but if you keep your speed under 1500km/h as you enter a planet, you shouldn't take any reentry damage.