Tional

Hi Hirnsausen,
 
Thank you for your feedback. However, it won’t be possible to go with your suggestion for the following reasons: 
 
What you suggest can be abused in many ways. Just an example among many others: imagine that non-armed ships are used to transport stolen assets (either from wrecks destroyed in PvP or anything stolen due to a betrayal from an infiltrated spy in an organization). We would remove the ability for justified retaliation, and that’s absolutely not our intention. Players should face the consequences of their actions, for the best and for the worst. It’s part of the Sandbox concept (even if we had to limit it in a reasonable way to give some room for both types of players, PvP and non-PvP).
  PvP must keep some unique incentives. Harvesting the rarest materials is one of those incentives. The concept of “risk versus rewards” has been part of Dual Universe, from the very beginning. Please keep in mind that even the current in-game situation is way softer than the initial vision, where safe zones were only small areas on some planets. Today, there are whole planets as safe zones, giving all the necessary space for those who do not want to be involved in PvP. You don’t need the rarest materials for creativity, and even in the rare cases you need some, you can always rely on the markets for resources that would be normally available in PvP areas. Some more adventurous players ready to risk their ships in PvP will find an interesting trade in the situation.
  You can’t speak of non-consensual PvP in Dual Universe. Non-consensual PvP is when there is no way for a player to avoid being caught in PvP in a game. In Dual Universe, you CAN avoid being caught in PvP by staying in the safe zones and have access to pretty much any gameplay available in-game (except PvP of course). If a player ventures outside of a safe zone, it’s his choice and it means he/she has implicitly accepted the risks tied to this choice.
  As mentioned before, unsafe space has always been part of Dual Universe vision. So you can’t talk about lobbying when it is about something that was there from the very beginning. If there is some lobbying, it’s when some players put the pressure to change something that was already well established at the beginning.
While some ideas may be seen as good on paper, it will generate more problems than it will solve, not to mention that it would radically change Dual Universe’s original vision. The game is already more than reasonably friendly toward those who don’t want to participate in PvP and there is no plan to give access to the whole space in-game without any PvP risk. That was never the deal and will never be. 
 
We (as a team) do, however, acknowledge that the current situation in PvP is unbalanced and that some players may resort to some loopholes or gray areas to win a battle. The Novaquark team goal is to fix those loopholes and find the right balance in the long term. Balancing PvP is a delicate endeavor and can take some time. This is why we are still in Beta and that Beta may still last quite a while.
 
On another topic, please refrain to compare non-consensual PvP to awful real life things like rape and such. Try to picture yourself explaining to someone who has been raped that what he/she has experienced is the same thing as being frustrated by a situation in a video game. You will (hopefully) see how unreasonable the comparison is. If you’re not convinced, do try to discuss with some rape victims. It won’t be a surprise if none will agree with you.
 
Last but not the least: some elementary rules are in effect on the forum.
 
- Wishing harm to other players in real life for ANY reason is NOT ok. 
For that reason, @Hirnsausen you get a warning point.
- Direct insults and personal attacks toward a player is not okay either. 
For that reason, @Lethys you get a warning point as well.
 
We hope you will continue to participate on the forum in a more civilized manner in the future.
In the meantime, this topic will be closed to avoid further aggressive/provocative replies.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

 

With the ongoing discussion surround a wipe it certainly demotivates me to continue.  I play solo and the thought of losing all I have built doesn't sit well with me.  I started on beta launch much like many others and I only started as the topic of discussion back then was the final wipe had been done.  I could live with a partial wipe though I have no idea what that could consist of.  But if a full wipe were on the cards for release I don't think I would have the energy to start all over again.

I'm in for the long ride, enjoying the journey I would like to see these Q&A's regularly.
 
If you do make a mass change at release please don't take all my assets/stuff away

We spotted this question in the Apollo & Ares - Question Thread.  Here's what you need to know. 
 
Removed: 
errorMsg [string]
buttonMsg [string]
 
Replaced with:
showError [bool]
statusText [string]
buttonText [string]
 
Added: 
enableButton [bool]
 
We apologize for not including the information in the release notes and pledge to include all of the Lua things in future release notes. If we forget again, please don't hesitate to let us know and we'll blame Deckard for it.  

How do the devs justify the current nonsensical DSAT asteroid broadcast mechanic fitting in with DU's theme of emergent gameplay?
 
Emergent gameplay would result from two (or more) parties that happen to scout the same asteroid at around the same time finding each other by pure chance since there are many asteroids to choose from, and not from a forced conflict brought about by broadcasting the location of an asteroid soon after anyone finds it.
 
If you tell people interested in pvp where to always find pvp, they will always go to there to engage in it. It's lazy, and not emergent gameplay. On the other hand if two parties happen to find the same asteroid by chance anything can happen. Maybe they decide to fight each other. Maybe they decide to mine ore together. Maybe they agree to mine ore together peacefully, but one of the parties decides to secretly call in reinforcements to take out the first party. That's emergent gameplay, but scenarios like those are never going to happen if asteroid locations are being broadcast to everyone.

I think the challenge of designing around the limitations is part of ship building.  I think your description of the existing systems as limited only speaks to the limits of the builder's creativity.  A true craftsman can make excellent work with only simple tools.  It is the novice who needs a special tool, or an exception to every rule, to make a quality product.  This is why the ship creators are popular, because they used the existing tools to make great ships.  At a time,  jancko elements was one of the tools that was used.   To argue that a ship can not be built to the same quality without that tool is a reasonable position to take, but it's both subjective and irrelevant since the tool has been removed.   Many of my favorite ships in the game have zero "unbalanced" elements (see also, janko/clipped) and those ships perform outstanding and look terrific.  I think we should challenge ourselves with the tools we have. 
 
The game is young and this will definitely not be the final form of ship building.  Maybe NQ finds a way to combine elements in a more sophisticated way?  Perhaps linking engines or stacking brakes as multi-element kits that are more aesthetically pleasing.  There are lots of cool things that could happen, but to say that you can't make good ships without this particular tool is untrue.  To play a physics based game and insist on physics breaking tools is just counter intuitive.  Of course there are form factors that are the most efficient.  Of course there are physical limitations to the different sized cores.  The things you say are obstructing creation are many of the same things that are fueling innovation.  

The forums are for everyone. 

Before the Ares patch, the sorting was correct with highest buy and lowest sell orders at the top as default. This was already fixed in an earlier patch. Now it's wrong again...

Whatever this whole thread is about that is one smexy looking ship  

We had it confirmed by NQ after they looked at logs, the ships, and video of the situation. They literally handed over the legion ship to us because without the shield glitch we would have cored it. 

"Good fights all round and condolences to Havoc who had their destroyed lead ship the Box Turtle confiscated by NQ after they rode it back to the safe zone (no longer acceptable) and the prize was rightfully restored to Legion hands. " Has NQ made a statement publicly about this? I have not seen any regarding this no longer being acceptable.

Ah, not good fights all around- for you see.... A Hyperion Legion ship was just confiscated by the powers that be(and given to Lodestar) for venting their shields before it's in the game, which NQ doesn't allow   How many of their ships also used this same glitch/exploit/mechanic, not sure- but I can say ya'll are a bunch of grifters unequivocally.... and we now have receipts to prove it, and our prize was rightfully restored to Lodestar hands.

If you're going to point out use of an 'exploit' in the forums and the mods are gonna allow it, it's only fair that the one's legion uses is also pointed out. IMHO, it's far more severe than sitting on a ship floating back into safe space. 

This is why care-bears don't want to join PVP. You have groups constantly exploiting mechanics in fights- people installing spies for social engineering into other orgs- all around bad sportsmanship from core PVP groups... why would any sensible person want to get into PVP? Sounds like a great, and productive use of time!

2 PVP pros discussing how and what ships should be used in PVP.
Popcorn time.
 
In the meantime we should kinda make a script:
if (engaged(target)) then {
nq.report_for_inspection(target);
}
 
DUing manual asset deletions is so popular in MMO yea? It scales well too.

i think you should re-think your ragepost. specifically the part that says:
 
 They clearly and specifically stated, in the very announcement you clearly saw and read because you already mentioned that you know they are backtracking a bit on their initial decision:
 
 
So you won't find anyone PvP'ing in stacked ships and if you do, report them and their ship goes poof. I'm willing to bet that if you get your salad tossed by someone using a stacked ship, and you report them, NQ will probably fix your ship for you if you ask nicely. NQ are cool like that. Stop being such a whiner.

So just to let you know the market orders are showing the worst buy order and the most expensive sell order by default. It is reversed as to what was posted on the release notes.

Correction, you knew it was a problem for over a year and continued taking advantage with no foresight of the future.
 
If you know exactly what you're doing, then I find it rich that yall are going to complain when NQ finally decides to do something about it.
 
While I would agree that it would be nice to have something in-game that allows us to detect and correct the problem on our own along with destruction of the element upon pilot activation instead of wholesale deletion of the construct, NQ is going to do what NQ is going to do, even if it frustrates us all to high heaven.
 
For people who purchased ships with elements that aren't readily visible, okay you have my actual sympathies on this. If you purchased a ship from someone in the past and you can't make the checks yourself, then I recommend you'd check with the seller to see if your ship falls into spec. If it does, great, no further action. If it doesn't, ask if they creator can exchange your construct for something similar that is in spec, if they do, great, write their name down. If they don't, great, also write their name down then tear that ship down (if you can, I don't know how this drm works since I've never bought a ship from someone else before...) before NQ does.
 
Finally, if you really just don't know what to do and are pulling out your hair in frustration, ask NQ. Find a gm in-game (@GM in the help channel) and ask them if they can determine if your ship runs afoul of the rules, because believe it or not, NQ is likely going to want to help people now ahead of wholesale deletion later. This could result in a public relations issue and I'm sure they don't want that. By interacting with the players this way, NQ can also build a list of popular ships where this issue is present in, then (hopefully, DING-DONG NQ here's a suggestion) release a list of ships to the community with at least a weeks lead time, and the community can pick up the rest.

Take a deep breath sir. 

So let me get this straight...
 
Being shot at will cancel warp. So the tiniest pirate fighter can keep even a large freighter/capital ship from warping away just by shooting it. Isn't this catering to pirates a little TOO much? Can we consider having a damage threshold that must be met to cancel warp? Or heck, make it so you  have to take hull damage to cancel warp. Or perhaps taking damage will pause or lengthen the spool-up time. This mechanic works well in Elite Dangerous, where you can spool up your FTL drive, but having someone close enough increases the spool time exponentially.
 
This change gives a single XS cannon the ability to interdict ANYTHING indefinitely. Makes it way too strong IMHO.

We recently announced that an additional update, Ares, was added to our public roadmap. Many of the features and changes for Ares will be available on our public test server (PTS), when it is updated and back online tomorrow, September 15th, at 10.00 UTC. (See the roadmap here.)
 
In that announcement, we promised a devblog that would talk about the big-ticket items we plan to deliver with Ares: the new Core Combat Stress victory condition, more functionality for shields, and PVP-related fixes. (Inside Ares, Part Two will cover warp improvements as well as boarding and docking changes. Watch for it on Thursday.) 
 
Without further ado, let’s dive in! 

CORE COMBAT STRESS 
In a nutshell, core combat stress represents a core's ability to keep functioning under prolonged weapons fire. A core unit that takes too much stress will be destroyed and will be considered a PvP destruction.
 
Core combat stress will be used as a second loss condition on constructs during PvP, working in tandem with generic core unit destruction. It does not matter which one happens first, only that one happens eventually. This will allow us to support larger fights and ensure that everyone's weapons are doing damage, even if it is only against core stress.
 
Stress will be accumulated as the construct takes non-shield weapons hits, taking the form of a gauge that starts at 0% and goes up to 100%. Non-shield hits on a construct will make the gauge go up. The core stress gauge is affected by a weapon's raw damage and is unaffected by the resistances of the element or material the attack hit.
 
Example: A weapon hit does 1,000 thermic damage. It hits an element with 50% thermic resistance doing 500 damage to the element; however, the core stress gauge will count 1,000 damage for that hit.
 
When the core stress gauge hits 100%, the core unit will be destroyed and will be considered a PvP destruction (as if it was destroyed by a weapons hit) and everything that implies.
 
The value of the stress gauge will be defined by the following:
The base of the core stress gauge value will be the health sum of honeycomb materials on your construct. The quality of the material used will provide multipliers to the value. Higher honeycomb tiers will provide better multipliers. The type of material used will provide a different multiplier, with products having a better multiplier than pure materials.   
Finally, the stress gauge will gain health linearly with honeycomb until a cap, at which point additional honeycomb will have diminishing returns.

SHIELDS v2
The fundamentals for shields were unveiled in this devblog and made their initial debut with the Apollo update in August. The time has come to increase their potency and value with some new features. 
 
Shields v2 brings adjustable resistances and venting. 
 
Adjustable resistances Shields have a base resistance value of 10/10/10/10 with an additional resistance pool of 60% that players can assign in 5% increments to any of the four resistances. (Examples: 10/10/10/70 or 25/25/25/25) Once players have locked in their resistance selections, those choices will be active and cannot be changed until the cooldown time of 60 seconds has expired, at which time the resistances will remain as set unless they are recalibrated. Shields UI will display which resistances are taking the most damage on the shield, allowing pilots to make an informed decision regarding the settings. Venting Pilots may vent their shields at any point, the exception being when the venting cooldown is active. Cooldown duration varies per size, with smaller shield variants having lower cooldowns. Venting shields will do two things: Turn off the shields, bearing in mind that they can’t be active during venting.  Begin shield regeneration of a certain percentage per second.  Venting may be deactivated at any time. Deactivation will occur automatically when shields have reached maximum capacity.   
We highly encourage pilots to explore the use of shields and venting while it’s available on PTS. Since there’s a bit of a learning curve involved, the test environment is the perfect place to experiment freely without any real cost to your ship on the Live server. 
 
PVP FIXES
We’re closing the loop on some “unintended” uses of these game mechanics. 
Speed Resume deactivated on construct death: When a core is destroyed, that construct will be incapable of benefitting from speed resume in any way. This will avoid and fix various exploits in regards to “ghost-riding” destroyed ships into safe zones. Offline player deaths on construct death: Offline players on constructs will now be killed on core destruction. This will avoid logging off characters that can then log back in, repair the core unit, and attempt to flee.   
Originally, the plans also included a change that would cause ownership loss on core unit crash destruction. Thanks to our intrepid PTS players who tried it out and promptly let us know the problems such a change could cause, we pulled it from the Ares update. (Read the related post from the Game Design team’s NQ-Entropy.) 
 
This is exactly why we have a test server and why we value those who do reconnaissance there before the updates are released on the Live server. We offer sincere thanks to the players who took the time to give us candid, constructive feedback. 
 
SEE YA THURSDAY
Inside Ares, Part Two will be published on Thursday. While you’re waiting, why not head over to the forum and share your thoughts about Part One? 
 

Nope. But guns are shiny now.

Update 10-20-21 - REMINDER: These rules are still in effect and are now extended to mission hubs. 

In an effort to improve the experience of visiting some of our most popular markets, we will be implementing a new set of rules for constructs left at markets. Enforcement of these rules will begin on the 3rd of September at 6pm UTC. (That’s one week from the date of this notification.)
 
We want to encourage a free and open game environment for all to enjoy. It’s in the spirit of that goal that these measures are being put into place.
 
Only ships are allowed on the market landing platform. Constructs must be parked outside the green perimeter line surrounding the main market building and the access ramp to the market. One container construct per entity (player or organization) will be allowed for the purpose of storage below the landing pads. Shop constructs, advertisements, and dispensers are not permitted at any markets. These should be placed on your own tiles or at districts instead. We would like to remind you that you now have the ability to place a “Welcome Visitors” marker on your territory.  Under no circumstances may player constructs intersect with the Aphelia constructs. Constructs at the Aphelia markets must be parked either on the landing platform or the ground around the Aphelia markets. Airspace within 2km of the market building must remain clear. XL screens and screen arrays are not permitted within 2km of the market building Constructs that violate these rules may be hidden, removed, or abandoned without warning. Novaquark reserves the right to move, hide, or delete constructs at its discretion, for example if they are designed to circumvent these rules or if they impact marketplace performance or usability.  
To safeguard the performance of everyone visiting these locations, we strongly encourage players to adapt any screens and advertisements to use Lua based Render Script instead of SVG/HTML even if that is in the form of uploading an image of your SVG and then loading that into the Render Script.

Join the conversation here.
 

and useless as they 100% miss

What are you waiting guys? I'm already looking at an asteroid. 

Could we get the option to stop the general chat notifications? Because I couldn't really care less what's going on in that channel, never have.

I bought the art team some windex, let's see if it works.

Dear Noveans,
 
We would like to address the recent speculations that have arisen in our community, and openly disclose some changes that are happening at Novaquark.
 
First and foremost, Novaquark continues to be supported by its long term investors to allow it to launch Dual Universe in line with its original vision. It also puts us in a position to attract experienced talent to complement the team that’s already in place so that we can continue to improve the game.
 
Next week, we will share with you what we think our priorities should be for Dual Universe and how we hope to approach the development of the game with improved processes going forward.
 
An important change to note is that Jean-Christophe, the founder of Novaquark, has transitioned from the day-to-day management of the team to better focus on his position as a board member. Over the years since the creation of Novaquark, JC designed and set the standards for the structural and conceptual foundation of the game, and he feels now that a solid base is there for him to move forward as a strategic advisor. The recent changes in the administrative presidency of the company only reflect the transition of JC to his new role. We’re excited to have the team he has built deliver on his vision for the game.
 
Rest assured that Novaquark’s future is in good hands, and there is a strong partnership between our long-term investors and our team. We believe that the future is bright for the game and for the company, and we cannot wait to tell you where we want to take Dual Universe.
 
With our warmest regards,
The Novaquark team