carijay766

a) Will there be a visual indicator about something being docked? So when hover over the construct you can see a (docked) added to the name without having to go into build mode or the seat. b) Can I land on another ship without bouncing off like rubberized cardboard now? c) Do I have to be always inside my static construct to use the repulsor and prevent people from getting inside? Is this even meant for static constructs aswell? D) Can I still dock my own constructs to other owned constructs with the maneuver tool?

The timeframe isn't fixed and can be easily adjusted later on, its a acceptable temporary solution compared to landing pads. Hopefully it will be replaced by something that works better with concept persistence and maybe naturally adds some content. 30 days is pretty generous but its a good compromise as a first measure to get people used to the idea of not leaving their constructs everywhere or taking some responsibility in a living world.

transparency

Yes seems like "dev-time" isn't so precious after all when its for the french.

Seconded. This sums it up very well, while NQ certainly means well, it seems like they have very "sterile" approaches to how things should be implemented. This "game"/metaverse is indeed an ecosystem or should be, so you need to approach it with economical, social and gaming expertise - not just purely assuming one or two "cool features" make a great game or great content.

Because its the first time it was implemented.

Its the forum "upgrade" thats causing this I would assume.

Yes damn you for thinking about creative use of mechanics in a sandbox! Playing around with stuff to come up with unusual solutions. Im really disappointed you even dare to think of an creative approach. Clearly its for the players to guess the developers intention and 100% and only follow this intention. If you think outside the box its on you and its perfectly fine for the developer to shame you publically instead of being thankful for your creative and unique way of showing possible flaws in the mechanic. I had some really weird projects in the past where developers actually learned from this, were thankful - especially in a beta which is meant for testing and pushing limits - and considered similiar cases their responsibility not blameshifting those situations onto the playerbase, cant explain why someone would do such a thing tho.

That would be flawless logic yes, especially considering the game mechanic intends to avoid people from artificially stopping ships in place and intends to force their trajectory/movement to continue. Not long ago logging out to make your ship stop was deemed an exploit even, now it seems there has been a 180° turn on "common sense" as this seems to be considered the baseline now and people that counteract the "feature" are deemed exploiters - even tho acting perfectly within the intended game mechanics.

What would your common sense say?

Yes "in theory" your ship should be flying on and on, its just a server limitation that it doesnt not a mechanic to avoid your ship from moving, the intended mechanic is exactly opposite. If they could they would make the move constantly. That wass the idea about the change.

Its not quite correct its a theoretically moving train that is stopped due to server limitations, not due to game mechanics, and picks up movement as soon as you jump on it. Which would make it pick up the initial movement and thats within the intended game mechanics. So theyre in a somewhat quantum state of existence when not rendered, moving but also staying in place. But again the much more crucial part here is that the safe some was declared a responsiblity free zone and that the safe in safe zone has to be interpreted literally as its common sense. Even if this was due to covering up some favoritism, we now have to work from here.

The only thing we require now is a believable, not completely vague and misleading, statement from the company that secretly replaced the head figure of the project.

The safe zone was never declared as mistake free zone (before). It was purely declared as zone with no PVP and that was it. Everyone knows knew if youre in whatever way negligent you have to bear the consequences, safe zone or pvp zone. This is still a sandbox game right? For this situation there is also a very clear game mechanic: Its called space core docking, its common knowledge that this is was the way to protect your constructs in space in the safe zone. Its a perfect way to regulate the mechanic and theft, just like RDMS. Negligent about your RDMS? Bear the consequences. Leave your construct floating in space? Bear the consequences. - At least in the past, but now as has been clarified any kind of action that would put you in an unsafe situation (per definition bearing consequences of your actions) in the safe zone is deemed illegal.

This will allow for easy ban bait when I offer free taxi and log out 500m before the safe zone with passengers on board and they "transport" my ship by regular game mechanics outside of the safezone and they or someone else captures it. Yes safe zone is supposed to be safe (from PVP, not mistakes!) but as there is a perfect counter for any kind of theft (docking to space cores), everything else is pure negligence and wasnt be covered by the safe zone (before), because this opens every door to more issues. Especially considering other game mechanics and situations which allow transition between safe zone and PVP space will be affected by the changed situation. So since the safe zone is now completely safe from any responsibility and negligence logically (and by common sense) I wonder: Does that also mean any kind of roleplay/ingame scamming is forbidden in the safe zone? Any kind of miner slavery? Any kind of luring people into the pvp zone? RDMS theft protected? etc. etc. This opens a lot of questions for me here, since these things would make the safe zone incredibly unsafe.

Thats the difference between a privat friendship circle and a professional endeavour. Even if you have favorites you act upon it equally if youre in an professional environment. We as private customers are in a different position than the service provider and professional part in this. Certainly some rules can be extended/stretched for some constructivism and goodwill, but favoritism that directly punishes one/another side is not the way to go in any case. Being professional doesnt automatically entail being soulless and coldhearted - you can still keep a friendly communication with your customerbase, but you should certainly keep favoritism out of the business when this is very harmful for the business model and concept of the project.

Youre also somewhat forgetting NQ has been holding the holy grail of no interference in the game by them very high and made it a promise to themselfs and the whole community. To me it seems there is quite a lot of interference even in regular gameplay/player events (I'm not talking about NQ organized events - even tho also there they should keep true to their "no interference in gameplay" maxim they set themselfs). This makes me wonder how much of this holy grail is actually left...

Well you are very much out of the loop then my friend. Because exactly that happened. Not only did they fully cater to Elias's requests they also did so with several attempts and a lot of devtime involved as le_souriceau stated. His ticket was forwarded to the highest ranks in the team it appears, in the fastest manner I've ever seen such a ticket being forwarded and processed. Elias discontent about the situation even triggered a somewhat official statement concerning that case by NQ (in the end no clearing up the siuation tho). In context of absolutely no reaction during or even after the schem sale this is a very interesting development indeed.

Sorry everyone I will not continue this project

thats not a bugtracker/overview its a suggestion overview

link plox?

trello is nicer not so nerdy

So what made them change their ways? The influence of CCP? Most of the earlier ideas seem to make absolute sense for civilization building. Also later on I realized NQ is already is planning something similiar to my concept concerning blueprint - it was one of their kickstarter promises. Funny coincidence that our concepts were so similiar, I only found this recently.

Added another concept line: ACCOUNTS and CHARACTERS