W1zard

Oh.. right... so 64 slots would be enough if there will be 10k+ active players at release? 😅

For me it's sounds a bit strage how is the first words in this devblog is: In the devblog about NQ-driven solution. For me NQ-driven and player-driven is quite opposite terms, and I don't see how this concept supports it. Also 16 slots seems like way too little, do you think that at release, if there will be 10k+ active players 16 slots will be enough to promoting player-made content? How much of these exchanges will be needed at release to satisfy all the players who want promote something? Is this concept even scalable to reasonable amount? Why not just integrate a player-driven shop system for constructs BPs and scripts ingame, the one that would replicate DU-Creators, but actually inside the game, with the ability to purchase a BP from there directly? What if some players use this exchange for promoting their org, and there are much more orgs that would like to promote themselves, than just 16. Would that mean that these NQ-selected 16 orgs would be dominant in player-counts, because NQ desided so? How is that a player-driven?

The only reason I paid for this game before release is talent points, as they were supposed to be persistent. As you guys a lot of times said, wipe would be very unlikely event, and only if something is really broken. There is nothing broken with talents. A lot of people payed real money only to continue training their talents. If you wipe it - it's just straight money scam.

I feel like voxels is still useless. Venting any ships I fly while under attack is not possible at all Look at this ship for example. It was before Athena, but this design is still usable I believe for some cases (But for most of PvP I'll probably use lighter ships) This is an M core with an L shield, around 12g acceleration after Athena weight changes and 6 mounted M weapons (probably will switch to 4 rails + 2 stasis as we can link 4 rails to one seat now) This is a great example because it's fully (I mean literally, there is only small cockpit carved out for gunner seats) filled with tier 4 voxels (fluorine) (Thats something around 1600m3) Even though its tier 4 voxels, this have zero chance of venting or even surviving more than few hits after shield is down, so those voxels are much more cosmetics than actual armor. Adding more voxels will only make this ship weaker because it will increase cross section and lower the effectiveness of shield HP (which is still huge if you count in resistances, compared to voxels) And that's a ship with an L shield, a heavy one! This and anything smaller have zero benefits from voxels in actual pvp engagement. And I still don't see any reason to use big bulky slow ships that are much more expensive, than to use 10 small cheap M railgun fighters that I can lose every day and don't care about them.

This, and a possibility to replace an element with it's variant on an already deployed ship (in case you bought one with basic elements and want to upgrade for example) would be a really nice QOL features in wipe scenario.

The only reason I paid for this game before release is talent points, as they were supposed to be persistent. As you guys a lot of times said, wipe would be very unlikely event, and only if something is really broken. I get it why you would want to wipe the economy, but there is nothing wrong with talents, this mechanics didn't change, and there were no exploits of it. A lot of people payed real money only to continue training their talents. If you wipe it - it's just straight money scam. Suggestion: If you want a `fair` start, just freeze those points for a few months, and then give them back to players who paid for them.

Not only did they forgot, they made even worse. This is what I most likely will fly in when Athena is out...

Okay, so single player can maintain around 40 MUs simultaniously, but only 25 construct slots? So I can't even use the full potantial of my account, that sounds bad for me.

Make it depending only on a core size is bad idea, as it would lead to a "As big as I can fit in a core grid" ships. A year ago we had lock-distance based on solely core size, and all of us were flying in as big as possible XS cubes packed with L missiles. We still have to use some kind of smaller-better mechanics, just not related fully on a cross-section, to allow some creative in building ships. As is said above, I don't thing that adding a relation to a core size is good, even if it's partial. I think it can and should be balanced without that. Also I really hope that their new max speed mechanics would not relate on a core size, I would prefer it be dependant on a ships total mass, otherwise we would have XS or S heavy haulers packed with containers on a full grid. That's why I added a few suggestion how we can replace cross-section to still have a dependecy, but which would not limit our creative voxelmancy. I would really love to see shield bleed mechanics, as I it would return on-board engineer gameplay back in the game. But shields was added for a reason of servers not handling voxel damage properly, so I bet we won't see that in the game until something changes dramatically in voxel-damage processing. Well, it's not that massive, and if not hit-probability penalties we all would fly in a 120 mil ccs boxes. So we still need some kind of mechanics preventing us from flying in "as big as possible" ships. Currently we are flying in "as small as possible", and that's why we need to add some tradeoffs and balance things out. I would disagree that the idea itself is terrible. Yes, we have technical limitations not making it possible at the moment, but if they get to fix that, I see nothing wrong in shield bleed as a mechanics itself. I think that depends on how it would be balanced. As venting can give 50% of your shield back in 100 seconds, it's very beneficial to have some CCS to be able to survive at least one venting procedure. So if amount of voxels required to do so will not increas hit probability by more than 1.5 times, it should be ok. Also I just though about your point a bit more. We have voxels on our ships right now, because we can place voxels inside elements, so maybe it should not be a sum of volume, but rather max(voxel_volume, elements_volume)?

Currently, hit probabilty depends only on a cross-section of targeted ship. In my opinion, this is pretty bad for making pvp ships look pretty, this is how my ship currently looks like: It's done like that because it was the smallest cross-section I managed to achive with 6 M railguns + L shield + good amount of thrust. This is a good example of a beautiful ship by Metsys: But this one have x1.5 frontal cross section, and I'm not talking about other two (which can make a difference in a fleet fight) The box design will have at least 20% less hit-probably compared to pretty-looking ship (which makes it 20% more tanky) and 20% is in my opinion a very big difference in survivability to make a choice towards using a box. For me, creative aspect of DU is one of the best compared to every other voxel-building games, and i want to be able to use this aspect of the game in pvp as well. Because PvP is a competetive aspect of the game, and if we want to min/max our builds, we have to use boxes =( Here are some of my thoughs that can help improve this situation: Make hit probability based not on a cross-section, but based on: a) total elements+voxel volume (that will give full freedom on ship design while keeping the smaller-better trend) b) total ship mass (don't really know how this can make any sense, but that can be pretty balanced i think) c) heat emission (amount of thrust / gun shots produced) d) any other parameter you can think of except cross-section

If I understand correctly, you need the ability to create custom currency in game to be able to handle that without external DB? I would really love to see custom currencies in DU, this will add so much to "civ building" aspect of the game.

There are already some ship related sounds in game like `Shield activated` and so on. I would suggest moving them to the audio folder and use your new audio framework to call those sounds from default script. Or at least the ability to disable the default ship voice sounds. This would allow us to make fully customizable "Ship Voice Assistants".

About a month if playing solo with only 1 account? Let me provide some calculations to you. One mining unit provides 230 l/h with maxed handling talents. With good recharging talents 1 player can maintain around 30 mining units running simultaneously. That being said, that's 165kl daily, so it's around 23 days to fill 20L containers. So if you are playing in an org with, let's say, 3 players, you would need to use such a hauler once a week.

Have you done any calculations on this topic? Currently if you are using tier 5 alloy, they have more than x5 multiplier on CCS per HP, you would need at least 120mil of voxels HP to even have a chance to hit your CCS limit and not die by the core explosion. That is around 30,000m^3 of voxels. How is that limiting your creativeness? Elements HP are negligible compared to voxels if you have at least 20-30 mils of HP, and with current curve and multipliers you will have much more CCS than that HP amount, so I don't really get your point here, why would you want to increase your CCS if it's hardly noticable before 120-150+ mil of HP, and that's what it's main reason, to make invicible ships not possible to make. There are already counterplays and fleet compositions, if you don't see a counter to your ship, that doesn't mean that there is none. If you have low cross-section L laser ship, it will die to low cross-section M rail ship. If you have low cross-section M rail ship, it will die to 50mil+ CCS L laser/Cannon ship. 3Lasers+2Missiles+M radar are viable too (will have 4 types of damage and very hight DPS, but not very long range), And there is more, that's just an on-surface example. Weapon percs depending only on size? I strongly agains this. Addition of other percs in current `heavy`, `precision` etc.. I'm ok with. This is a good one, but not based on weapon type, or size. Just make it 80% shield, 20% to ship, this will return the mid-fight repairing gameplay

Aren't you able to add quanta to territory only from territory owner wallet? So you would still need to transfer money to org wallet first.

I don't understand why do even have a territory balance and a 13 weeks cap. Why just don't make a checkbox `pay taxes for this territory` and make it autopay for itself from personal/org wallet. I see that cap can be a reason for territories to abandon at some point if player stops playing, but I don't think it's perfect solution and there should be other ways of territories circulation, e.g. territory wars. It's very annoying to fill every individual territory balance when you have 100+ of them.

Current starting planet is Alioth/Sanctuary, and they both have a 1g gravity. All other planets/moon have less gravity so if you have built a ship that can leave Alioth, you can safely land on any planet. There is no challenge in that. How about adding a higher-G planet, even something like 10g gravity planet, with some Ion\plasma storm that disables AGG. With big ore pools, but only of heavy metals, hematite, chromite, etc. I think we need some challenges in this game.

The only possible issue I see here, is that if was much less MUs that one person could operate, or much larger ore pools. E.g. there was ore pool enough to feed 100 MUs, and one person can handle only 10 at a time. Than giving rights to mine only to one person (even you gave the rights to deploy core units) he should be able to only manage 10 MUs on your territory. With current RDMS he would be able to give use element right to his org and manage all 100 MUs. But that's not the case currently, so I don't see a problem either.

I don't see why this is incorrect. The person who own a static core also own any mining unit placed on it, as well as any ore in containers at that core. If he would like to share any of his commodities he is able to do so via RDMS. Technically, when a third person activates the mining unit, ore ownership still goes to a person you were given rights too. I get why you want this to be changed tho (So it to be consistent with previous mining/harversting rights), and maybe it should be changed as you are saying. Maybe it should be brought to NQ's attention in some QnAs, but i doubt this would be changed.

Can you please provide more information of how your RDMS is set up. Who is owner of hex tile, who is owner of the static construct and who is activating a mining unit. From what I understand you are saying that person A owns a tile, and set up RMDS policy to allow person B activation of mining units on his territory? Or does he allow person B to deploy static constructs on his tile? If second, and person B deployed a static core, and gave rights to build and use elements on it to person C, then yes, person C would be allowed to place and activate mining unit on person's B core on person's A tile. As the owner of static core is person B and he is allowed to mine on that territory, and technically, he is the one who is mining. Sounds like intended.

Every weapon type is limited to only 2 different ammo type, and you are chosing weapon type and amounts of each ammo type you carry ahead of time. You can't hit all damage types at every range, you are limited to weapon stats. Your point is wrong. If you chose to fly only on one type of ship, doesn't mean everyone is flying same ship as you. There are many pvp ship design out there: 5 laser light ship 10 laser more heavy ship with a lot of CCS 6 cannon high-G no-CCS kamikaze-type ship 12 cannon low cross-section medium CCS 3 M rails very small ship (have you tried to aim at a ship with only 80 m^2 cross section with an L weapon?) Each of these ships have it's own pros and cons, and should be treated differently in combat encounter. And that's only ships at our shipyard, not counting what other people can use. (I saw some succesfuly used an M laser ship agains L cores) These are some nice ideas, and they kind of corelate with my ideas in topic: Again, I am not saying PvP is as good as it should or can be, I am just saying that your point is a bit off what is really happining in the open space out there.

Actually, right before that well, cross-section, which defines hit-probability is stopping you from increasing your acceleration. Also fuel-consumption, engine and fuel mass which increasing your warp cost. So, not for free, and not that nothing is stopping you. As I said already, NQ mentioned this would change, why pointing again at that? Yes, we use L weapons in most pvp encounters, because bigger guns deal more damage, that sounds ok for me. But there is some cases where we actually use M core ships and M rails, considering cross-section, mass, and total cost of combat mission. No need to be rude here, if you want something to change better be calm and constructive.

I totally agree with you. I also crashed a lot due to lags at market when doing ore hauls. But demand problem can strike big with all the taxes now... People simply have no needs to buy elements, and even won't have any quanta to buy extra just in case. I hope someday they will fix all performance issues and will bring ement destruction back.

This IS exactly what I want to see as DU PvP, thank you guys for sharing this, this reminded me good old times with Lineage 2 sieges and clan-wars. Too bad we don't see interactions like this often now. I hope with addition of Territory Warfare we will see them more often.

You are trying to imply one game experience to other which have other mechanics. In CS:GO every player can move with same speed and acceleration, that's not the case with DU. You can have a ship with much higher acceleration than your opponent to be able to get in close range for more damage. That's also not true, we use cannons, and successfuly cored few Legion laser ships, without losing any of our ships. And we use cannons because they have much higher in CLOSE range btw (So no, we don't choose sniper rifles). They already told in latest QnA that this will be changed. There IS already a basic RPS mechanics, called shield resistances vs ammo type. Have you calculated how much more damage a fleet would do if they balance their ships with cannons/missiles instead of using only two types of ammo? But yes, I agree this can be addressed more. Basically the PvP in this game is not fine, I would not called it even "acceptable", but not because of points you have raised here.