Zamiel7

This is really no different then a PvP flag unless I'm misunderstanding the OP. I would be very sad to see NQ go full carebear like this so that only PvP is consensual "wars" between orgs. Even non consensual PvP being limited to orgs would be a mistake imo, it would be gamed hard by people simply using non org territories for anything of value. 
 
If you are worried about some org going zerg and taking over the solar system , then people should come together to attack said overpowered org / alliance. If there are not enough players able to then we live under the thumb of the successful said org/alliance till they collapse under their own weight or another alliance breaks them. Warfare in games, victory generally boils down to he who has the mostest wins , it's an unfortunate reality. Put in all the limits you want but in the end if territory can be acquired and held, the bigger the org the more influence they will have no matter what 'mechanics' you try and put in their way like war timers etc. They will just use alts and alt orgs etc to get around them and zerg anyway.
 
The  only effect trying to limit big orgs from being big orgs or able to operate as freely as they want with such ambitions is prevent smaller orgs from having a fighting chance. Seems like a paradox I know, but remember big orgs have more people to work with. You cannot overcome this with some game mechanic and in the end such limits will only hurt the smaller groups with less numbers to overcome the same limitations.

Well, you can already workaround the current locking if youre smart.

The main issue that is being removed is XS cores having all the advantages. Even with these few changes (and theres more thatll probably come after) you remove several key meta things:

- XS cores can lock onto a L core at almost double the range that a L core can lock XS. This dissapears.
- XS cores built to max out build zone get to double dip on maxing voxel armor into this. Maxing build area will now not always be the best answer, cross section will matter.

Basically, core size will with these changes only determine your starting cost (bigger cores more expensive) and your weapon size lockouts. I see us choosing the smallest core that fits the job for a specific ship. Core size isnt as important anymore.

Looking beyond this, I am personally not too happy with arbitrary lockouts for weapons to cores, but for me the only alternative is the later to come power management as the balancing factor. So till thats there Im ok with it, but I really hope that Tradeoffs with power management will be the limiting factor in the future rather then this.

On radars I would rather have radar size unlinked from gunner seat size, and instead have radars be unique per size. eg: Small radar - short range but fast lock, Large - long range but slow lock. Then you as builder have to decide what radar fits your seat and gun loadout.

 

Naunet running by with a quick edit for clarity: Element Destruction will be applied to all damages sustained, both in and outside of PvP battles.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you haven't seen the news, you can do so here:  


Discuss below!

Currently, mega industrialists with good crafting skills are crafting various intermediaries and voxels, and selling them to bot orders for a profit. For example: Basic components, connectors, screws, or pipes, or steel voxels / honeycomb. 
 
Let's take a close look at Steel honeycomb.There are roughly 100 different varieties of steel honeycomb, and a significant fraction have bot buy orders. Let's take a look at .. galvanized beige steel. Every single market in game has a buy order for roughly 200,000 of this voxel, at prices varying from 338.84 to 361.11 per m3. For the purposes of this exercise, we will assume a sale price of 361.11 per m3.
 
We start with Hematite and Coal.
Given 100kl of Hematite (23q/l, 2.3m quanta), and 50kl of Coal (21q/l, 1.05m quanta), with level 4 refining skills, that becomes 65 * 0.88 input, 45 * 1.12 output, for 88.112% efficiency.
 
We get 88,112l Pure Iron and 55,056l 44,056l Pure Carbon. Now, for steel refining. Level 4 skills, 100 * 0.88, 50 * 0.88 inputs, 75 * 1.12 output, for 88 iron, 44 carbon, 84 steel output.
 
We now have 84,107l steel. Now, for honeycomb refining. Base honeycomb refining is 100l for 10m3. Steel honeycomb refining skills at level 4 give: 100 * 0.8, 10 * 1.2, for 80 steel input, 12 m3 output.
 
We now have ~12,600m3 of steel honeycombs. Let's go back to that bot buy order. 361.11q per m3, 200k quantity. We sell the 12,600m3 of steel honeycomb to the bot buy order, deleting those materials from the game, and getting ~4.55 million quanta injected into the economy from nowhere. At 3.35 million ore costs, that's quite a profit.
 
At level 5 skills, this profit becomes even more absurd, at ~5.7 mil. Even via crafting something like basic pipes, 3.3 mil of ore gets deleted/converted to 5.4 mil quanta...
 
Does anyone else think this is a problem?
 
TLDR: Good crafting skills lets you convert ore to parts and sell them to bot orders for crazy profits and also delete that ore from the game. Probably 20 million liters of t1 are being deleted per day, or more, and 500 million quanta added to the economy. Also, expect to see T1 ore prices rise to at least 35q per liter before people stop doing this.

Before I start, this is just an example to get people going.  It's not meant to be the most min max example.  It's not as profitable as just mining, but mining gets old quickly and is time consuming while this gives you some free time to do other stuff.
 
It uses only t1 ores and only small industry.
 
4 x this set up will set up a 800 unit run every 280 minutes (with talents up, but not at 5) which you can sell to bots for 2mill.  About 12 million every 24 hours.  Provided you've got the ore, this will run itself.
 
Since you are likely to be new and cash poor, get these in stages.  For 1 set of 4 you will need
 
5 Small containers 
5 Small Industries (small basic atmosphere eng s)
4 Metalworks (basic reinforced frames s, basic burner s, basic screws, basic pipes)
3 3D Printers (basic injectors)
2 smelter (steel, silumin)
1 chemical industry (polycarbonate plastic)
2 refiner (ore to pure)
2 Transfer unit (screws and pipes)
 
This keeps max connections under 10.
 
Below us a rough flow chart on it's set up.
 
Once you are sure you understand the process you can go on to more complicated set ups.
 
Edit: I keep thinking injectors were called connectors, so the C in the containers that says f,b,c,s,p should be f,b,I,s,p.
.
 
 
 
 
 
 

I think you're missing the point of what a salvage skill means. The 100% necessary change being suggested is that element destruction needs to be a thing in some form or another for the sake of balancing; it's not realistic or sustainable for the victor in PvP to be able to walk away with someone else's entire ship, the only cost being using scrap to repair it. That is a ridiculous amount of profit for successfully winning a PvP encounter. A proposed salvage skill means that players will have the ability to profit from the wreck of a destroyed ship, but not get an entire new ship out of it. It also means they won't have to necessarily haul the entire wreck back to their base; they could just salvage parts of it on the spot. I'm not sure how any of this "cuts down the speed" of combat; it's not like the targeting is technical enough that you can target specific elements of the ship to more "gently" disable a ship for the purposes of making repairing/salvaging it easier. Fights ought to result in destruction; all the salvaging skill would amount to is being able to glean something from that destruction.
 
If a player has two computers and is willing to buy two accounts, I can't see any way that NQ would be able or incentivized to punish this. Personally, I don't see any issue with multi-boxing, but as a long-time player of EVE, that was the standard for many players, so I'm used to it. That being said, the issue with the Cube meta has nothing to do with multi-boxing and everything to do with the way core sizes interact with radar and how that makes large railguns oppressively strong. An XS core using large rails can lock and fire upon S, M, and L cores without those cores being able to even lock onto the XS. Doesn't matter if it's one-person multi-boxing or 2+ people working in tandem, that is the broken aspect. But, that brings us to the planned fixes:
NQ-Entropy stated in an interview that they plan to make it so that core size is no longer tied to radar lock distance. This means that an XS core can be locked at the same distance as every other size with a large radar. This alone heavily nerfs the effectiveness of only using XS cores with large railguns because they lose their biggest advantage mentioned above. Entropy also mentioned they are looking into perhaps limiting weapon size to core size, which doesn't merely nerf the current meta, it completely destroys it. I personally don't think locking weapon sizes to core sizes is necessary, but I'm also banking on a more in-depth energy management system to balance issues related to that. Armor should also probably be reworked if only because despite the fact there are tons of different honeycomb, only a handful are actually useful and distinct.

Tech issues can be a real killer for many people, there's no doubt about that. I have one friend that gave it a shot but was unable to play effectively due to his computer specs. Admittedly, he could use an upgrade, but the point remains that optimization is a breaking point for many people.
 
But with that said, I think the existence of content that people are actually able to commit to in meaningful ways (e.g. multi-faceted player-driven economy, territory warfare, and exciting/rewarding exploration) will keep people coming back and renewing their subscriptions. DU already has a fantastic construct building system, and while that alone is enough to keep many people engaged, the above mentioned features ought to drive even greater retention.

They are pretty useful for seeing those who are camping just inside of the safe zone to gank you.

The Alioth Aerospace Expo is a Community event where all the manufacturing organizations come together to show off their latest designs. We have events and contests at these Expos as well. For now attendance is free and we rotate which Organization hosts the Expo.
 
This time Hyperion has the pleasure of hosting the Expo. We are looking forward to present you the biggest event in the beta.
 
 
► When:
Spring 2021
 
 
► Why should I attend?
The Expo aims to become a central hub of the shipbuilding scene. It is an opportunity for both industry giants and innovative startups to attract new civilian and military customers, by showcasing their talent to the wider player base. More than 600 constructs were already participating at the last Expo! 
 
 
► Want to show off your ships?
Players and Organizations can register for exhibition spaces, one construct per area. There will be 9 areas in total.
 
There will be three phases/ways to register your ships for exhibition.Choose the way you prefer. We recommend our Website.
 
Phase 1: Pre-Registration on the Hyperion website starting 23rd November
Phase 2: Registration via a Google Form starting 14th Dezember
Phase 1 and 2 are live now! Feel free to use our website to register your ships. For boring people we have this google form.
Phase 3: During the event, free space can be arranged via Discord. For each area there is one responsible person who takes care of it.
 

► What are the areas? What kind of ships can be exhibited there?
1. Military Ships - all ships that are designed for PvP
2. Freighter - any vessel designed for the transport of goods
3. Shuttle - all ships designed for the transport of persons
4. Replica - replicas of constructs from the real or a fictional world
5. Scripting - all dynamic constructs related to Lua
6. Starter & Scouts - all ships that can operate as scouts or are especially suitable for beginners
7. Racing - all ships designed for racing
8. Luxury Ships - The most glamorous ships with the only purpose to sparkle and shine
9. Organizations - Extra exhibition space for organizations with a greater amount of ships
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Further details about the Expo and the events taking place will be posted here

We welcome any support you like to contribute to the project
Contributions for the Expo can be made here: ::pos{0,2,16.7544,112.0115,42.2058} Please claim your items
 
 

Sorry, as for someone with a decade experience pvping in eve, and pvp experience in DU, element destructions is 100% needed.  What ive also proposed tho long ago as a forum post, is a robust Salvage talent tree.  And im not talking about holding alt and clicking to take elements salvaging.  I'm talking about when elements are 100% dead, you can get some RNG and possibly get back some parts that were used to create that.  So things do die, but slavagers can still profit some.  And with durability it sounds like even if someone loses they wont have completely destroyed every element so still profit to be had.  
 
As for docking I've never done anything with it so dont know.

I think the heart of the conflict is based around people's expectations not being met. One extreme side of the spectrum is a group of people who expect to be able to attack whoever they want, wherever they want, so anything that curtails that is undermining their expectations. The same is true for the opposite extreme: some people just want to be able to mine, build, and trade without having to worry about other players interfering with that. Whether we call it PvP, PvE, PvPvE, combat, emergent gameplay, sandbox mechanics, or anything else will not change divergent player expectations. As I said, there's merit in what you are saying. How players perceive mechanics matters, but I'm skeptical of how much that perception is rooted in language and semantics. Perhaps the best point in your favor is that the term "PvP" has accrued powerful connotations, both positive and negative, and so its use might very well be deleterious to the discussion. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure it's possible, much less effective, to try to alter the vocabulary at this point.

Register here  - https://discord.gg/jc466CG

 
 
 

 
 

Greetings Noveans,

This is your newest Community Manager, NQ-Naunet, reporting for duty! ?

It’s no secret to all of you that Dual Universe has undergone some changes in recent months; the launch of Beta, an increase in fan-made content appearing across our social channels (bye, bye NDA), and new NQ staff members popping up all over the community... just to name a few! Exciting things are on the horizon for all of us, and we couldn’t be happier about it.
 
The first big mission I propose we tackle together, should you choose to accept it, involves this space right here - the forums. In the interest of keeping things tidier, more useful and fun for everyone, we’ve been thinking about giving this place a bit of a makeover.
 
If that piques your interest, read on to see what we’ve got planned so far. We propose:
 
Cleaning up some older, less relevant pinned posts and limiting future pinned posts to ~5 per topic. Archiving older, pre-Beta material. Creating a dedicated Beta category! Adding an “Innovation Station” space for creators to show off what they’ve been building in-game. Changing the look and feel of the forums with a brand new theme. Implementing an “Organization of the Month” series to highlight some of the amazing things all of you are getting up to together.
What we’d like from you is your feedback, as it’s important to us that this place continues to be made for you, by you. Please let us know:
 
Which topics/threads you feel should be preserved! (Tutorials, lore, etc.) What sorts of categories you might like to see! Any theme/styling suggestions you may have. Anything else you think we should know about the forums/our proposal.
  I’m really looking forward to hearing your thoughts and getting to know all of you a little better. Together, I think we can whip this place into the best shape it’s ever been in! ?

~ NQ Naunet, over and out.
 

Yeah... lets time gate everything fun. So - buy the game, set talent queue, login after a month or three to actually start playing. Great idea. Totally against it. 

we dont know what we will have but its not ok ship to carry weapons bigger than the ship itself

Okay, lets be real though: there's nothing casual about this much mining. Casual is the people that log in once a day and mine just enough for what they immediately need and maybe not even that. Casual miners also don't have what is, objectively, the best mining setup in the game with a triple scanner ship, let alone two, and they aren't getting any T4-T5 ore, let alone excesses of 50-100k. 
 
Mining may very well be too easy, but I think the more pressing issue is that there isn't any permanent loss of elements and there's nothing else to really do on any kind of scale except for mining, hence why everyone has so much raw ore.

Wut.
 
The safe zone may be where most of the players are, but it's a pretty small portion of the game "world".  And it will become even smaller if they start adding more star systems.
 
As for the whole "we should get rid of the safe zone" argument that folks are making, they're looking at this extremely short-sightedly.  NQ should absolutely keep the existing safe zone.  This not only ensures that new players can get a good foundation for the game, it ensures that there's actually an economy in place, because I'm pretty sure that all of the, "OMG, I just wanna blow people up!!!" crowd is not going to be contributing to anything other than the ammunition trade.  On top of that, as time goes on and NQ adds more systems, the fact that three planets and a few moons are a safe zone will become less and less relevant in regard to PvP.  As long as NQ puts something worth going to other systems for, the "I'm only happy if what I do makes someone else sad" crew can get all the PvP shenanigans they want and we get a functional economy.
 
If NQ gets rid of the safe zone, DU *WILL* lose far more players than would ever join specifically for that feature.  Despite what the PvP-obsessives tell themselves, there is almost no demand for MMOs with unrestricted PvP.  Or did y'all think it was a strange coincidence that MMOs with unrestricted PvP* rarely last more than a year?
 
If you still want to be playing DU a year or more from now, you'll want them to keep the safe zone in place indefinitely.
 
*No, EVE does not count as an unrestricted PvP MMO.  If a game has an NPC faction dedicated to blowing your ass up if you start stuff in the wrong system(s), it's not unrestricted.

Any good sandbox (even purely PvP based ones) need to be hinged on a risk/reward balance. To accommodate the maximum number of players in your game, you need low risk places/activities with low rewards, and high risk places/activities with high rewards. That includes zones mostly or fully free of PvP risk. I am saying this with a 10 year Space Pirate career in EvE, with full intentions to do the same here. If they open everywhere to PvP, monopolies would emerge and devour all the interesting diversity.
 
PS: I admit the reward differentiation to compensate for no risk is not there yet. But it's very early. They should have kept the production capabilities of the safe zone to T1 only. There is no point at all to produce anything outside the safezone too.

I really, truly fail to see the issue with the current safe-zone, and I'm a player (along with my friends that play) whose top feature is PvP. I think the people that are demanding the safe-zone be limited to Sanctuary/Alioth are failing to see the bigger picture of how a truly player-driven sandbox would fail to function if people had only a small moon/single planet to safely build and run operations on. I desperately want NQ to rework PvP to make it a satisfying and comprehensive experience, but the safe-zone doesn't have anything to do with that. Give people reasons to leave the current safe-zone and there will be no shortage of PvP.

I really, truly fail to see the issue with the current safe-zone, and I'm a player (along with my friends that play) whose top feature is PvP. I think the people that are demanding the safe-zone be limited to Sanctuary/Alioth are failing to see the bigger picture of how a truly player-driven sandbox would fail to function if people had only a small moon/single planet to safely build and run operations on. I desperately want NQ to rework PvP to make it a satisfying and comprehensive experience, but the safe-zone doesn't have anything to do with that. Give people reasons to leave the current safe-zone and there will be no shortage of PvP.

First to answer your question, the scanner functions omnidirectionally, so the 400m is a radius. Additionally, you can actually get the max range up to 500m with both Scanner Upgrades and Scanner Advanced Upgrades trained to 5, and it's definitely worth it. As for the question of to scan or not, I think one person would be hard pressed to beat the efficiency of 3 scanners in terms of determining if a tile is worth mining for stuff. If you're just looking for smatterings of ore, sure, just go sans scanner and see what you come up with, but if you're looking for large quantities of specific ores or T4-T5 ore, there's no way you'll beat the efficiency of 3 scanners. And working with a team, this is even more true since you can relegate one person to hopping between borders and scanning three tiles at a time, and having another person(s) mine preliminary discoveries that are only sort of worth it until you find the big score. As for where ore is found, the only determining factor that I'm aware of is depth, so they can be anywhere within the tile along X and Y axes.
 
As for the force respawn having a cooldown, I think that makes enough sense and I'm fine with it. I see it as less important with mining and "beaming up" though, and more relevant to PvP and being able to constantly respawn after being killed.

Thanks! c= and ye gotta prepare >:3

If you want NQ reaction, open a ticket.. post it on a public discussion forum and expect others to chime in
 
"A user of the game" is not the same as "an in game character". You can scam and steal from a character as much as you want. you can't use social engineering in game or on any of the  NQ platforms (or in fact according to the text anywhere when your interaction is relating to DU or NQ)  to impact/affect the person behind the character (aka the player).
 
You can steal someone's shit  and hold it for ransom in game but you can't then go "pay me 0.005 bitcoin to this wallet to get your stuff back"
 

I am taken to understand that the first statement in question refers to overt attempts to insult or threaten another player through the use of hateful language pertaining to the mentioned categories. I agree that things should be as specific as possible, but this reads like most statements made in codes of conduct that are designed to remind players that they should not use bigoted language or make actual threats against the players themselves. I do not think it refers to threatening to destroying someone's ship, org, etc. if they, for example, don't pay you a ransom. I fully expect at some point for certain organizations to, say, threaten smaller organizations or individual players with destruction if they have the strength to do so. All part of the sandbox experience.
 
The same goes for the other rules. I think they refer to the real-world players themselves, not their avatars in the game. So, don't try to steal someone's password by imitating an NQ employee, for example.

Good stuff! Always glad to see people preparing for things like this to reassure me there's going to be some fireworks at some point! Also, +1 for the carrier/fighter designs.