McXerXes

The first tour has launched with many Noveans in the amazing new tour 'bus'!

Noveans: Time to Celebrate! 
 
With the upcoming anniversary/birthday of Dual Universe on September 27th, it is a great opportunity to share some sightseeing with friends and to see just what everyone was able to accomplish in the past year!  We are pleased to announce another yummy tour for all of to devour. 

What we need from you is to suggest locations that you would like us to visit. You can recommend your own territory, or favorite ones that are must see. From the giant cities to the terraforming magical places, please fill out this form with where we should go for this tour. You can submit as many locations as you wish to and the icing on the cake is that the places we visit will also receive a special anniversary gift! 

Times and schedules will be listed in the coming days so that you can plan ahead. (We welcome you to suggest days/times that are convenient for you by responding to this post or on the form, we will do our best to have a mixture of them as always but please understand, it is not always possible to include specific day/time requests.)

Get ready to party in style Noveans the birthday fun begins next week.

Are you ready to get the birthday party started Noveans? We hope to see you there!
 
Edit after the tours: Here are the locations we visited, thank you to everyone who join us on the Cakeship and who welcomed us to their bases! ❤️🎂

 


Name: Location:     Tour #1:       Hadron ::pos{0,2,-21.6869,122.4980,129.7891} Damphousse Industries ::pos{0,2,7.9980,118.7774,88.7384} IndusTec ::pos{0,2,9.1374,129.4230,112.5327} TMO Collection ::pos{0,2,3.1020,105.3463,82.6680} Kosmos ::pos{0,2,2.8792,105.6984,75.5553} The Tower of MegaBossLord ::pos{0,2,31.0384,84.7546,289.8985} LSA Industries HQ ::pos{0,2,20.2080,104.3921,50.0352} Pure Velocity Racing ::pos{0,2,39.4096,63.6052,-0.0001} Olympus City ::pos{0,2,75.0991,142.3833,230.8694}     Tour #2       The Dome ::pos{0,2,35.8920,105.1376,4.3109} Dragons Forge & Spire ::pos{0,2,31.5092,109.2929,160.1639} Orrianna's Spaceport ::pos{0,2,2.5048,104.8946,4.7898} SVEA Armoury ::pos{0,0,-197871.2864,70031.1802,123338.8100} Starlantis ::pos{0,0,-1000641.7251,593545.4678,-1418638.6669} Prometheus Space Station ::pos{0,0,13817187.9683,7354075.7083,-269049.5288} XVX Ember City ::pos{0,0,361920.2163,97980.0261,174034.8597} Bork Alioth ::pos{0,2,20.4522,99.5260,86.0460}     Tour #3       Czars Workshop ::pos{0,27,60.4414,0.6439,291.2939} Dead Horse Haven ::pos{0,27,-75.2763,-169.6530,852.8552} FenixGate ::pos{0,27,12.8373,-67.2906,144.5908} Lexikon ::pos{0,27,18.1747,44.4783,155.2728} Sentinels Fleet ::pos{0,22,-22.5165,159.0708,3.7489} Ikara Industries ::pos{0,2,21.3843,130.0209,116.0750} Statue Of Liberty Fly-by ::pos{0,2,44.9450,86.3831,935.4526} Dead Reckoning Shipworks ::pos{0,2,42.0986,86.2630,2.9098} Dolphin Cove Resort ::pos{0,2,38.5201,61.2517,-0.0001}     Tour #4       AJIO ::pos{0,2,23.2256,114.6579,219.0856} Stadium replica ::pos{0,2,-56.5475,97.9482,-0.0000} Titantic ::pos{0,2,40.5511,57.7986,1.4844} AhandInitFlo ::pos{0,2,4.1889,74.9573,23.3274} Unicorn Glue Company ::pos{0,2,1.5792,102.5154,112.1164} Element Library ::pos{0,2,-4.4430,113.4095,41.5525} The Black Lotus ::pos{0,2,19.2897,106.6770,8.4503} Kosco ::pos{0,2,2.8792,105.6984,75.5553} Hadron ::pos{0,2,-21.6869,122.4980,129.7891}     Tour #5       Obsidian Paradox ::pos{0,2,16.8527,83.9961,344.3734} Swervin's Glass maze ::pos{0,2,35.6623,104.2999,-0.0000} TLC ::pos{0,2,55.4676,77.8943,57.7230} Minas Morgul ::pos{0,2,73.3176,-31.1408,434.8853} VO Industries ::pos{0,2,26.8385,76.5585,0.9775} Zedvets ::pos{0,2,37.1376,103.9532,128.9650} Blaue Rose ::pos{0,2,39.7771,119.0713,0.9782}     Tour #6       CCU ::pos{0,2,34.8118,72.6230,260.7268} Stryker Industries ::pos{0,2,23.5091,113.9405,205.2525} Birds of Prey ::pos{0,2,35.8977,123.2930,1.8843} PlanetX ::pos{0,2,41.0178,107.5698,75.2121} The Alamo ::pos{0,0,-708.9293,-33.4185,-521511.0079} Boneworks ::pos{0,2,34.0215,110.2061,125.0697} Wossi86 Twitch Company ::pos{0,2,33.7632,145.9621,283.9261}     Tour #7       Zeiffer ::pos{0,2,19.6974,86.4653,290.1365} IC Spaceport ::pos{0,2,7.9416,79.7373,-0.0001} xItWasntMe ::pos{0,2,34.2876,64.0835,0.0000} Mercurius ::pos{0,2,28.3826,109.6753,129886.0859} SeekerofHonjo ::pos{0,0,109079.3822,434441.4001,149570.2299} Sharktooth Speedway ::pos{0,2,45.6424,75.5307,0.0000} Atlas Museium Management ::pos{0,2,45.3091,86.4826,-27.9521} MAD Alioth HQ ::pos{0,2,27.0993,85.3470,471.8129}     Tour #8       Starwatch ::pos{0,2,39.7697,61.6314,2.8796} Flibust' Station ::pos{0,0,-1205965.6390,1141829.7297,-2720820.3080} Stormy Base ::pos{2,27,-28.7824,13.7458,68.2534} Chalana ::pos{0,27,14.6313,108.1493,310.1708} Scherbenhaufen ::pos{0,27,53.1031,-0.6927,38.0295} Outer Rim Exploration ::pos{0,2,22.9132,-92.6303,125248.9141} BB Enterprise ::pos{0,0,13866943.3449,7395922.6959,-209945.1635} PE902Gaming ::pos{0,0,18076726.6364,22944070.5096,105190.5793} FenixGate ::pos{0,27,12.8373,-67.2906,144.5908}

Steal Player creations and resell again without asking  is for me also and all other cretors has also a mental  impact. Don`t react on concerns is slap into face

Steal Player creations and resell again without asking  is for me also and all other cretors has also a mental  impact. Don`t react on concerns is slap into face

So effectively, two years of beta has provided us with .. cost reduction and capping what players can do.
 
Normally you'd run the numbers before you start designing something that can accommodate those numbers.  NQ is working in full reverse in this regard.

And this message pretty much tells us NQ is not done yet.. This implementation clearly is still way too liberal for their goals and so they will put on the limiters even tighter in the weeks ahead .
 
 
That NQ is comparing their operation to a "private server owned by a friend" just is the icing on the cake and for me really drives home the desperation they feel around keeping their game servers running and the cost this incurs for them.
 
No NQ, this is not "a private server owned by a friend". This is a commercial enterprise where you charge more than your average private server would cost per account per month to provide less and less freedom and move away further and further from what you set out to build back in 2014.
 
You were supposed to be building a single shard world where hundreds of thousands (if not "millions") of players can interact, build, fight and have fun "without limitation". It seems you are not able to deliver that from what we're seeing here.
 
And no, that is not toxic, unconstructive or unfair. It is a realistic observation based on which I form the opinion I am entitled to have and share as feedback. Feel free to show me I'm wrong as so far, I see nothing that even comes close to doing so.

Hey there, I took my time, so sadly this will now get a bit longer, but I try to structure this.

Actual gameplay with the new system and a few questions about it:
 
Assuming this is meant for orgs with multiple actual people in it (not alts accounts).
IndyDude is the guy with all the talents for the machines, unless other orgmembers also have those talents (and rights) he is the guy checking any machines at intervalls to see which schematics are low and needed. He then has to communicate what is missing via discord or other outside of the game tools, as neither jobs/missions, nor the D in RDMS, not in game social tools works properly for this. Org members then make the schematics, what is still missing is bought. Hopefully the org wallet can be used for the fees. IndyDude takes thses schematics for his next check walk and refills what is needed. With current mechanics he would have to stop any running machines (even running but idle due to missing schematic) to place these.
Just as a reminder for people who do little industry, this means walking up to every machine, activate it; click schematics (to check); click production again; stop machine; click schematics again; insert new schematics, click production again; click start, exit UI (escape);
If you wonder why I used semi colons most times in that sentence, at those points the user has to wait for the server response, this can take some time. Anyway, all of this, you do for every single machine that needs a schematic in the future. Every few days.

Dear @NQ-Nyota , did I get that right? I am sorry, but this is hard to put into an aphelia question.

Is this really helpful, more fun and engaging? Also, anybody wondering how it will hit me, I have alts. So while I still have the annoying job of IndyDude above, the organising is a lot easier for me. Almost like the guy creating it was thinking "but at least it should give an advantage to people with alt-accounts.

Yet another per account time gate mechanic
 
You want to limit what a single character can do, yet when you limit things, you limit them as per account time gated. I will use this so often now, I shorten it to PATG. Talents are PATG, which is kinda alright, we got used to it. And while eve does it, mane other games don’t. The "default system" is to get talents by actually doing something. Here it is passive. Just need an account, it gets talents, passively, PATG. In other games you play a different character to experience another aspect of the game, like a different class. In DU, you just have an alt to get more passive gain, since there is little active gameplay needed.

Mining was made PATG, I used to not mine my own ore, but now that it is PATG, I do it (I still buy, but I get my own, too). It is a once per week annoying tedium while I watch a movie to calibrate, but compared to how much time I needed to actively actually do something in the past, it is easy money. Almost like PATG and less active gameplay leads to more people doing everything a little on the side.

Now you make industry another PATG.
 
What is next, missions? Wait, they are already PATG. Were right from the start. Fun thing is the player missions are PATG, too. I would have to use alt accounts to make better use of the player mission system. It is still defunct for most purposes though.

Which leaves, piloting, pvp, lua. Will we need limited charges for them soon, too?

Big factories need server resources! No, shush.
 
People, even when given an easier way to have a bigger factory, Hell if I sold tokens of my factory for 1 quanta, do not lead to more server stress for a simple reason, people do not produce more than needed. Even with all talents, why would my machines making, for example, container L run, if the ore is worth more than the container? The amount of things produced is the amount of things wanted/bought by players. 
Limit factories to a size that only goes through up to 1000kl of ore per day? Any factory currently needing 5 times that will be reduced in size, and new factories will be built by other players to meet demand. Unless you try to tell me that if there are less big factories, people will magically say "well, I could make profit with thing X, because prices increased, but then I would offset the amount of server cost saved by having closed the big factories!".
Limit of machines per account, per core? All just cause more tedium without "solving" anything. Why do people dislike large factories? Mine is out in the empty desert where it doesn’t hurt you.

You would save more server costs by stopping to park your ships at market 6 and the exchange to "showcase" them.
 
Increase of player interaction

Is checking the market interface to buy and sell items anonymously really player interaction? 

People will specialize!
 
Even if, what about it? Current system: John, Jim, Bob all do industry, all make adjustors, wings and engines, bring them to the market and people sell them anonymously.
New system, John makes Adjustors, Jim makes wings, Bob makes engines. They bring their goods to the market, sell them anonymously. Buyers don’t even notice. If something becomes more profitable, like engines. John lets schematics run out and invests in engines. Swapping "specialisation" gets easier with the new schematics, and specialisation is pointless anyway, I mean all buying and selling is done via a dry UI anyway.

Some good points though
 
To be fair, the new system is nicer for new players. It will also enable again the core group of people who left with .23, small pre-existing groups who set up a base someplace. Because even in an MMO, a group of 10 people should be able to have a mostly automous base, without needing to "interact" with the anonymous market all the time.

So what do I suggest?
 
If you already have to implement this feature, can you at least reduce the tedium and implement it with some QoL and maybe even fun right from the start?

-central schematic element per building, a "schematic registry" which was already asked for when .23 was announced. A single place to check which schematics are missing, what numbers are available etc. And from which machines can draw a schematic if needed. That means orgs can just ask members to check it from time to time when their queue is empty, produce what is needed and refill the schematics that are low.
No talents required. Just RDMS for that element to "view contents" and "put item into container".
No daily "check each machine manually, stop and start them to refill"

-Now that schematics are not a "lasts forever" item, you could make them occasionally be found. For:
*finished missions (aphelia or public player made)
*asteroid mining
*even a tiny chance when calibrating
*in nq spawned space wrecks
etc
 
-redo broken/inconsistent crafting material needs, tiers etc, I made a post about it.
 
-Instead of heavily timegating schematic creation, combine them with activites. Speed up the queue, give "copy credits" for certain types of schematic etc, for things you track anyway, via the achievement system. space engines for high altitude flight (thin air), higher/bigger atmo engines for atmo flights (Daisy cutter), AGG for having a big ship (shipyard master), cosmetics for using a lot of cosmetics (green house).
Or of course, any other form of active gameplay you can think of.


And about the player interaction:
Despite Entropy, the man who plays so much he doesn’t know what elements are in the game thinking that player markets are only a niche thing (a niche thing with all the top spots in the VR most visited list), player markets would actually mean that players go to other players.
Crazy concept, I know, in a game where every player makes his own base anyway, there would be a reason for players to visit such other bases, and not just fly to the same old NPC building and interact with a bloody terminal and stare at the same green UI.

@TobiwanKenobi
I really like your idea, but for me there should be the following basic classes of ships:
small and light fighters that are agile and hard to hit, and big and heavy battleships that can take a lot of hits.
  In this sense, your approach goes into the right direction. However, in my opinion, the battleships are also ships that should be crewed by a whole team and not just one person.  Unfortunately, I don't see in your suggestion how the multi-crew factor is taken into account properly. So for me it's going in the right direction, but it can't be the final approach.

@NQ-Entropy
L-cores are weak in the current pvp meta. I have an idea about how to make them more powerful(but not too powerful) while also adding some neat complexity to ship design in DU, and without taking away from the viability of S and M cores.
_____________________________________________________________

PROBLEMS:
1. Right now, having a light ship is valuable in pvp. Being light not only gives you good accel, it gives you a higher max speed. Having high accel and max speed allows you to withdraw and vent, run away, catch slower targets, dictate battlefield positioning, or just travel faster. L-cores are naturally much heavier, so they suffer here.
 
2. Being small is also important. Having smaller cross section means less enemy hit chance, which makes you harder to kill. Tiny S-cores with a M-shield can tank just as well or better than big L-shield armored L-cores. So again L-cores are penalized for having naturally larger cross section.
_____________________________________________________________

SOLUTION:
My idea is that NQ add a new mechanic that rewards having higher mass and cross section: Shield stability.

Shield stability: Higher construct mass and volume would make your shield tougher - a separate damage modifier that reduces incoming damage like resistances do.
_____________________________________________________________
 
RULES:
The mass and volume bonuses would be on separate curves, then added into one shield stability value, listed as a base value of 100% - a damage reduction multiplier of 1. High shield stability values might be 150% - a damage reduction multiplier of 0.666(33.33% damage reduction, which gives an effective hp bonus of +50%). Both curves would never allow shield stability to get anywhere near 200% (damage reduction multiplier of 0.5) so that a smaller shield could never achieve the same effective hp as a shield of one size larger. The mass and volume bonuses would be small at the low end of the curve. The mass and volume curves would have diminishing returns at the high end so that players can't just scale their shield stability to infinity. The floor of the mass bonus curve would start at the standard mass of a L-shield(125t). The floor of the volume bonus curve would start at the volume of a L-shield(646m³). The bonus scale would be the same for all shield sizes. L shields on heavy/voluminous ships would get good value, but standard-sized S and XS ships would get little to no value from this system, since they would have to achieve extreme masses (in the multi-kiloton range) and volumes to achieve high shield stability values. Shield stability would be calculated dynamically, so it would decrease throughout a fight as fuel is burned, ammo is used, and especially as voxel is destroyed. _____________________________________________________________
 
EXAMPLE VALUES: (obviously NQ would have to decide the proper curves and bonuses)
A ship with 5,000t mass and 3000m² x 500m² x 1500m² cross section values (a very big boi) gets a shield stability value of 147% - a shield damage reduction multiplier of 0.68. With this shield stability value, a Rare Active Shield Generator L now gets an effective hp increase from 10,000,000 to 14,700,000. So it has significantly stronger shields along with a large amount of CCS from voxel. It's now a tough nut to crack for S ships, but likely very slow and easier to hit for L and M guns.

EXAMPLE GRAPH:

 
_____________________________________________________________

NOTES:
This mechanic would add more choice and variety to pvp ship design. It would allow builders to make more stylized designs that normally would be too voluminous. L-cores would be good at killing other L-cores since their guns would actually do better dps to large targets than smaller guns would. They would target each other in fleet fights. The shield stability mechanic would also make haulers naturally tougher to kill, giving them a better chance to fend off pirates and survive. This would also indirectly add value to voxel, as the mass of additional voxel would simultaneously increase effective shield hp. Heavy voxels especially might become more attractive.  
CONCLUSION:
This shield stability mechanic isn't meant to make L-cores into invincible dreadnaughts, but to give them a solid bonus to survivability in the same way that small ships get bonuses - just reversed. My hope is that it would add potential to L-core multi-crew capital ships in stationary fleet fights. These tough, heavy, expensive ships would still be a liability in cost to build and operate, as they should be, but if properly supported and utilized they could measure up to the current light/fast S-core and M-core meta.

I've tried to think through many scenarios with this mechanic to try to find problems, but I'm only one brain. Does anyone see any issues?

Thank you dear NQ team for leaving a small comment. It will definitely not be an easy decision but you have received really good suggestions from the community. In principle, you would now only need to select and weigh what makes the least harm to the future of DU, old and new hares, technically necessary, etc pp. Personally, I have after all the posts and suggestions a golden middle ground together. But since none of us knows what you really need / want to do, it's hard to see through.
So to be honest I'm a little frustrated to be put on the back burner here. It's hard for me to find motivation to continue with the existing projects because I don't know what's going to happen. And I think that's how a lot of people here feel about "keeping the lights on".
 

Thank you dear NQ team for leaving a small comment. It will definitely not be an easy decision but you have received really good suggestions from the community. In principle, you would now only need to select and weigh what makes the least harm to the future of DU, old and new hares, technically necessary, etc pp. Personally, I have after all the posts and suggestions a golden middle ground together. But since none of us knows what you really need / want to do, it's hard to see through.
So to be honest I'm a little frustrated to be put on the back burner here. It's hard for me to find motivation to continue with the existing projects because I don't know what's going to happen. And I think that's how a lot of people here feel about "keeping the lights on".
 

Thank you dear NQ team for leaving a small comment. It will definitely not be an easy decision but you have received really good suggestions from the community. In principle, you would now only need to select and weigh what makes the least harm to the future of DU, old and new hares, technically necessary, etc pp. Personally, I have after all the posts and suggestions a golden middle ground together. But since none of us knows what you really need / want to do, it's hard to see through.
So to be honest I'm a little frustrated to be put on the back burner here. It's hard for me to find motivation to continue with the existing projects because I don't know what's going to happen. And I think that's how a lot of people here feel about "keeping the lights on".
 

Thank you dear NQ team for leaving a small comment. It will definitely not be an easy decision but you have received really good suggestions from the community. In principle, you would now only need to select and weigh what makes the least harm to the future of DU, old and new hares, technically necessary, etc pp. Personally, I have after all the posts and suggestions a golden middle ground together. But since none of us knows what you really need / want to do, it's hard to see through.
So to be honest I'm a little frustrated to be put on the back burner here. It's hard for me to find motivation to continue with the existing projects because I don't know what's going to happen. And I think that's how a lot of people here feel about "keeping the lights on".
 

Thank you dear NQ team for leaving a small comment. It will definitely not be an easy decision but you have received really good suggestions from the community. In principle, you would now only need to select and weigh what makes the least harm to the future of DU, old and new hares, technically necessary, etc pp. Personally, I have after all the posts and suggestions a golden middle ground together. But since none of us knows what you really need / want to do, it's hard to see through.
So to be honest I'm a little frustrated to be put on the back burner here. It's hard for me to find motivation to continue with the existing projects because I don't know what's going to happen. And I think that's how a lot of people here feel about "keeping the lights on".
 

Hello there,
 
First off, thanks for the feedback. 
 
So there's a couple of different things to touch on here:
 
The internal balance of shields sizes CCS/honeycomb health vs Shield Health per mass Venting
I’ll try to address in that order but they will mesh a little since they have some obvious links.
 
First of all smaller shield sizes are at an advantage in regards to HP/mass. So something to keep in mind is that as you go up in size, as it pertains only to shields, you are losing out on the HP/mass ratio (in simpler terms, each HP weighs more on larger shields). This is an inbuilt advantage smaller sizes simply have.
However, the main and primary reason we have different shield sizes at all, is to support constructs of varying sizes and mass. This is the key center-point around which everything else mostly revolves.
 
If you are intending to make a larger, heavier construct, that is going to trend towards or go past the max mass, then the large shield becomes the obvious choice. However, should you want to make something smaller, more agile, and quicker, you may start to use shields of smaller sizes. We already see people experimenting with constructs of smaller sizes using S and M shields to take advantage of the speed, this is a great direction, as long as the pendulum does not swing too far in the favor of smaller constructs.
Now, if the weight penalties do not sufficiently affect the design of the ship, and large shields are still too mass effective even on smaller designs. That's a subject we will continue to address. We do not want to see S designs using exclusively L shields because the additional mass from larger shields doesn't matter in regards to acceleration, max speed, and rotation speed.
 
To answer your question clearly, there is no direct goal for an M shield and an equivalent 95t of voxel to be worse, equal, or better than an L shield and I’ll try to explain why as we go. You should take the shield of the size that makes sense for the design of your ship. If you have the mass available, or are willing to “spend” the mass to have a larger shield, then go for it.
 
Don't want to get into the venting subject too quickly, but using an M with a bunch of honeycomb could allow you to vent once or twice during a battle, especially on a lighter design that can also evade some damage. Maybe the balancing on that isn't perfect, but it should be an option.
At the end of the day the inbuilt advantage of an M shield over an L shield is that it's significantly lighter. You say it's always worth going to an L shield because M+HC is worse in HP, maybe this is the case (more on that later) but the point is that for that 95t you could probably build out a good part of a fully equipped construct, allowing you to have a quicker, more agile construct with a superior max speed, that's the upside.
 
Talking concretely in regards to the mass, if I made a competitive light-ish design with an M shield around 250t ( I don't have one on hand, this is probably on the lighter side after the changes). I'm going about 38-39k km/h max speed, just switching from an M shield to an L shield, I drop down to about 35k km/h. Now adding an extra 95t to a 250t design is probably going to seriously hurt my acceleration as well, so now I'm probably at least looking at redoing my engine setup, which likely adds some more mass as well.
So now the question is more along the lines of, do I prefer an extra 5mill HP from the L shield, or about 5000-6000km/h extra max speed and some extra rotation speed. Well that's a question I’d love feedback on, maybe the max speed and rotation speed isn't enough, I could see that.
 
Secondly there could be an advantage to being able to “modulate” your weight while still gaining some tankiness from honeycomb. An M shield with some honeycomb unlocks some venting on that design, while retaining some/most of the mobility.
 
In regards to your reasoning about M vs L shields. Roughly you're going from “it only makes sense to use the largest shield mass wise, so I can never vent on xs-m because I'm not going to be using voxels on anything smaller than the L”.
 
Well honestly, I don't particularly agree with that, at least not in theory. The interest of voxels is that it's scalable, and you can choose how much voxel you think you need. If you're going to use an M shield because that makes sense for your design mass wise, you don't “have” to use 95t of honeycomb. You can use 30t of a good hc over your ship. That's already going to give you a chunk of armor to help you get some venting going, and probably not endanger your cross-section too much. If that honeycomb buys you enough time for 2 vents (probably optimistic), then you’ve essentially caught up on an L shield in raw shield HP and you’re operating at more than half the mass. 
Now maybe that's not viable, maybe the honeycomb itself is too weak and even reasonable quantities of honeycomb get blown apart too quickly, that's possible and that's something we can look at. Perhaps at that point the subject is more that voxels are generally weak.
 
It's also important to note that in regards to your “real HP”, some amount of the incoming hits are also going to be hitting elements, elements that can be repaired which can give you more tankiness down the road. That means that when comparing raw HP to CCS, you have to take into account that CCS is counting every hit no matter where it's going, as opposed to your raw voxel HP which will, in effect, have additional health from elements.
 

For point 2, there's a couple things to say here. Shields are not inherently in competition with honeycomb, as mentioned we don't want them to be magnitudes apart in terms of HP because it wouldn't make sense, but fundamentally they are supposed to be complimentary.
 
Now in regards to your chart and conclusions. You didn't quite explain what “mean raw HP” is but I can guess it's the actual HP value of the deployed m3 HC multiplied by the average resistance, or at least I get close enough to your numbers using that.

Internally, in our tests using real ships CCS almost always goes first as opposed to the direct destruction of the core, I’d say in general this is situational depending on the design of the ship. In my experience, when constructs actually have a good amount of voxels, it's very difficult to dig your way to the core, and between the HC and the elements and the (occasional, hopefully fewer and fewer) lost shot, I believe that most of the time, you can count on your CCS HP being your “real” HP bar.  If that's not the case, especially on ships that have a good amount of HC, I’d love to see/hear more about it, since that would be contrary to what we’ve tested. Perhaps certain voxels are outliers.
 
My gut feeling is that in the “nano-age” during which CCS was introduced and voxels were rebalanced, people haven't been using voxels a ton in pvp. The goal is for that to change and honestly, if people start using voxels in some quantity, that's already good progress. If it does come out that cheaper voxels, or certain cheap voxels are always way better than more expensive voxels, I'll be more than happy to take a look at that (and to be honest, I’ve started already since I had to look at a bunch of stuff for this).
Lastly on this, you’ve defined that plastic is the best material on the basis of it having the most “mean HP” for the mass. That may be the case, but seeing how much effort players have put into reducing cross-section at almost any cost, I don't think 6700 m3 of plastic is always going to be the best solution.
 

For the last point in regards to venting, I feel like I’ve partly answered the question already but I’ll answer more broadly. Venting isn't something that will or needs to be used. It's a tool at your disposal and it's up to you to figure out how and when you're going to use it depending on the situation and the design of your ship. In contrast it's our job to make sure that those avenues can exist in the game.
 
In view of that, lighter ships now can try to disengage using their speed and try to get away and disengage to vent and come back, some ships may have honeycomb to tank on the CCS, some ships may not be able to reliably vent. If you design your ship in such a way that it cannot vent, then that's on you. However, if it is the case that there are NO competitive designs that allow you to vent at all, I agree that's a problem we need to change.
 
It will come down to the design of your ship, and it's possible that venting will be more usable in certain situations, and certain circumstances than others. For example, I don't expect smaller and lighter ships to have enough CCS/voxels to tank more than a couple hits (let alone all the elements that will die on a compact design) so if they can't escape the firepower using their speed/agility, they are likely dead. But who knows, it might be worth it now to dedicate some amount of HC on ships, specifically to be able to tank a handful of shots to get some shield HP back, even if you don't manage a full cycle off.
 
Essentially from my perspective, if you go no honeycomb, you are accepting that venting is going to be a tougher proposal than if you had dedicated some mass to HC protection, there's a tradeoff there. Now maybe that tradeoff isn't balanced, and there's one obvious better choice than the other, in that case we will take a look (that was sort of what was happening up to 0.29, there wasn't much point to using HC, but I think between the shield mass and health changes,  and the speed changes, HC could have merit again in at least some designs, but maybe it's not enough).
 
For an example on a relatively light design, even just 100m3 of that grade 5 titanium is going to give you around 1.2milll CCS health for 4-5~ extra tonnes. Is that enough to tank serious damage for a while? No, probably not. Is it enough to absorb a couple hits as you try to pull out of range, get your transversal speed up and start venting some HP back, probably yes. The downside is your cross-section may suffer and you'll lose some speed (honestly the speed loss won't be much, even at the most severe parts of the speed curve). Is it worth it? I’d say so yeah, in some designs and some situations, especially now that heavy L ships can’t easily rotate to keep up with smaller constructs, having a slightly larger cross-section probably isn't such a big deal in certain scenarios now.
 
To be fair in regards to that point, I agree that on lighter and more compact constructs, the damage dealt to elements will sometimes be what ends up killing you rather than CCS, or even the core being killed. If you take a nasty hit that blows up half your elements, you are essentially dead. My question is are you able to use some HC, to reduce the chances of a good hit taking you out of the fight entirely.
 
I did a quick test, put up 50m3 of grade 5 titanium and blasted it with a fully talented laser L. It took 3 shots to get through and kill the core I had placed  just behind the material. To be honest though, based on my hit chance on a totally immobile target with zero cone or range issue, I would actually expect an actual S design to take almost 0 damage from L weapons. The shield and the CCS at that point is more of an insurance policy for the occasional hit, or to fight off other smaller constructs.
 
There's also something to be said about balancing cross-section vs compactness. Not having all your elements in the same spot, even on smaller designs, means a single shot has less chance to obliterate half your elements.
 

Anyway, I'm just spitballing on a lot of things, I certainly don't have all the answers, and likely there's some things I’ve missed, or some things I've overestimated the importance of or underestimated the importance of.
 
 
Now to address your “problems to be solved” directly as a conclusion of sorts.
 
   Point 1: In regards to this point, if people start using any honeycomb at all it’ll be a good direction. Once we get to the point where we’re saying “we’re using HC and these honeycombs are all clearly better than these honeycomb”, we will be in a good place to start addressing HC internal balancing. The second thing is I do currently believe that especially on larger ships, CCS is a better representation of health than raw HP, and this is likely the opposite on smaller ships.
 
   Point 2: I‘m not totally set on this. Unplayable seems like a strong word here. I think lighter, smaller constructs have more opportunities now to disengage from fights in order to vent, or potentially exploit larger ships' slow rotation to stay out of the cone of the guns. Additionally, in my mind, some honeycomb can be a valuable addition to smaller designs, to give yourself some room to vent. However, If this isn't enough, we could explore more powerful and quicker vents for smaller shields, that's certainly a possibility.
 
   Point 3: Maybe, I’ve gotten some info by looking into it again today, and it's possible some changes can come down the line on this. In the past we’ve had the opposite issues, so it's possible we went too far.
 

I know this is a big blob, I hope my numbers were right, my brain is a little hazy, and hopefully I’ve answered most of your questions and made this a little clearer for you guys.
 
 
Thanks.
 

I have been thinking a lot about this in the past days. I guess many of us have. This is the last I'll say about it.
 
Some approach a no-wipe by giving arguments, some by ultimatums, some by expressing how they feel, some disappear in silence, some undergo it, and some approach it by bargaining: your wipe is ok if you leave me with this; thinking to compromise.
 
The pro-wipe people on the other hand have yet to present to me a convincing argument. Everyone agrees that a wipe will resolve symptoms, for some time, but, in the end, that it wouldn't resolve the underlying issues. Thus, history will repeat itself (mark this). NQ could still make mistakes (e.g., radar in PTS just recently) affecting us, and that can't be prevented, it is the nature of development. People will still exploit these mistakes, it is the nature of people, and should be punished for it if they could have known better.
 
Hence, I need to conclude that the only real reasons for a wipe, from the player-base's perspective, are competitiveness, seeing the world burn, not caring, trolling, ignorance, aside from technical reasons that are parroted, of which I have said before: any good technical reason would result in a statement from NQ that there would be a wipe and to what extent. And that is not what we got.
 
Nevertheless, I get NQ's point of view .. it is about minimizing collateral (us) on the prospect of new players at launch, but also old players that gave up somewhere along the way, most notably around 0.23. They might be convinced of the need to promise a leveled playing field at launch, given the state of the game today, while not angering its community too much not to lose those that actually play the game, and organize fun in it.
 
Some propose a poll in here ... I think the poll is being executed by this post of NQ (like they did through previous ambiguous announcements). Else, if that wasn't its purpose, I don't get it. Not only has it sowed discord, it has created distrust, is ineffective, is giving people time to reconsider things and move on, killed the incentive to play the game, and what not. Whatever NQ's ultimate decision would be, this post has done much more harm than it could have done good. That's why I said in #duscussion that NQ is probably watching the channel with a big bowl of popcorn, as all of this is either incredibly shortsighted or intentional, and how can it not be intentional?
 
But, NQ: IF you had just laid out your concerns, instead, and the fact that you don't have a good solution, without any hint as to what you would/could decide or implement it. That would have been constructive as it would help people see your point of view, and you would have gotten a response much less driven by emotion (or have casted people in emotional roller-coasters). This could have helped you see what your community thinks about it (who have all been new players at some point), rather than making them angry at you and each other. Furthermore, timing ... you are running a PTS for an update, in the Easter period. Why not wait until after for such an announcement, so you could actually provide clarity in due time, instead of letting us hang.
 
By now, there have been many logical arguments against a wipe (aside the list of promises made or hinted at by NQ) to be found in this thread (ranging from technological reasons to commercial implications). There is no point in repeating all of them.
 
I think the most notable one is that there will remain a need for a continuously leveled playing field in the future, not solved by a wipe. Thus, a wipe without the required changes for equalizing things doesn't make sense, and when these changes are in place they invalidate the need for a wipe. This is pure logic. However, people don't always follow logic, and thus even under these changes NQ might need to convince new players with the prospect of a fresh start. What can I say, they run a business.
 
But, NQ, note that for this equalizing, in society, we have tax systems, like a non-linear tax on capital and income. If in DU linked to the daily income system, this would effectively level the playing field. This leveled playing field is also why in society we guide our economy's inflation, to give active people an advantage over non-actives, to give newer players an advantage over older ones, to devaluate capital that goes unused. And thus, to renew the economy continuously. Add to that degradation of property and maintenance (by reducing your HP counters over time), and what you get is a real economy that can be tuned through taxes and minimum/maximum prices. Recall that with such an approach you wouldn't have needed construct slots either (as I said then). However, by the time people can propose solutions, you have already implemented/developed your solution, which you introduce, and which then can only be weakened or strengthened, based on the community's response. But from which you can no longer pivot.
 
Note that NQ's approach in this announcement is similar to before (and after some examples of the kind can only be concluded to be intentional too), with construct slots the most recent example. They make a statement which is infuriating to some and then revert it back a bit so that people feel acknowledged, reaching an end-point which would not have been accepted otherwise. It is NQ's one-sided bargaining with the community. Or rather (emotionally) manipulating the community. And that's abusive to those that don't see the manipulation, and insulting to those that can.
 
At the very least by it, we feel agitated, deceived, manipulated, stopped playing, or quit the game to convince you, NQ, that you shouldn't take us for granted and treat us like this. People that have been with you for a long long time, have promoted you, and have walked the path you have taken us through highs and lows. People that are mostly silent. People that understand compromise, that things change, and above all that want this game to grow. People that only ask for openness, clarity, and a bit of respect for their time and money.
 
I know, none of us individually matter. Whatever I do as a consequence of whatever decision NQ takes, it won't be felt nor by NQ nor the community. So, I'm not gonna give an ultimatum, nor be angry, or try a tactic to have you don't wipe. I will not try to move the public opinion in any way. I think I'm in a state that is much worse .. I don't care anymore. My relation with you NQ has changed, and it won't be fixed easily. I don't trust you anymore. You had once this resolution that you would stick your ground, that you would live your vision, which made me feel safe to invest my limited time in, for which I would have compromised a lot. But Yama said it: this has turned into an abusive relationship; and the best thing you can do in that case is cut your losses and live with the hurt. TBH, NQ, you have just turned from the company I am a customer of (and do business with), into my dealer: I have a hard time trusting you, but you sell me something I like too much to give up on yet.
 
To NQ. Thank you. I'm grateful although it might not have sounded that way. The visionaries, the developers, and community managers alike. I'm convinced you want the best too. So, let's see what you do.

To NQ. I challenge you (if you dare) along with the entire community to solve The Metacomplex (vr) puzzle.
No one ever has, I think no one can (without cheating), and when wiped, likely no one ever will.
 

Absolutely NO wipe!!
 
First, the talent points - not only did we pay for them through monthly subscriptions, but more importantly OUR TIME!! We earned them, and in no way would it be fair to wipe them "for new player experience", what about existing player experience? Do you care so little for the players that have helped you fund and develop this game from the very beginning, that you would abandon our contributions of time and money, as well as all the bugs and exploits and loopholes and cheats we have identified for you over the Alpha & Beta phases?
 
Second, our constructs don't take away from new players experience. How does my space station or ship take away from a new players game? How? I have a ship, you don't - uh....big deal. Even if you wipe, with our experience we will be making new ships and stations quickly anyway, so you aren't doing anything for the new players you are merely punishing existing p;layers.
 
Schematics - I never liked them, but they are here now - BILLIONS invested in schematics for my factory......the time it took to hunt megas, mine them, process them, and EARN that quanta through something that you should both acknowledge and respect - MY TIME. I could have been playing Star Citizen or any of a hundred other space games out there.....but I gave you my time and my money. For you to STEAL what I have earned through that time is not only unethical - I imagine (and hope if you do) it will be disastrous to your game as well. How can anyone trust NQ if this is how you treat your players. 
 
Because this post you made points out one thing - you value the prospect of new players, which don't yet exist - over your current players who are here, active, and paying NOW. You addressed the issue of people who have unsubscribed or don't play anymore by letting us deconstruct their constructs. You make us pay land taxes. There needs to be an already set up economy and structures for new players to really enjoy the game, as well as to see what they can do. The super factories is what inspired me to make my super factory. The giant cities are what inspired me to make my buildings, the existing architecture of other players INSPIRES new players. Other players ships inspired me to build mine. New players NEED to see what we have figured out, they need to be inspired. Blank worlds starting from scratch will just be boring for them.
 
And finally - you TOLD us there wouldn't be a wipe. Are you liars? Yes, there are super rich people and orgs in the game - but they don't detract from the new player experience as much as you apparently think they do. They are going to be a part of the game no matter what you do. And if this game is what it advertises - player generated cities, organizations like nations, there will be the rich and powerful and there will be the small loners - but guess what - we LIKE it that way. Don't let the envy of non-existent players rob the time and money of the actually existing players.
 
Read general chat. If you wipe, you will lose about 80% of your players that chat at least. It is the most feared and most unpopular decision of the game currently. And not everyone posts here in the forums - so read the daily discussion about the prospect of a wipe - WE HATES IT!!! 
 
I love this game - I don't want to play another. But if you wipe, take away my earned quanta, take away my earned talents, take away the constructs I have bought from other players that I can't make blueprints of (did you think about that!?!?) and take away my constructs and elements I have spend thousands of hours earning or building - you lose all of my accounts. I will quit. And you may lose more current players than you will gain these "new players" you seem to care more about. But when they see that they cannot trust NQ either, when they see how you treat your player base, don't count on them rushing in to buy your game. Trust me, this community will not go quietly into the night.

I've been thinking about this a little more, and would like to discuss the "Legacy/New Server" (terrible name) in more detail, as I think it has the best overall chance of win/win/win for new players/old players/NQ launch needs. Apologies in advance for the potentially long post. I hope that some people read this.
 
The outline proposal (Helios + New Star Systems):
Create a new star system far from Helios where "new" (under whatever definition) players start fresh (under whatever definition). Old players can remain in Helios keeping all of their stuff (no wipe), or choose to "wipe" and start fresh in the new system. The systems remain unconnected (see below discussion) for a period of time (until the difference between wipe and no-wipe players is acceptably reduced), after which the systems are connected by the construction of "stargates" by players to enable between star system gameplay.
 
The Pros:
The obvious split between varying degrees of wipe/no-wipe in the current playerbase is circumvented. Players will choose which system they wish to play in, all players will be mostly happy, they will continue with their subscriptions and (more importantly) will act as ambassadors for the game in their communities in the lead up to Launch and beyond. New players (and fresh start old players) can join at Launch in an environment where they are not behind the existing players, markets are young, the "best" tiles are not taken, the "best" mining locations are not yet known nor occupied, and other players talents are also at low levels. For NQ this option represents the best opportunity to generate huge goodwill with the community (old and new), and bring in the largest combined number of players at Launch (which we all agree is critical). Combining the star systems at a later stage allows huge opportunity for in-game narratives, pulling the whole community in both star systems together to build the tech to join them. This should be hugely marketable externally, and be another opportunity to push for an influx of new players (e.g. at the 1 year post Launch mark) as the star systems are brought together. Constructing the stargates in game can be expensive and absorb large amounts of legacy quanta/materials, bringing the equity levels of players in each system closer together (which could be an explicit aim). Similarly, the time before the two systems are connected (1 year?) can be taken by NQ to properly develop and implement the finer details of multiple star systems within the game. I.e. the time pressure for NQ will be lessened. The Cons (as identifed by NQ):
Split community. From the above, this is temporary, but of course it is critical to keep the playerbase united until the systems are connected, and give them the ability to play together as a whole and with their friends. Community cohesion can be achieved by carefully selected (and well thought through) ways. Some possibilities (though I haven't fully thought these out yet) could be: "Global" community in-game chat (Discord is also always there.) NQ (or player) run events that can be equally undertaken by both groups. (Perhaps there could be friendly competitions between the two systems, reflected in the eventual rewards.) There is a lot of scope for community building and friendly system rivalry here. Potentially allowing VR travel between the two systems. Absolutely this needs serious thinking about to identify if there are clear loopholes/exploits here. But connecting the communities by VR allows for joint participation in Org and player group events (talent-free) that may otherwise be split across the systems. Technical implementation from NQ's perspective: Only NQ know the detail of this. But in principle, from an outside only view, "simply" creating a new system at a substantial distance away from Helios (it can have the same skybox star!) would achieve most aims, perhaps within the capability of NQ's current setup. (Yes there are some considerations, see below). Considerations: How to stop players gaming the system
Moving from Helios to the new system is one-way, irreversible. No transfer of funds between players/accounts in different systems. Orgs are an issue here as they could be used to circumvent this, but one solution is to have different balances/accounts for each system (possibly annoying to implement), or anchor each org to a specific system with no financial transfers to/from the org for members in the other system (obviously this gets removed once the systems are connected), or Orgs are system specific with no members from other systems (though this will have the greatest problems to resolve when the systems are joined, and it doesn't bring people to play together). Similarly no ability to interact with markets in the other system (even if VR-ing into the system). Will it be possible for players to slowboat between star systems? If so, this is something that will need to be looked at (as say old players could slowboat all of their stuff to the new system). Restricting between-system travel to the stargates would avoid this (raising the question of how). But if it is possible to slowboat, then you can bet that someone will try it. Pure distance between the systems (with it taking >1 year at max speed to make the crossing) is the simplest option. There are almost certainly some other things that I've overlooked. Important to implementation would be the ability to log player activity, so that if an exploit is found NQ are able to either roll back, or trace/identify/punish/ban the perpetrators. NQ needs this ability anyway, so it would be an investment. Summary:
For me this Launch option is perhaps the most ambitious (in that just resetting everything is certainly easier), but it has by far the biggest potential payoff in playerbase both in the short and longer term, which is critical for NQ. It also makes almost everyone happy (shock!) and potentially playing up to Launch. The costs are systems and tech that NQ need to build anyway, so little developer time will actually be wasted in the long term.
 
Thanks for reading (if you did).

Your delay in letting us know what was probably always going to happen is why the heart has gone out of the game for a lot of us and we need to digest this.  This will be my 3rd/4th but by far the worsed wipe.
 
In this beta we went from "no plans to wipe"to "wipe only if absolutely necessary" to "its something we are always discussing internally and no decision has been agreed" an now a post that obviously leads towards a total wipe!
 
Whilst you were leaving the bad news to the last minute knowing that a wipe was financially your best option, us mere mortals continued building bigger and better, trying not to let your indecision ruin the game.
 
There have been some amazing creations in this game that could be lost and even whilst building those we were constantly adjusting our ships to meet new build criteria. And training up skills so we could keep our cores. You even recently awarded prizes that will now be lost.
 
To cap it all, what about the original kickstarter promises? I wouldn't push for a pet but you stay silent on the rewards we were supposed to get In game. Ultimately I'm extremely disappointed in how we got to this stage.
 
You also have to accept that some long term players with good skills will leave but im sure you'll offset that with new paying players. But for goodness sake make the decision now so we can move on!!!! Don't delay this any more!

Although I could live with a partial wipe, I still don't see any reason for a wipe. The pros and cons given sound a bit contrived to me:

New player experience
If an MMO needs a wipe to attract new players, where are we a year later? You would need a wipe every year or so. The challenge is to make the game in such a way you can step in at any time I just did the new player experience on the test server, nice improvement. But I do not see how there being some big bases on Alioth or some rich players in space has any effect on the new players when I am setting up my base, start building and exploring. On the contrary: it gives something to explore and can be an inspiration to new builders in what is possible.
Exploits
Ok, so some players got rich using exploits. How does that effect other players?
The example I know of is the guy that bought 100 warp beacon schematics for 8mil each and was willing to sell them for 700mil. But my warp beacons (I bought the proper schematic) normally sell within two weeks and with a 1500% (15 times the production cost) margin. So it seems to have no effect at all that I can see. Ok, so they can buy more expensive guns. So what? the advantage of that is not great, and most of these cheaters don't even play anymore. Some other examples: gates have a >100% profit, advanced engines > 100%, rare engines 800%. There is no problem with rich people pushing out regular players. You can buy a Gate XL schematic with half a day of T5 astroid mining with 2 guys, you don't need exploits to be able to make it. If there is a problem with the markets, it is not because of rich players, but a lack of destruction. An element once made stays in the game forever, except in PVP and in players leaving the game. That is not a recipe for a healthy economy but exploits have nothing to do with it. It is rather naive to think there will never be an exploit again: people will find ways to cheat and exploit with every change to the game. Are you going to wipe every time that happens? Just deal with it and undo some transactions or kick some players, like other MMO's do. removing schematics will indeed resolve the market issue: there will be no market. The schematics where introduced exactly for this reason. Of course people will complain about the cost: new players are used to games where you are in the end game in 10 days and they don't want to invest time and effort for a 2 year period to build a factory (like I did). Those are exactly the players NQ should not listen too: they are on to the next game in a month anyway. You need to listen to the players that stick around and are willing to build long-term: those are your money-makers.
Partial wipe complexity
There are many ways to do partial wipes, and clean up the database. Not all of them sound complex to me:
You could let players mark up to 10 construct with a flag (like the headquarters) and then wipe the rest and reset the planets: the dynamics for planet reset and construct deletion are already there, and so is a 'tag construct' mechanism, so how is this complex? You could just remove the need for the schematics from the game and - like someone suggested in this forum - set up NPC buy orders for them. That makes refunding people real easy. And you don't need a wipe for that, could be done in a patch. You don't need to split communities if you want to start fresh and keep the current, you could make a gate/portal to a new solar system with its own currency where you can only take blueprints back and forth: that will be a bit more work I imagine, but only if you want new planets. you could also just copy this solar system and rename the current one 'legacy'. 
All-in-all it seems to me that part of the devs in NQ just want a clean database and are looking for arguments to justify a wipe.
 

Let's preface this: I'm a scripter, I own minimal assets in the game, and my main enjoyment comes from scripting. The wipe has a very small affect on me, but that won't change my opinion on how terribly reasoned it is here and terribly unnecessary. 

Kurock's post says it all. They were so, so clearly biased in that post, it's like they already made their decision, and if our response is lukewarm, it will go through.

They ignore major, major points on the pros for the no wipe and partial wipe, and they put the full wipe with the most pros, but they all say the same thing: Simpler. 
Based on how they did the other pros and cons, all they should have said was:
 
Pros:
Simpler for us to do
Schematics are what caused so many people to leave, and they have left. Your comment on schematics probably revolved around the idea that removing them would somehow bring those people back. Newsflash, it won't. They have moved on to other games. Personally, I don't own a single subscription game where I would return to subscribing after so much time has passed. BS you say about a wipe is somehow required for removing schematics. They're just an item.
Complete BS that you say you can't revamp planets.
Even greater BS you say you can't rebalance the economy... do you even look at your in game economy? One update and 10,000 m^3 of honeycomb goes from 100 million to 10 million. That is where it should be. The economy is perfectly, perfectly fine.

As Kurock said, leveling the playing field is a temporary concept that will disappear quickly. It's an MMO. You think someone who plays the weekends or once a month will somehow be on the same level as someone who plays several hours a day, every day, who knows the game already? Don't be delusional, please.

DU is not like a game where wiping should happen. You've already implemented plenty, and many will say too many updates that make it so wiping is completely unnecessary. HQ tiles, tile tax and construct abandonment over time, just to name the ones that come to mind.. Those are systems that work.
DU lives off player content, which is essentially what you're advocating to remove with a wipe. It's like saying: I let you build up my limbs over the last two years so I can crawl, and now walk. Now, I will chop them off for you so you can rebuild them better this time.
Your post is not an unbiased opinion on pros and cons. Fix it. It is misleading. Some people who read it will not think critically about what you just wrote. Who the hell thinks no wipe will only satisfy "some" long term builders and traders... are you... actually dumb? A significant majority is a better word there. You wanna know something? Your wishy-washy response mostly advocating for a wipe is why some people don't want to invest time into this. And it is because you even brought up a wipe. You sour the waters and poison the air with having the idea about, even more so by your extremely biased post. 

You wanna see what I mean by a biased pro/con? Here's a great example:

 
As you can see, depending on where you cut the cake, you can say a lot and steer the narrative, bloating reasons and diminishing others. 
This is, essentially what NQ have done with their entire post.

This is all I have to say in this, post, I've spent enough time writing out the obvious. Kurock said it in a neater package, but felt I should elaborate.
 

There shouldn't actually be a partial wipe. Someone will benefit from this. So NQ can only make a full wipe and lied about their promises.
And a complete wipe because a few players have exploited is absolutely unfair.
Many players ( including me ) have invested a lot of time to achieve what they currently have. Spending  many hours of mining underground, mining meteorites, and many many hours of flying missions and earning quantas for schematics.

If a complete wipe comes, I will uninstall this game and cancel the subscription.

I would like to add a point of view to the discussion:
Imagine we are in 3 years from now. The server has been life all the time. There have been hardcore gamers and casual players for the whole time. There will be a big difference between the players depending on the how they have been playing the game.

Imagine you join as a new player in 3 years.
 
What will be the difference beteen the new players now and new players in 3 years?
 
What will a vipe improve in the long run? I can't imagine that you wipe the server every few years.
I think that you have to find a way to do ballancing on the run.

I'll keep my opinions about a wipe brief:

I don't like the idea of a full wipe. I've put thousands of hours into building my ship-selling operation. But I understand how a wipe could help. I'm resigned to the inevitability of it. I can deal with losing my money and my ship factory.

HOWEVER, don't take our talent points! We paid for those. They aren't resources. Taking them is basically deleting our character/account. Whatever advantage they provide, we're owed it. If talent points go, I'll go.

And I think removing schematics would be a bad idea. Every player could manufacture everything they need again, and the market would be pointless.