TildaW4

Yes, the player base was shrinking pretty quickly towards the 'unviable' point it got to in beta.  The sudden 1.2 release feels like a panicked response to this.  Otherwise why suddenly drop alien cores and a whole planet, for example, without even teasing that it was coming?
 
That having been said, it was a pretty decent release and a good step in the right direction.  They obviously are thinking about some of the right things.
 
IMO what is needed in order to reverse the current decline (as opposed to just flatlining for a while before resuming it) is for there to be a longer term roadmap of big and exciting features to retain the interest of the player base.  Re-introducing planets and alien cores isn't going to cut it here IMO.  It would need to be actual new and interesting things that people can look forward to.  Full marks for actually listening to the things the players want (more reason for ad-hoc encounters in PvP space or a gameplay loop to replace planet mining/calibrations for example) and giving the players some of those things.
 
I expect what will happen, though, is the features which didn't make 1.2 will become 1.3 and perhaps we get another planet and a couple of alien cores.  Which all just feels like stuff we've done before.

Lets just keep it simple shall we?
Since before release NQ has been told in multiple forum threads and constantly on Discord why this system is flawed.
We all know it is flawed. Even those of us that know how to work the system to our advantage advocate for a change.
 
Stop acting like it just needs more constructive feedback.
 
If the game designers want some help they need to engage.
Yes, let it be possible for anyone to find T2 within 20-30 hours of gameplay, and T3 within 40+ hours.
The way it works now very few people that scan first have the chance at up to T4 with very little time invested.
Then it's over. They have the tiles until they decide to sell said tiles or they abandon the game.
 
Here are two ideas:
A very simple way to change the system for the better would be to just increase the number of hotspots and make them smaller.
 
Another idea would be to have the process of finding ore take days on a single tile and be random in the size and type of pool that is found.
 
Digging for mega nodes was bad, we get it it. But if people can still have a chance to find a "mother load", even if it needs to be mined out slowly, that is way better than scanning tiles for hours on end and not finding anything but T1.
 

The only part of DU that will come back from the dead is old posts like these 😁

Just my personal opinion, but not saying anything about the wipe is leaving paying customers in an uncertain situation that can quickly turn into disaffection to the game: this project has so much potential that I feel sad in seeing it wasted like this: NQ we deserve to know what your decision is now.
 
 

First things first, I don't hate DU, nor hate the devs and the GM/CMs, those always were quite friendly and open to talking with players. What I hate is how the management at NQ is going to end up killing DU in their pseudo-race to see how quickly they can release it. I don't care if the game takes ten years to release and they keep charging for it as a beta, I do care about getting a good game with nice mechanics, something actually enjoyable, in return.
 
Like really, NQ is going to end up doing a paper release of DU with mechanics that are either half-finished or aren't even enjoyable and they are going to spend the only "hype" moment of release they can with it. This isn't the same as No Mans Sky that did a full 180 and became a cool game, it is an exception not a rule. If the game doesn't take off on release it might never make it. Anyways, here's what I feel about what NQ called the game "pillars" in their state today:
 
- Building and scription, well I must reckon, the voxel and Lua tech on this game is amazing and you can clearly see the devs did a work of love there, building and scripting is very nice and can be a rabbit hole if you want! Kudos to the devs working on that!
 
- Piloting is also quite good, I like the simulator feeling of DU and how we can fly in and out of space, even with autopilots it never gets old. As some people have mentioned before, it would be nice to have multi-role (rotating) engines though and maybe some passive wheels that behaved like landing gears.
 
- Mining is now reduced to just machines spitting out infinite ore after you find your unicorn 600L flower and asteroids on the Saturdays. Yeah, because the lack of rolling release of asteroids makes them mostly useless during weeks, even the ones at PVP zone. The whole "discovered but not public" thing is also a really poor attempt at forcing players to cross each other's path instead of relying on "emergent gameplay".
 
- Combat/PVP is a joke as it is right now. Clicking buttons to "target" and "fire at" someone and praying to the almighty RNG/talents instead of relying on actual skills might have worked for some early MMO in the 2000s, but definitely not for such a "big and innovative" game such as DU and in 2022. The issue gets even worse when atmospheric/planetary combat gets mentioned.
 
- Trading is okay-ish, the markets definitely need an UI overhaul, but it works. Player markets are nowhere to be seen (other in Scoopy's lost inventory, that is) and I'm quite sure they won't show up for a long time.
 
- Social, oh social. DU wants to be a metaverse and tries its best to push players to socialize, but does so by punishing those who want to play solo. There's orgs, sure, but what's the benefit of those other than maybe sharing some constructs or elements? You would assume that by having your tiles close to your org mates you would have benefits and all, but instead you actually lose the mining bonuses? Now this is inside an org. Try to scale this to something such as a nation, that was one of the things DU wanted to create (with politics, etc), why would people do that to themselves by living nearby just to create a pseudo-nation? That's not to say the really -really- bad communication system. Sometimes the only chat tabs I'll see is Lua and maybe General, and that's it. For the rest of time I won't even remember other chat channels exist. VoIP is also non-existant, which honestly makes no sense for a game who wants to be a metaverse or at least to have emphasis on social aspects.
 
- Industry, well it's fun. It's really nice but schematics are quite meh and I've said a few times before it would work much better to have an unlockable tree system instead. But yeah, let's copy EVE on that. The whole linking concept is a bit meh, I really would like to see factories with conveyors (even if they were opaque like in SE), but I understand that limitation.
 
Anyways, this is what I can say about the game in like the year and half I've been around. Please don't get me wrong, I really like DU and wouldn't have spent so many hours playing it if I didnt, but I also know there's a lot of room for improvement here and that releasing right now is a bit of a bad idea for everyone, except for management, but well, let's hope for the best...
 
Also a quick extra note here regarding DACs. I think it's a really bad idea to release them without a proper way of trading them in-game. Not only scams will happen a lot, which will lead to lots of people complaining on NQ's support tickets, but also will probably be an open door to RWT to happen, more than the game already has. Please NQ, invest your time and get this stuff properly tradeable in-game before releasing it. Thanks.

Seeing honeycomb when placing a blueprint is nice, but there's still no fine control over the placement.
If you are trying to place a static, such that what you're placing will seamlessly integrate into a larger structure, it's still impossible to do that with blueprints. If you just turn a few pixels to the side, the alignment will be off. The borders also constantly ends up being a fraction of a voxel either inside or outside the voxels of nearby cores.
Edit: Not to mention that blueprints seem to move 2 voxels when you use the arrow keys. Wtf.
 
Blueprints need to be able to snap to the grid of an existing structure, just like static cores do. When expanding a structure with static cores, it's easy to position a core on the existing structure by just moving the mouse over it, and then keyboard-move the core into place, because it snaps to the existing grid.
 
Make blueprints able to snap to existing grids that same way.

NQ can you please give us some sort of idea when you will be releasing wipe details??
 
Many of us are not interested in your Easter Egg hunt or doing anything else until we know the details of the wipe.
 
Any info is appreciated.
 
Thanks

Hello, Noveans.
 
What are you thoughts regarding our SHEDDING LIGHT ON A NOVAQUARK INTERNAL DISCUSSION communication? Let us know below!

Following our policy of being as transparent as possible and to keep everyone informed, we want to give you some insight about the internal discussions the Novaquark team has on the delicate topic on whether we’re going to have a wipe or not, and under which form. The discussions are numerous, as there is no easy answer and we have to take into account all of the pros and cons for each possible solution. We also have been taking into account the players discussions which have happened - and for some, are still happening - on Discord and our official forum. On one hand we have you, our early backers and players, who supported us for quite some time now, and we want to renew our thanks for being so patient and passionate about Dual Universe. On the other hand, we have the constraints of making the game appealing to new players.
 
Please note: By “new players”, we mean players who’ve just heard about Dual Universe, but we also have many backers that have chosen not to participate during Alpha and Beta, so they can begin playing once the game has reached a polished enough state with game mechanics.
 
SO, WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS WE HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT?
 
We know that players have repeatedly asked for an answer to this question. It has been on the table for many months, if not since the Beta opened. The team has been discussing many options on the topic and we’ve gone back to the drawing board many times. Here is an overview of the factors that we are taking under consideration:
 
A reset would be an opportunity to remove things that have been deemed very unpopular by the already existing community, such as the schematics. The only way to remove them in a clean way without causing too many disturbances in the economy is clearly when the in-game economy has been just reset.
 
Many tests/adjustments during Beta have impacted the in-game economy, leading to have some players getting extremely rich way faster than intended, due to an intensive use of some features in their early stage, such as the mission system (and that's understandable, as the situation is part of a normal process in the development of a game). However, it's also common practice in the game development process to usually have some kind of reset when critical milestones are reached, and resetting the economy to have a healthy start once the game has been stabilized and the game features have become more balanced makes sense.
 
As you, our current experienced players, will have quite an advantage compared to the new players on many levels (game knowledge, talent points, wealth, constructs already owned), there's a need to make things a bit more balanced to give a fighting chance to the wave of new players that will join the Community later.
 
We also want to give all the players (new players as much as a big part of the early backers who have waited for the game to be in a fairly polished state) to have the opportunity of the right start.
 
In case of a wipe, finding a way for our veteran players to allow them to keep (or rebuild quickly) their favorite constructs, without creating any loophole for players to bypass the reset (and defeat the purpose of why it’s done).
 
Some planets currently do not have the quality and polished state the Novaquark team wants to give them. We also have seen that a part of the Community has the same opinion on the topic, and this is why the dev team has been planning a revamp for the planets which haven’t received one already.
 
WE CONSIDERED SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES SO FAR TO REACH THESE GOALS:
 
- Doing no wipe at all.
 
Pros:
Satisfying for some of our long-time builders and traders Cons:
Unsatisfying for players wanting to discover the game and start with a more polished version of the game. Does not allow to remove Schematics properly. Does not allow to revamp the old planets properly. Does not allow the rebalancing of the economy properly. Potentially keeping bugs related to very old Constructs.  
 
- Making a partial wipe where the economy would be wiped, but not the Constructs, which would keep all player-made creations intact, with also in mind to prevent some players from storing resources on said Constructs to circumvent the reset of the economy.
 
Pros:
Relatively satisfying for some of our long-time builders. Cons:
Extremely complex to put in place properly without the known loopholes interfering (such as piling up Resources and Elements on existing Constructs before a wipe and removing them after to sell them). Unknown loopholes could break the wanted healthy economic reset. Does not allow to revamp the old planets properly. Potentially keeping bugs related to very old Constructs.  
 
- Having a “legacy” live server and a new live server, where only the blueprints made before the new server opening would be transferred to the new live server.
 
Pros:
Could prevent any wipe with this solution while managing issues the dev team is trying to solve. Cons:
Opens a number of new issues server-side. Would split the Community.  
 
- Having a full wipe (except blueprints) with solutions to make old time players able to rebuild their favorite Constructs quickly through various means.
 
(Here are a few examples of discussed ideas to reach this goal: for our veteran backers, starting pool of talents points and/or quanta, resource multiplier event right after the reset, etc.).
 
Pros:
Prevents loopholes for an economic reset compared to a partial wipe. Most efficient, proper way to remove schematics. Most efficient, proper way to handle a planet revamp. Cons:
Some possibilities discussed could be seen as an unfair advantage.
Keep in mind, if the above solution is decided on, that an improved version of the Blueprint / Construct deployment tool available to all players will be implemented in-game at the time (or maybe even before) such a solution would be applied to the game.
Such improved version will enable players to have:
A preview of the Construct before deploying the said Construct from a blueprint (this feature should be available with Athena release). An ability to auto-align the preview of the Construct on an already deployed Construct (this feature should be available a bit later after Athena release).
   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Though this may seem to be a long explanation, it’s a (very) short description of everything the Novaquark team has discussed so far on this topic. So stay tuned, and we thank you again for your patience and support. As mentioned before, our decision will not be made on a whim, but will be made considering and pondering all of the factors mentioned above.
 
Let us know your thoughts on all this here!

As good as the 'Andrex wipe' sounds when you say it quickly, any sort of partial wipe would just end up being gamed by rich players.  Leaving constructs behind?  Lets put 50x rare XL engines and 3 warp beacons on each one!  There are already genuine ships which have 30+ XL space engines on them so it won't be as easy as you might think to spot this if it's done intelligently, particularly for a game which can't spot the difference between Janko and elements which are just next to each other.  What about 'everything but talents'?  The people with talents will get up and running so much faster than everyone else and it will take new players many months to catch up.  Wipe elements and leave voxel?  That sucks if you're voxel planet and everyone fills their constructs with huge chunks of voxel to sell post-wipe.

I keep trying to think of some sort of partial wipe which would actually work, but they all have their problems.  IMO the choice is between no wipe and a full wipe like we had at the end of alpha, with everything including talent points reset.  Anything else has problems which defeat the object of the wipe by giving pre-wipe players huge advantages.

I've been trying out the PTS and the changes look great.  There's more there than I was expecting there to be and the PvP changes look like they really will change the meta which I'm excited about.  But one of the things I was hoping for in this release is something which would place more limits on the (currently ridiculously large) amount of quanta which can be made by farming missions.  The speed changes do place some small limitations on mission running but they don't really do anything at all to address the current imbalance and the container changes might actually make bulk mission running even easier and raise the limits on what can be done!

Currently on the PTS the speed changes stop at about 2Kt and a speed of 20K, which is about the mass of a single package and 2/3 of the current speed limit.  That means that all mission running is limited to 2/3 of the current speed regardless of whether the player is running 1 package or 200.  As on the 'real' server, if one is running missions there is absolutely no reason not to make the mission ship bigger and take more packages, the only limit being the number of packages available to take.  There are some speedbumps at certain sizes but generally speaking if, for example, I'm running 50 packages and someone comes along with another 10 for me to run there's no reason not to make my ship a bit bigger and take those too.
 
At the moment the worst abuses of mission running are probably being limited by the impending release and the threat of a wipe.  People with beta accounts can run a lot of packages but people paying a sub probably don't want to spend too much subscription money doing it in case that money turns out to be wasted.  After release, I think mission running is just going to turn the whole thing into a pay-to-win game with peoples earnings only really limited by the number of subscriptions they want to pay for.  Since this is the last major update before release, time is running out to fix it!
 
Personally, I've been playing with 6 accounts.  After release I was originally planning to buy 6 of the 1-year subs and continue to do the same thing.  However, with missions being the way they are there is a different option available.  With the same upfront cost I can just buy 2 1-year subs and spend the rest of the money on 25 1-month subs I never intend to renew.  Now I have 25 characters for mission running.

But mission running is boring and a lot of work, right?  So instead of running all those missions I can just find a mission runner and offer them 1/2 the reward to take my packages for me.  This is a complete no-brainer for them -- the reward is about 100mil/mission and all they need to do is make their ship a bit bigger to take it so it's money for almost no downside.  Now all I have to do is pick the missions up and turn them in at the other end.  Depending on the setup there might be some shuttling of the packages to/from a station too.  I've been running some missions and am fairly certain that turning in one set of packages and getting another set ready can be done in about 40 minutes using 2 computers and a third GFN session running autopilot.  So 40 minutes of effort gets me about 100 mil after paying the mission runner their share.

But why stop at one mission?  The mission system lets me take as many missions as I like,  so I can just find 5 mission runners and get them all to take my packages at the same time.  Now I'm making about 500mil every time for about 3 hours effort.  And if the mission runners can find a few more people like me they're all making similar amounts on each run.  It's probably too much to suggest I can get 5 sets of packages taken every day and keep up the 3 hours of work per day it would take to turn them in, but it's certainly not unrealistic to suggest I can get 15 runs in a week done and make around 1.5 BILLION every week.  So my 25 1 month subs are going to let me pay-to-win to the tune of around 6 Bn quanta.  

What can I do with 6Bn quanta?  At 100mil for a high end PvP ship I can troll around and do as much PvP as I ever want without much risk and without needing to care about alien cores/autominers/whatever.  But instead I could, perhaps, go straight into endgame industry content (after 4 weeks), buy a 3-line warp beacon factory and pay someone to boost it.  Then I can easily make 800 mil every month forever (assuming too many others don't do the same).  Or perhaps DAC will be introduced and I can spend 2.5Bn on 25 DAC so I can do the same thing again for a second month?  This type of thing will push the price of DAC right up so the only people who will be able to buy it for quanta at all are people doing this kind of thing and it will introduce a second way to pay-to-win -- buy DAC and sell it to the people doing mass mission runs.

There are probably a bunch of people thinking "Don't tell them that I'm making loads of money from missions", but IMO the system is completely broken and this will eventually break the whole game because why bother with empire building, civilisations, etc when it's so easy to just farm massive piles of money.   And it's because:
- being able to take multiple missions at once lets the alt-farmers multiply up their earnings but is not really useful to small-scale players
- no real cost to taking more packages means every mission runner just goes bigger and bigger over time and ends up taking packages for other people
- missions are not tied to the player driven economy at all, allowing them to flood the game with quanta and cause inflation if too many are run

Some suggestions for easy ways to balance this without making massive changes to the game:

- Make it so each character can only have one Aphelia mission at once.  In my example above that would really hurt the ability to make money.

- Make it so most (75% for example) of the rewards for missions are paid in items rather than quanta.  These could be 0-mass 'schematic licenses' or something which are required to build the new items and consumed in the process.  Perhaps they could even be required to build some existing items too.  Different missions could give different sets of items so it's not possible to just run the one mission that gives the one item you need.  Since adding players increases demand but adding alts does not this would mean that as more alts run missions the rewards go down, encouraging people to do something else instead.  It would also make it possible to alter mission rewards by controlling the market, optimise results as the 'best' mission changes over time, etc and this is what a player driven economy is actually supposed to look like.  It could also be set up such that if everyone runs the 'big' missions the smaller ones get more and more valuable as they're needed to make the smaller items, etc.  By making the smaller missions have higher % cash payouts one could reward individual players while not rewarding alt farms (as the shorter runs spend a greater % of time logging in/out).

- There needs to be some 'cost' to making mission ships bigger and adding more packages.  I think a good cost would be increased risk of PvP, because more packages should mean a larger organisation which should in turn mean a greater need to protect things.  One way to do this would be to slow ships right down to 2K/s if they get really big, but that would be really boring for the mission runner and force people to run them AFK.  Another would be to have a probability for ships to be briefly (30 seconds at a time, say) detected on radar at ranges higher than 2su.  This might look a bit like the recent PTS bug did.  Make it so that the range ships can be detected from *and* the probability of detection go up as the mass of the ship goes up, so a 10kt hauler will probably never get detected but a 200kt one will light up like a Christmas tree from 75SU away.  That would mean that large loads need protecting, small 'ninja' haulers can get through blockades and medium sized hauls can chance it, getting through sometimes and providing red meat for the PvPers on other occasions.  Lots of different types of gameplay could come out of this -- blockades/taxes, white-knights and pirates might all have some fun here.

This turned into a longer rant than I meant it to, but I think this is something which really needs to be addressed before launch so we can have a sustainable game.  Wipe or no, if people can make 6 Bn back in the first month then the game economy is going to have huge problems as players need to choose between:
- have a lot of alts and do missions
- run a lot missions for a lot of peoples alts
- buy DAC for $$ and sell it to mission runners
- be poor

And I'd like to see a more balanced and interesting game.

I am sure most people here are already aware of all this but to the newer players reading through, note there are differences between simple pvp banter, trolling, and harassment. Pvp banter is just the friendly back and forth conversations you get before and after fights. You are under no obligation to participate in pvp banter and can simply choose to not respond when engaged. If you do wish to chat and are relatively new to said banter, I recommend you start off with a "good fight" or "nice one" and let the other party know you are still learning. In the event the banter becomes unfriendly or someone is bothering you (aka trolling) in chat, blocking them is a very effective solution. In the event that someone's conduct rises to the harassment level, you can contact NQ support and submit a player abuse report. If you have questions about what constitutes harassment, I encourage you to read up on the official code of conduct or message one of the community moderators/managers.
 
Hope that helps.

You're not wrong.
 
DU desperately needs some form of exploration mechanic post-Demeter!
 
It's really weird to have this vast sandbox with so much focus on shipbuilding...but then there's not much reason to fly your ship except between your tiles and the market? This definitely needs tuning. NQ is tragically stuck in the past if they think this sort of gameplay will scale today in 2022. 

Hello NQ,
 
The recent update has left many of us with the need to disassemble large numbers of constructs. I am sure many of you are with me when I say "Can we please have a quick disassembling tool for constructs?"
 
Many of us have hundreds of cores to disassemble, voxel and elements. If there were larger selection sizes with the voxel tools this would be more tolerable but as it stands we will spend great amounts of time disassembling.
 
It does not makes sense to me that I can instantly place a BP of something but if placed wrong or I have a need to redeploy I have to spend much time deleting and redeploying. There needs to be a way to remove a construct quicker than manually deleting all the voxel and elements.

I feel like this is an issue with most open world PvP games -- because the "strategy" is to always outgun the enemy. This tends to be how it goes in all games without structured PvP.
 
Much like real life, the correct strategy is to pick fights you know you can win vs. engaging in "fair" fights. That makes it boring and uneven for everyone, but is sort of human nature. 
 
This is why MMOs have structured PvP, instead. It isn't as realistic, but it makes for a more interesting game. This is one reason I hate when there's too much focus on realism. Realism doesn't always (or often) make for good game structures. 
 
In my opinion, there's no way to balance fully open-world PvP -- especially on a single-shard system where each ship is custom. Symmetrical, fair fights will likely be an accident vs. being the norm...no matter how they tweak weapons and defenses. 

This was much needed, thank you.
 
Every time you guys change the talents around, I have to re-organize my queue and I don't want to start over every time.
 
The clear button is nice, but can we have the ability to right click on a queued talent and move to top/bottom?

that way I can quickly move things around as needed
 
Thanks!

You can do something about most of these items yourself.
carry xs core with rez on back of primary vessel  use a clock and slow down before getting close to a planet use archehud with collision detection, have A LOT MORE brakes install an emergency control unit on your ship build small warp ship, go to all planets before hauling, and place a small space station with ressurection equipment and a small shuttle ask other players if you want / need to go to a planet and need help

The options in DU to manage pvp risk is really restricted:
It's either you go pvp / join organized org Or you don't.  
Going to an asteroid "solo" is plain stupid.
For "doing pvp" it is totally reasonabale (and part of doing pvp) to come up with new, better, smart (or lame) ways to take out a target with minimized risk. Otherwise one woud be just as stupid (or unprepared) as the non-pvp player going to an asteroid on their own.
 
Forcing players to do something they do not like to access content is bad.
Putting players into a situation where they do something they do like but at the  same time make them piss of another group of players is also bad. 
 
I am certain that pvp'ers would much more like to have really reasonable pvp incentives that would get them to fight other players who DO like pvp, and where being smart about doing pvp is "good tactic" and not lame gameplay mechanics.
 

Typical ignorant response that is the root cause of why so many who do not look for combat engagements stay far, far away from the chance of encountering one.
 
Someone who does not have the desire to engage in combat is not "a carebear" it is a player who pays the same amount of money to play as you with different preferences and choices. Demeaning and degrading someone else's playstyle really is not helping your argument, in fact, it strengthens the opposite one.
 
The compare with EVE is entirely invalid here as EVE has very intricate and extensive options and choices you can make to mitigate the risk of an encounter to a point where it becomes an acceptable one. I've said this before but my main character in EVE pretty much exclusively lives in Nullsec and Wormholes because that is where his activities are, and he is both smart enough and equipped with the tools needed to survive there, only to get caught if he's being dumb or just plain unlucky. I fly there without weapons and only carry ECM drones as a means of escape if needed. 
 
And yes, you can encounter PVP in Highsec sure, it's mostly opportunistic in origin though and I still question the sanity of those who think hugging a gate with a Tornado for hours on end with a scanner alt hoping to find a ship worth ganking and have a third alt scoop the loot as the Tornado pilot will be dead is "fun".. Same for 10 alts at a lowsec gate with smart bombers hoping to catch that one valuable ship.. That's not PVP, that is bullying. And yes, EVE allows that gameplay so it's there, but for me, these are still the equivalent of RL lowlifes and scum. I despise these kinds of players even when they are generally fairly easy to avoid.
 
 
DU has NONE of these options yet though, if I were to go to an Asteroid outside of the PVP zone, I basically have no way to know whether the asteroids is camped until I am in firing range of the campers, once I get targeted I really have no way to escape. If the asteroid is not camped, as soon as I land, ANYONE with a DSAT knows I (or better someone) did so and can come out to destroy my ship while I am mining. They can have scanned the asteroids down to its location and sit in wait outside of radar range for someone to "discover" it.
 
 I, and I know many others, have no fear of going outside of the safezone, I'd actually prefer to do so but the risk involved is simply not worth it if you are not intent on a combat encounter. And not being in the safezone does not mean you are looking for a fight, that is just a nonsense argument. outside the safezone you CAN encounter a combat situation, and the reward for going into "PVP space" needs to be worth that risk, which it currently simply is not. There is just no reason for me to venture outside of the safezone as there is nothing to gain from it, ther is only risk of loss.
 
But in general, it seems that concept goes straight over the head of a good many "PVP" players, who just write off anyone who thinks different than them as "carebears".

There is no reason to have a HQ tile on each planet. If your operations allowyou to have apresence on eachone, I think it woudl be fair to expect yo can cough up 500K per planet per week at least.

Frankly, I think the 5 you have now (and that number may go down in the future) is already rather generous.
 

Hello Noveans, as yesterday's discussion thread was so lively, we would like to open a new thread to hear your feedback on our planned revisions.

NQ, Seems this is not well thought out as you see from everybody's reaction.
If you are going through with some sort of variation of this, AT LEAST give us a Core deconstruct option that deposits materials and components of the core into the linked container. 
 
Thank you

NQ could implement virtual garage for all constructs static/dynamic to ease the server load.  When you stop subbing your constructs would go to storage after two weeks.  
 
When this happens player would be penalized and would need to pay 100k-500k per construct to retrieve em.  When you pay the fee you will retrieve BP of the construct just like those XS vehicles with existing components etc..
 
This way we can achieve the same as implementing core slots but with less aggressive means.
 
Even though this will only solve the issue of non absent players.  The infinite core issue could be solved with mining lasers on ships so people wouldn't need to deploy hundreds of cores to hundreds of territories just to mine lol. 
 
 

It’s the tale of two stackings that were never meant to be, nested organizations and overlapping elements on ships. Both have been problematic, and we’d like to give you an update on the steps we’re taking to correct them.
 
 
ORGANIZATION CONSTRUCT SLOTS
 
Several months ago, we suggested a way to address the issue of cascading organizations being created as a way to circumvent the soft limitations of construct and territory numbers. Players raised some valid concerns about the proposal, citing that it would adversely affect how they managed their organizations’ holdings. In consideration of that feedback, we temporarily tabled the proposed changes and went back to the drawing board.
 
The problem remains and needs to be resolved sooner rather than later to avoid a myriad of issues in the future. DU simply can’t support an infinite number of constructs per player. It’s why we have construct allowances in the first place. We needed a solution that would support community projects for organizations of any size without penalizing those that are prolific. After all, one of the core features of DU is to build lots of cool stuff.
 
 
THE NEW WAY
 
The solution we’ve designed will detach construct capacity rights from organizations and put them directly into players’ hands. 
 
Organizations will now have a base construct capacity of zero.
The reasoning behind this is to no longer make it a viable option to create countless organizations simply to increase the capacity of constructs available. This will now depend on the next item on the list…
Each Novean will have 15 assignable organization construct slots, with an additional 10 available from talents.
This change allows us to scale the maximum number of constructs to the number of players. This can be beneficial to smaller organizations because… 
Players can assign these slots to any organization of their choosing, whether or not they are a member of the organization.
We hope to see players use their available organization construct slots to support their organizations and to help support community projects they like. For those who want to support a different organization…
Noveans can reassign their slots from one organization to another, though this will cause the former organization to lose construct capacity.
This means that...
An organization that loses capacity will either need to acquire new slots from players in order to support its infrastructure or reduce its number of constructs.
If the organization has more constructs than its allotted slots for two weeks, the organization will receive a warning. 
If the organization does not either reduce its construct count to below its new allocated slots or increase its slot count two weeks after the warning, random constructs from that organization will become abandoned and lose ownership. At that point, any player or organization who has the necessary allotment of construct slots may claim it. 
This system allows us to maintain a balance in terms of expected constructs present.
 
Further, to prevent players from trying to circumnavigate the system by reassigning construct slots back and forth every two weeks, there will be a minimum of 30 days before you can reassign the slots away from an organization.
 
 
USING YOUR TALENTS
 
Many of you likely used talents to increase an organization's construct capacity. Talents will still play a role as they provide an upper ceiling for a single organization’s capacity; however, these talents have been increased in their capacity, which now allows a single organization to have a far higher construct slot maximum.
 
Where the old maximum was 275 constructs, the new upper limit will be 1625.
 
As these changes significantly increase the scale of which these talents previously applied, these talents will be reset at the 0.28 Panacea release.
Organization Construct Management
Organization Construct Management Specialization
Advanced Organization Construct Management Specialization
We try to limit the resetting of talents as much as we can; however, due to the considerable changes in the way these talents now behave and scale, we feel that refunding these talents is required.
 
 
FRESH, NEW UI
 
All the changes revealed above will come with some UI improvements such as:
A new interface on the organization home page, allowing each Novean to assign construct slots to organizations of their choosing and to see how many slots they have assigned to which organizations.

A new interface called ‘Constructs’ on each organization page, allowing each organization to have insight on how many slots they have available, who they received them from, when the next construct check is due, a log of slot gains and losses, and what their slot maximum capacity and talent maximum capacity are.
 

 
Another minor feature we will begin to introduce into some select UI elements is the ability to export lists in JSON format, the first of which can be found in the new organization ‘Constructs’ UI above. It will include a small copy-to-clipboard button, which will copy a JSON formatted string containing a list of all the data available in the column. In the above example, these can be found for:
Construct Slots: This will return a JSON string of player names, how many slots they have shared, and if they are a member of your organization.
Construct Check: This will return a JSON string of constructs that have been abandoned due to lack of construct slots, their coordinates at the time of abandonment, and a total count of constructs that have been abandoned.
Log: This will return a JSON string containing the date it was copied as a unit timestamp, the number of allocation changes, followed by a list of players, how many they have lent to the organization and how many the organization has as that point, along with a Unix timestamp of the transaction.
 
Following feedback on these export functions, we will consider implementing them for other UI elements such as, for example, the Talents UI.
 
When the Panacea update launches, it will kick off a 30-day grace period at the end of which the abandonment of constructs will go into effect. Please note that if your organization exceeds its slot capacity, a warning message will be received; however, no abandoning will happen for the first 30 days after Panacea’s release.
 
 
DISABLING OVERLAPPING ELEMENTS
 
The stacking of elements on ships is unintended gameplay - aka an exploit - that we have been aware of for a regrettably long time. Though we’ve explored a few different options, including the detection solution we released previously, community feedback prompted us to postpone the disabling of elements until after Panacea’s initial release. 
 
The revised approach will likely include trials on the Live server without disabling elements in order to measure the impact of the algorithms. We would like to thank everyone who reached out to us with constructive feedback and bug reports of elements that caused problems in specific placements.
 
 
FEEDBACK WANTED
 
The forums are the absolute best place to share your feedback with us. Although members of the DU dev team may pop into Discord from time to time, the loose and fluid nature of those chat channels can make it difficult to have an earnest discussion. The forums, on the other hand, are static and much more conversation-friendly. 
 
All of that said, we hope you’ll join the conversation about this devblog here. 

One of the reasons there are so many constructs in the game at the moment is that there is no easy way to un-deploy constructs.  To do this at the moment requires going into build mode, removing all the voxel (which can get tedious if you miss a small one), removing all the elements (sometimes small ones are hard to find again) and then picking up the core (which I think some people fail to work out how to do given the number of core-only constructs I see around).
 
I understand the original reason for not having this feature was that constructs was intended to be permanent things not things you could magic up when needed, but with the recent devblog talking about automatically despawning constructs for inactive players does this still make sense?  Are constructs really permanent things any more?  It seems that one of the development goals at the moment is to have fewer constructs in the game (for whatever reason) and it seems to me that having a good un-deploy feature would be great for this.  There are certainly a few constructs I could tidy up if it were easier to do so.  It would also make it much easier for people who want to take breaks to do so without having to worry about moving all their constructs to sanctuary, etc.

It would, of course, need something like s 30 minute timer after deployment to prevent abuse in PvP, etc.  In theory this could be used to make it easier to transport ships, buildings, etc in haulers rather than carriers, but this would be balanced by the loss of all buffs after despawn/respawn and the inability to respawn an un-deployed construct you don't have DRM on without buying another BP.
 
If un-deploying is considered to be too easy/fast, perhaps this feature could be built into the repair unit?  It can already revert a construct to a previous state, it should be easy to make it revert a construct back to just a core which can be picked up?
 
So how about it, can we have an un-deploy construct feature please NQ?