.png.c1f502d584361436b4caddb91745fbcc.png)
.png.acb88d12d95f7e6806e5918bf013af73.png)
Zarcata
-
Posts
644 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zarcata
-
-
26 minutes ago, NQ-Deckard said:
This would be a mixture following essentially the optimal spending of talents between your personal and organization.
Thanks for the quick feedback.
I really don't want to be a nuisance, but I am concerned that players will create organisations again just because of these slots and the faster availability. Is this really the way it should be?I would like to protect my buildings regardless of the talents of an organisation and limit myself to the talents of the character slots. How far would I get with this, i.e. how many core slots can I secure with this?
-
Quote
If you have already trained Advanced Organization Construct Management Specialization to level 5, by reinvesting the refunded talent points, we estimate that you will be able to reach at least a construct slot capacity total of 80. Further, given the grace period of at least 1 month following the Panacea release, we hope that those amongst our players who value their construct capacity can increase it to a comfortable level of approximately 125 construct slots before needing to make decisions on which constructs to keep.
I have a question of understanding.
So if I use the refunded points to get my back to core places, which ones exactly are you talking about in your example?
Are these 80 or 125 core places then the character places common or about the organisation slot? Or are the points just enough to get a mix of the two?I only ask because I would then focus on the character slots and wonder how many of them I can unlock in time, so how many cores I have to delete now then.
I apologise if there are any misunderstandings due to the translations. -
1 hour ago, Atmosph3rik said:
Yikes. was that like a bit you were doing? or roleplay? Why pretend that you're in a negotiation like that? ?
There is the developer let's call him NQ
There are investors, i.e. those who support the developers with a lot of money, but then also want to earn money from it.
There are players, let's call them customers, and thus at the end of the chain actually those who are at the beginning of the chain.It's always a kind of balance of developer-investor and customer. If one of the three pillars is gone or weakens, the construct collapses. That a kind of "negotiation" has taken place over the cores, clearly this is assessed as "no" in order to save the face of the developers. Nevertheless, the customer's request to provide more cores for gaming was met. Customer orientation is very important in many areas. Without customers, there is no income. Without income, no investors who then want to enrich themselves from the profit. Who would buy shares if a company went bankrupt? Unless, that is, one secures a majority and takes over the company.
But hey, it doesn't really matter, the investors here are not directly interested in DualUniverse, but in the technology behind it....which I find interesting as a customer and as an investor, but at the moment I don't believe that it can really cope with masses or that it can even be affordable for masses.
But, to answer your question again, NQ has opened the topic for the forum. They revealed their idea with the core limitation to us and we should express our opinion about it. Many players did that and it was taken into account.
So in the second modified form, the players' opinions were taken into account and at the same time we were asked again to give our opinion and have a discussion about it. I took this accordingly and participated in the discussion again. That this discussion now promptly ends with the fact that one does not want any opinions or further discussions, although this was formulated in the forum, can be seen as one likes. Since Deckard has now made it clear that the maximum number of slots is 100/100. So basically any further discussion is superfluous, right?
QuoteHello 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.
So if our feedback had no weight, I would save my valuable time here in the forum, no problem. -
4 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:
I don't know exactly what was being discussed on Discord.
I had simply made a request and received an answer accordingly:
The question:
QuoteSo, now that the second proposal from NQ with the core limit changes is on the table, and they do look better than the first offer. It remains to be seen whether the offer will be left as it is or whether further negotiations will take place. I would very much like to have more private character slots to choose from, the 100 are simply too few for players who want to play the game over a very long period of time. Some already have well over that limit. Of course, one could now say that a player could also -again- create an org at the same time in order to get the other 100 slots, but that wouldn't solve the problem of players only creating organisations because of the slots.
I therefore ask NQ to drastically increase the number of private character slots so that the org slots do not have to be used for private cores. At the same time, attention should be paid to how intensive the talents are designed to be, so that they are worth the skilling and the points compared to an organisation. (Currently, many players are skilling an organisation and not the character slots, because the org is faster, cheaper and allows far more slots).
I also ask that NQ introduce a separate "builder subscription" due to the cost intensity, which offers far more free building core slots, but also costs 5,-€ more per month as an example.
Die Antwort von NQ-Deckard:
QuoteNQ-Deckard — heute um 11:58 Uhr
Today is my day off, but I'm keeping an eye on things a little bit. So I'm making this very brief before I join my partner for breakfast.
However, I want to be very clear that this isn't an offer. It's not something we are bartering with the community with a back and forth.
We heard you feedback, we've looked at what systems we can adjust to allow for a better spread that won't our hurt our construct collectors as much while also not biting into the health of the game further down the line as everyone accumulates more and more stuff and as such we've notified you of the changes that we will be making to better suit everyone.
I want to make it painfully clear that just because we listen to our community and we take your feedback on board, that its not some form of haggling procedure that is the norm.
This change ultimately will potentially have a worse outcome for the long term development of the game as the costs on our end our higher than the other option, but its what we feel we can commit to. In short, it won't be going beyond 100 personal constructs per player, and we won't be going beyond 100 org slots per player. If you really want to pay more to get more slots, we won't stop you by way of an alt as it helps by form of contribution to the costs of maintaining those slots. However what you're suggesting is a whole new interlinked system that we would need to build plus a whole new subscription type, plus a way of differentiating that doesn't exist currently. So that won't be here in the near future if we even decide to do that at all.For all the people who are going to go nuts over this message as per usual perceiving this as some effort to make DU pay to win, that's not at all what we are doing or want to do...
No, we are not trying to incentivise the use of alts, no this isn't some kind of meta for us to make you all poor more money into the game than you already are.
It's to make sure that a players account doesn't end up costing more than what it contributes towards its running costs. Because if you really want to see Dual Universe be here for years to come, it needs a player to self support the operating costs of its existence. The previous "hard cap" per player was just below 1400 constructs. That's just simply not sustainable if everyone did that. So we have to find a balance that does work. A single organization can still support those numbers, but it needs other players to aid in its support.On that note, after writing that my darling partner has made me breakfast and I'll be joining her. So I wish you all a wonderful Sunday.
-
I would like to point out here purely for information from the Discord, in case not everyone reads along there and this information is missing here.
My question to NQ was:
QuoteSo, now that the second proposal from NQ with the core limit changes is on the table, and they do look better than the first offer. It remains to be seen whether the offer will be left as it is or whether further negotiations will take place. I would very much like to have more private character slots to choose from, the 100 are simply too few for players who want to play the game over a very long period of time. Some already have well over that limit. Of course, one could now say that a player could also -again- create an org at the same time in order to get the other 100 slots, but that wouldn't solve the problem of players only creating organisations because of the slots.
I therefore ask NQ to drastically increase the number of private character slots so that the org slots do not have to be used for private cores. At the same time, attention should be paid to how intensive the talents are designed to be, so that they are worth the skilling and the points compared to an organisation. (Currently, many players are skilling an organisation and not the character slots, because the org is faster, cheaper and allows far more slots).
I also ask that NQ introduce a separate "builder subscription" due to the cost intensity, which offers far more free building core slots, but also costs 5,-€ more per month as an example.
The answer came from NQ-Deckard (Thanks Deckard, for the quick feedback).
QuoteNQ-Deckard — heute um 11:58 Uhr
Today is my day off, but I'm keeping an eye on things a little bit. So I'm making this very brief before I join my partner for breakfast.
However, I want to be very clear that this isn't an offer. It's not something we are bartering with the community with a back and forth.
We heard you feedback, we've looked at what systems we can adjust to allow for a better spread that won't our hurt our construct collectors as much while also not biting into the health of the game further down the line as everyone accumulates more and more stuff and as such we've notified you of the changes that we will be making to better suit everyone.
I want to make it painfully clear that just because we listen to our community and we take your feedback on board, that its not some form of haggling procedure that is the norm.
This change ultimately will potentially have a worse outcome for the long term development of the game as the costs on our end our higher than the other option, but its what we feel we can commit to. In short, it won't be going beyond 100 personal constructs per player, and we won't be going beyond 100 org slots per player. If you really want to pay more to get more slots, we won't stop you by way of an alt as it helps by form of contribution to the costs of maintaining those slots. However what you're suggesting is a whole new interlinked system that we would need to build plus a whole new subscription type, plus a way of differentiating that doesn't exist currently. So that won't be here in the near future if we even decide to do that at all.For all the people who are going to go nuts over this message as per usual perceiving this as some effort to make DU pay to win, that's not at all what we are doing or want to do...
No, we are not trying to incentivise the use of alts, no this isn't some kind of meta for us to make you all poor more money into the game than you already are.
It's to make sure that a players account doesn't end up costing more than what it contributes towards its running costs. Because if you really want to see Dual Universe be here for years to come, it needs a player to self support the operating costs of its existence. The previous "hard cap" per player was just below 1400 constructs. That's just simply not sustainable if everyone did that. So we have to find a balance that does work. A single organization can still support those numbers, but it needs other players to aid in its support.On that note, after writing that my darling partner has made me breakfast and I'll be joining her. So I wish you all a wonderful Sunday.
https://discord.com/channels/184691218184273920/304455542162587649/937300647903109150
-
So, now that the second proposal from NQ with the core limit changes is on the table, and they do look better than the first offer. It remains to be seen whether the offer will be left as it is or whether further negotiations will take place. I would very much like to have more private character slots to choose from, the 100 are simply too few for players who want to play the game over a very long period of time. Some already have well over that limit. Of course, one could now say that a player could also -again- create an org at the same time in order to get the other 100 slots, but that wouldn't solve the problem of players only creating organisations because of the slots.
I therefore ask NQ to drastically increase the number of private character slots so that the org slots do not have to be used for private cores. At the same time, attention should be paid to how intensive the talents are designed to be, so that they are worth the skilling and the points compared to an organisation. (Currently, many players are skilling an organisation and not the character slots, because the org is faster, cheaper and allows far more slots).
I also ask that NQ introduce a separate "builder subscription" due to the cost intensity, which offers far more free building core slots, but also costs 5,-€ more per month as an example.
30 minutes ago, Deleted said:Probably going to be 10-20 million XP to get all including that last third tier skill to L5.
they said "really determined players" will be able to do it.So at about 1.14MXP per week it could take a while to get those skills up.
But this skill system does NOTHING to help the players, who will already lose many things NOW because of the update, if it should come like this. A sensible solution must be found NOW. If NQ is only going to make it about how many skill points a builder has to invest there, then PLEASE, reset all the talent points so I can invest right there to protect my builds.
-
6 minutes ago, Iamhole said:
unlimited "deactivated"core count, for placing and building on cores.
Core limit is set on "Activated" cores.
i build 12 ships in my tile with "deactivated" cores, when people buy them i activate it and they fly off.
i think this would work for dynamic cores but not static or space cores.
The problem is that both types of core are visible and must therefore be calculated.
It would make more sense if you could store your dynamic constructs in a ship menu, including image preview and evaluation. When you need it, you click on it to activate it and it is put in front of you. All other ships are parked in this menu "like in a garage".The same can be done with voxel libraries, a menu where I can help myself when I need something. This also saves having lots of constructs standing around.
-
Spoiler3 hours ago, LeeRoyINC said:
Keep letting them hear it people.
I have investors who are willing to buy NQ and flip this dev team. Fire the side that keeps calling for these horrible changes.
We are going to wait it out, they are broke. This is the rundown:
- First it was 0.23 "we need to reduce server load and cost" My 15 active player org all quit.
- Second was the Demetor removal of planets ore ( prospectors all quit because that's all the game was good for to them, mining) Same excuse, server load and costs.
- Third times the charm with this outright attack on the dedicated player base and another "Server load and cost" excuse.
Next to go will be core sizes, or industry sizes.. or a wipe. 3rd times the charm, dont stick around for this dumpster fire.
My investor will buy the tech when NQ bankrupts itself in a few months. Redev the engine for a more expansive game, the one we were sold a year ago. If the source code isn't a pile of messy garbage that is.
But DU is dieing and the devs are the reason. I gave them the benefit of the doubt with the hope their business end would figure it out. But this is proof they have no clue wtf theryre doing.
We will pick up this tech for bottom dollar when it flops.
EDIT: I got confirmation on the money issues through a internal NQ employee. They dont all agree with its direction. There's two sides inside NQ, one is extremely Toxic.
For those calling me out on my investor. Here's his crypto wallet. We're not messing around here. Just sold 10 mill worth of SAND because that games tech is trash.
https://etherscan.io/address/0x56178a0d5f301baf6cf3e1cd53d9863437345bf9I have now deliberately not clicked on this link, so I can neither determine investors there, nor see how much capital is involved at all.
If it were a question of reasonable and real large sums, what would prevent an investor from actively taking this money into his hands now in order to support a development studio? We can all see that it doesn't seem to be working here at NQ and that the game has been developing in a different direction for years - why wait for a low-cost entry opportunity when you could have started long ago?
If it's only virtual money, try exchanging it for real money, depending on how large these sums are, it's not always so easy to find real equivalents for them.
-
It would make more sense if the protection zones of the outer PVP planets and moons were to fall at the same time as the taxes there. It makes no sense to pay taxes in the PvP area.
In the protection zone - OK, you can finance the shields with the protection fee... -
and what about the moons?
-
19 hours ago, Megabosslord said:
SO many of the pre-alpha marketing images are just wrong now...
(These are just the ones I didn't include in other posts.)
There are already beautiful cities, what makes it a bit unattractive is the performance as soon as a city gets a bit bigger, whether through a lot of details or too many cores or too much terraforming.
For me, it would be interesting to see if the technology can even handle the game - we've experienced so many limitations recently, no improvement has been made as a result.
Why don't you come and visit Hyp City?
::pos{0,2,16.6215,111.9266,0.0000} -
How does NQ envision the game? That we all just have a base, make some elements and voxels there to build small PvP ships and then immediately fly into the PvP zone to fight each other? Whoever dies first lands back on their base and can "quickly" set a new BP and fly to battle again?
Shit, and I really thought we were supposed to build cities-villages-an entire civilisation that is full of great creative masterpieces, each building can present its builder in its own way, and from walking through the area and looking at everything you can only marvel at what players could create.
I'm currently in the process of tearing down cores again, abandoning my plans for a Borg construct, because I'm simply already way over the corelimit and I would otherwise lose everything. At the moment I wouldn't even care about the loss, because I'm not even sure if DualUniverse is still the game I want to play - I might be better off in Minecraft.- LeeRoyINC and Sabretooth
-
2
-
15 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:
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.
Are the current changes fixed and you want to have feedback on them or can we also negotiate further with good reasons?
QuoteFollowing internal research, we determined that currently per active player there are approximately 25 constructs in the game at the present time.
Please take a close look at all the figures. Many players have not skilled their character slots at all, but have founded one or more orgs and skilled the slots there. It was quicker and easier to get many more cores than with the character slots.
I would also like to ask you to pay attention to large-scale projects such as the AAE of Hyperion, which is now endangered.
are there plans to add more slots via the core limit in an ingameshop or via subscription directly, if you then pay for it with real money, to compensate for the financial inequalities or difficulties that a few more cores trigger?
-
19 hours ago, Megabosslord said:
Please also let us convert statics to space and fix BP alignment, so we can just BP our ground bases and move them onto a deck in space.]
I had suggested this a very long time ago, in the meantime my basis has arrived in space via copy-paste - that was a feat of strength. Due to the new core limit, I now have to delete some of the cores again.
Would generally be in favour of a selection of BP, in which form you want to summon it (static-Space-Dynamic).
But it would also make sense to be able to dismantle an entire core via "collect all" and disassemble it into the inventory. It takes an enormous amount of time to dismantle 100 cores, for example, just because the core limit has been changed again.
-
-
What exactly is so great about DualUniverse? So, in its current or soon to come state? The best content is building via voxels, if you are aware that you are relatively limited in this, depending on how much time you want to put into the game.
We should first clarify what DualUniverse really is and stop chasing the dream of that time. I am sure that so many new players will then no longer be attracted.
-
If a player gives away his 100 Org seats to an organisation, then later his subscription expires because he no longer wants to play, does the Org then have to somehow beg for new 100 Core seats?
-
-
1 hour ago, Oran_Gootan said:
Problem: Oh no!! We made it so that construct slots are virtually infinite! People have too many construct slots!
At no point were the coreslots infinite! This always seems to be an interesting misunderstanding.
I tried to test it several times, with full org skills. So you could put all constructs up to the cap and that for a maximum of 5 organisations. As soon as you tried to create a sub-organisation and set another core there, there was always a warning message saying that the cap had already been reached in the main organisation.
What worked was to create more and more sub-organisations in order to take more and more territories. For example, you could only claim the first 3-4 cheap territories per suporg and simply create more sub or subsuborgs.
-
Charakter-Slots: 2 (unskilled)
Charackter-Core-Limit: 275 (full-skill)
Expandable: +10 Core-slots a 5,-€ ingameshop
maximum: 1.000 slots
Org-Slots: 0 (unskilled)
Org-slots: 1575 (full-skilled)
each Member +75 max
-
16 minutes ago, Aranol said:
We need to find a compromise, it's look that NQ need to reduce the numbers of core on the server to keep decent performance. But it's still interesting to see some builder making large city
Let's add more skill like :
basic core manager : +2 core per level
uncommon core manager : +5 core per level
advanced core manager : + 10 core per level
with prerequisite level 5 from the lower tier talent so it's physically possible to have a large amount of organisation core, but it very expensive in talents point so player will invest so much talent point for serious project only
and basic player will have to limit them self that will make everyone happy
-for NQ : that will reduce the amount of core in the game
-for players : it's still possible to build lage city, large PVP fleet etc... but at a significant talent points cost
But it does not solve the problem that a player then creates an organisation for himself. Why do they want to introduce these skills for an organisation? If a player needs more core spaces of his own, these extensions must be made possible for the character, not for the organisation.
In the theme itself, we have several problems that need to be solved at the same time. we should always keep that in mind.
- Players who want to build (for themselves)
- Players who want to build together (as an organisation)
- Players who create organisations even though they don't need one, just to get coreslots.
- Players who join organisations and leave them again (according to the new system, they can cause damage).
- Players and organisations that build so much that it becomes a financial aspect (real money)
- Performance of too many constructs
-...... -
2 minutes ago, Verliezer said:
I think spot on. Adding to this maybe they can setup a few 'player journeys'. Ask a decent number of player how they play the game and what their needs are. How do people play the game and what are the needs beloning to those 'player journeys'. NQ can then make al of their decissions based on those 'approved' journeys.
* player journey = basicly a case decription on a certain kind of game play, what people do in the game. Not everybody is doing everything but most of us do combine certain play elelements. It is interesting to find out which different game play types there are and then based on this design your game.It will show that players do many things. On the one hand, to find variety for themselves and, on the other hand, because some of the content they want to play has other content as part of it. The game now consists of dependencies.
Player A wants to build an industry because he likes industrial plants.
- So he has to get quanta, because industry requires expensive schematics.
- He must therefore also skill according to the industry in order to be competitive.
- He needs raw materials
- he needs quanta for taxesMeans he "must" do things to be able to play what he wants in the end.
I'll take "me" as an example.
I came into this game for one reason: I want to build something. (A Borg-style city) I didn't need any quanta, no schematics...I just had to collect some ores, convert them into voxels in the nanocrafter and start building. I decided how much ore to mine and when. I could continue building accordingly.
Quite one-sided, but I planned on needing at least 10-15 years in the game to reach my goal.
In general, however, there are also many players who are very divided. Today they want to build, tomorrow they want to do PvP, the day after tomorrow they'd rather do a dungeon and on the weekend something completely different again. So players' interests vary, once individually and once depending on the game content.
DualUniverse is very badly positioned in this respect, because it can simply satisfy too few interest groups and there is no symbiosis between the interest groups. One could argue that DualUniverse only appeals to a small, very specific target group, but still tries to achieve goals that should attract a large mass. For me, this is a contradiction.
-
44 minutes ago, Hagbard said:
if you want constructive feedback let us now what the problem is you are trying to solve.
It is partly understandable.
It is a problem that players form an organisation just to get to the core seats. This problem is now mitigated because an organisation only gives 15-10 places.
This creates a new problem because the private slots are too few and players are now founding organisations again in order to get to these 15+10 slots.
If the private slots were more plentiful, there would be no need for an organisation. (I had already written this several times, as an example 275 core slots skilled, expandable up to 1,000 core slots through an ingameshop.
+10 core slots cost a one-time fee of 5,-€.
limit with 1,000 slots it would be a maximum of 362.50€ for +725 slots (those who really need it should pay, if this is really a financial problem on the part of NQ.Alternatively, one could also introduce a "premium subscription" that already includes the 1,000 core slots and then the subscription costs 5-10 € more per month.
-
4 hours ago, m0rrtson said:
Are the Org Construct Talents going to be applied? - Or they are removed from the game?
Will we have 1625 * talent_multiplier @NQ-Wanderer , which will result into 3000-5000 cores per org?
This will be be a really solution for the whole forum thread.
Best regards,
M
That will not be a solution!
The problem will be that as soon as the multiplier is set in the skills system, it will again be seen as a duty for players, as every player can then get these core places for themselves through skills. So it would be the same problem as now, that players only use organisations for themselves.The solution here would be:
Increase the private character slots drastically as compensation. Then make it possible to donate character slots to an organisation in addition to the 15+10 org slots.
We want to move away from characters creating their own org for slots.
At the same time, however, it should be possible for an organisation to determine exactly which cores must be removed in the event of a loss; the organisation needs control over a core loss in order to rule out cheating. That's why I would also suggest that an organisation should have 4 weeks to remove cores and not just 2 weeks.
DEVBLOG: REVISITING CONSTRUCT SLOT CHANGES - Discussion Thread
in General Discussions
Posted
That is not possible.
Deckard has already ruled it out purely in terms of time. Of course, if I continue to learn these talents after the release, they will be available to me "at some point", my question refers specifically to this change and the loss related to it, when I have reached the corresponding limits with the patch, the skill possibilities.
It is therefore not possible to save my cores with only character slots when it comes to at least 80 or 125 slots.