Zamiel7

Also explained why me & my org are going the carrier / mobile sustained assault strategy here c= https://youtu.be/JDta4de2Tdo and how I think it's the best way for small-medium organizations to wage war and go against bigger organizations if you guys are interested
 
The fighters are primarily for atmospheric base bombardment and fighting in general, while for the usual space railgun thingy (current meta) we have our own version of the usual borg cube, which is more rectangular so it fits on the deck without blocking the guns and has lower air resistance (all of the ships are atmospheric-space hybrid)

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.

Step 1: Start the repair process by holding the mouse button down.
Step 2: While still holding the mouse button, alt-tab out of the game. You can then let go of the mouse button.
Step 3: Surf the web, watch netflix, browse the forums, etc while the repairs continue in game until you alt-tab back in.

I've read this thread from top to bottom now (ending at this point, whose to say what's happened in the time I've taken to write this), while my take is nothing special and has been said several times already, I'll offer it anyways:
 
I'm inclined to agree with this statement particularly.
 
Was it in bad taste, I agree, it was. I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that point.
 
The decision to leap straight to a permanent ban has me taken aback. I haven't seen anything personally, but I've heard plenty of reports about people's entire bases being stolen out from under them, even live right in front of them.
 
This blight went on for nary a time before NovaQuark finally gave us some guidance on the subject. People stealing your construct due to misconfigured RDMS is on the construct owner, and that such theft would not result in any action on behalf of NovaQuark.
 
Okay, I can understand pinning the blame on the player tester for misunderstanding the system or handing out permission willy nilly, or even setting perms to 'all', which now has a window advising players testers of the potential hazard. This, to me, is reasonable. The player tester needs to clean up their act and take it as a learning moment no matter how bitter the pill is to swallow.
 
I can even understand NovaQuarks position relating to interference with the game test. One of the marketplaces on Alioth was destroyed, and some player's testers orders were interrupted.
 
What I fail to understand here, is how NovaQuark can tell players testers who had their constructs "stolen" from them on account of faulty RDMS be given no action, only to turn around and permanently ban players testers for taking advantage of faulty RDMS on NovaQuarks own constructs.
 
It was also laid out a few days ago to that theft as a result of bad RDMS will not be actioned on by NovaQuark.
 
Did people's orders at the marketplace get interrupted, yes. 
Did a marketplace get destroyed by some players testers, yes. 
Did stuff get stolen and sold for profit, yes. 
Did some people get inconvenienced, yes.
 
Guess what:
Come atmospheric PVP and player-run markets, this kind of activity will be a daily fact of life which we'd all best get used to it.
 
Maybe for laughs, they even wrote out "Plz don't ban" in voxels when the crime was finally done. All right, perhaps it wasn't a new person that stumbled upon this but someone with experience that knew what they were doing, and the profit-seeking crime is premeditated. Instead of a seven-day ban, make it a thirty day one.
 
Sure, the beta experience got sullied, I agree. And while it was an NQ marketplace that got the wipe, it's not like it's the only marketplace on Alioth.
 
While I do agree the destruction was overboard, I think the response to this from NovaQuark was equally so. I believe NQ should take this as a learning experience, the players testers too, but more so NovaQuark. The players testers learned that no one is immune from bad RDMS, and NovaQuark probably learned a thing or two about marketplaces that should come in handy for the future feature of player-run marketplaces.
 
Dare I say we should celebrate this moment in Beta as "Hey remember that one time in Beta where a bunch of people tore apart a marketplace?" and we can all laugh around our campfire years after release...
 
Instead, what are we watching? A two-tiered justice system; rules for thee but not for me. I don't like it, not one bit.
 
Don't get me wrong, I still think something should be done in the end, but I think the justice served here outweighs the crime. Meanwhile, the justice other testers are seeking for the constructs that got stolen from them is being delayed if not denied entirely. If that was the case, we'd have a month-long backlog by now (to clarify, on that issue alone on top of everything we already have) sadly, NovaQuark is in no way treating equal actions with equal outcomes and consequences as far as this particular topic of theft goes. If we're being honest with ourselves, then scoopers, dupers, and exploiters would have already gotten the boot before this event even happened. No great Quanta reset, no publicly nerfing the ice cream scoops, just bans.
 
The fact that this scenario played out the way it did, it makes me question what is safe. If I'm questioning what is safe, that doesn't exactly make me want to test anything out of fear that I might end up in the same fate. Maybe the only winning move is not to play test?
 
In most circumstances, I can see and understand in NQ's favor on crime and punishment, but this is not one of those times. Sorry to say, but you do not have my support in this, and I've also been given some things to think about as a result of this. I don't think this topic has met its end, which is what I'm waiting for before I come to my definite conclusion. Know that I'm still just a user like anyone else commenting on this thread. I can't sway NQ's opinion in any manner, and that is not my intent with this post.
 
You have my thoughts and I'm curious to see what the future holds.
 
Oh, and I'm not joining anyone's protest or movement on any communication medium. I'm simply offering my opinion on the matter which is what these forums have allowed me to do.

Thank you @Zamiel7 for your response. Yeah, I figured I might not be aware of some things since I'm very new to the game.
Didn't know that, thank you for the info. But I still think that make more more unpredictable would be a good thing, since it encourages exploration and making mining a bit more rewarding.
 
I agree with your point, but I'll have to check how high tier ores are distributed in a tile, because the approach I've mentioned of going to the center and down to check for them would still be faster for checking for T3+ ores than the scanners. If ores become more unpredictable the scanner value would be even better and manual searching would take longer. One question here, is the scanner max range 400m of radius or diameter?
 
What do you think about this?
 
On the rest I agree with you, thank you for letting me know that most my concerns are already being planned for.

There's definitely some worthwhile ideas kicking around in here, but there are also some things that you might have the wrong impression on:
The issue here isn't with the predictability of ore appearance; it has more to do with how worthless moons are for mining anything right now. Basically, if you're spending any amount of time mining on moons (other than to get the one mining achievement for mining on 20 different planets/moons) you are straight up wasting your time. Moons have pathetically low amounts of ore, especially for anything above T1. Ultimately, moons should probably be rebalanced to actually be worth mining, but that has nothing to do with ore predictability.
 
I disagree with this. Scanners can be useful for confirming whether a mined tile still has any meaningful amount of ore in it. It's been the case for us that we happened upon a tile that had been visibly mined, but had a mostly unfinished mega-node of T1 ore. The people mining originally didn't even come close to finishing it, but also didn't claim the territory, so we were happy to finish it for them. Whether or not it's a safe zone has nothing to do with it.
 
The issue with these ideas is that they don't actually benefit solo players as you claim they do, and only adds a mostly redundant alternative to just claiming territory. For most mining, claiming territory is totally unnecessary and even counter-productive. A solo player or an organization looking for specific ores can easily just scan, mine, and haul what they need without the need to claim anything. The only time claiming territory for mining becomes a practical need is when you discover a mega node or a tile that has large amounts of a variety of ore, which if that's the case, you'll be wanting to claim that tile semi-permanently (i.e. how it currently works). However, there is an idea here.
 
Ultimately, what will become one of the biggest downsides to permanently claiming territory will be the fact that everyone will be able to see that territory claimed on the map, and once planetary PvP becomes a thing, that means you've just painted a target on whatever you've claimed. Large organizations will have a huge advantage here because they'll be better able to hold and defend their territory, but solos and small organizations might be interested in the veil of obscurity that comes from not claiming territory. So, perhaps an idea worth mulling over is creating a way to temporarily claim territory that doesn't indicate the territory is claimed on the map. This could give players the chance to be a little sneakier in their activities.
 
I think a lot of these will actually be introduced into the game; I'm pretty sure it was soft-confirmed that shields and such would be added, as well as requiring certain elements like wings/stabilizers be more thoughtfully placed. I wouldn't say that voxels as a whole need to be stronger, but I think there should be more meaningful and balanced roles for the different types of honeycomb. Right now it pretty much seems to boil down to go ultra-light with aluminum or heavy with steel.
 
PvP definitely needs an overhaul and it's planned to receive one. That being said, it is already the case that the pilot and gunner can control some, but not all guns; it all has to do with the PvP capability of the seat in question. Pilots should never be able to both control the ship and wield bigger guns though; that goes against the design ethos of the game in terms of ship design. As for damage, I have no doubt some of the numbers will change, but you have to be careful about just straight nerfing damage; the ability to replace voxels and repair elements currently would mean ships could be damn near indestructible. 

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.

i think if you want to make mining more interensting you should reward player for doing extra steps not punish him for not doing it

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.

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.

This is 100% BS. Here and in real life. 
Justice is applied against a crime, one case at each time. 
And you definitely do not need to be 100% just to apply justice at one case. 
 
Sure we want all exploiters to have some sort of consequence for exploiting. But punishing one exploit has nothing to do with another exploit. It only has to do with the consequences his exploiting caused to others. 
 
One case at each time we must evaluate and apply justice. 

Going to be totally honest with you here, I wish they had kept it in the game, i liked the fact you could steal ships from unclaimed tiles, jacking ships is gameplay.  As long as they were using gameplay mechanics, claiming the tile etc. then they had no idea if it was intended or not, thus you cannot punish them for it.  

My biggest issue with this whole thing is that is went on weeks before NQ said or did anything, the first thing they should have done when they found out about it is issue a statement telling everyone whether or not it was considered an exploit.  From that stage on anyone doing it could be punished, not before.

Wow we have gone off topic here.... not even I could have gone this far off track GG

It is not about being a 'crybaby' it is about a company selling something and then completely going back on it.  If they had said that there would be a wipe, no problem.  If they had said they couldnt confirm anything, no problem but they didnt, they chose to soft launch the game.  Reading your post I am not even sure you know any of this.

So you are completely missing the point, if you say to people - there will be 'no complete wipe' unless it is unavoidable and then people make decisions and invest loads of time and effort based on that. Then you turn around and decide that actually no, all of that time and effort would be lost, people will be pissed.

The 'no wipe' decision was NQ's they made it, as such I committed a huge amount of my time, if they go back on that it is a massive FUCK YOU to me and others who have invested that time.

I understand why they made it, they had to because they started to charge subs.

Please note, I dont think they will wipe
 
Oh and as you chose to call me both a crybaby and stupid, WTF is that username, are you 12?

Remember, it's far better when only a certain subset of the players get to use an exploit. That way it maximises the differential and disparity caused by the exploit so that only those in the know get to benefit from it..

If the news of the exploit became widespread then everyone would benefit from it and the sudden player parity and fairness would destroy the status quo.
 
/s
 
IMO, if NQ has no intention of winding back the earnings of players who use an exploit then the only fair course of action is to give everyone access to the exploit until it is fixed.

Otherwise NQ are just entrenching the winners and condoning the behaviour as a valid machanism to get ahead of others.

Would you risk alienating a large part of your playerbase, those that have been here for years and supported the game, to do that.  What purpose would it serve, apart form put us back to square one, having to build civilization again but this time with pvp in place.  Part of the benefit for this period of no pvp is it give civilisation a change to grow.

Who cares? You implied that EVE was losing money - it's not. You then said that my sources were bad and never posted evidence to the contrary.  Now you are moving goal posts about player numbers vs profitability.
 
 

1) The amount of salt in this thread is beautiful. /slow clap
2) EvE is a 17 year old MMO that still has 10-30k concurrent players at any given time. It is in no way, shape or form dead or dying.
3) If you screw up permissions for your guild bank in WoW, Blizzard does NOT replace your guild bank contents. Period. It doesn't matter if you're on a pvp or pve realm. Permissions are the sole responsibility of the guildmaster and if you screw it up, you're SOL.
4) If you're so risk averse that you're trying to redefine PVP as "Anything another player does to me that I don't consent to fully" you should probably go play another game. Maybe single player Minecraft as others have suggested.

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.

I have to say FAIR PLAY for coming on here and giving your side of the story.  100% NQ should not get involved here if this is clearly just a case of org theft.  Sorry but the only people who should have access to that level of goods is people you TRUST.  Giving someone rights to your org bank is major shit, you gave it to the wrong person.  Sorry dood, I feel your pain.  100% that 'pvp should be in the game' but it isnt, and we all know that.  Secure your shit!
 
But they knew there was no pvp and they can do nothing to retaliate, sorry that is not an excuse here.  This game has extensive RDMS and whilst it might have hole, that is not the problem here.

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.

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.

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.

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.