W1zard

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.

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.

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.

Please dont take the talent points. I agree that this is the reason for the paid subscription. I dont mind a wipe on everything else, and in talks with my org have even gotten a little excited at the prospect (and would thank you for tearing down some of the old constructs and that would have taken hours) but the talent points are ALWAYS the breaking point for me. We should absolutely keep those. 
 
What has been most annoying about the last month with the game is absolutely the uncertainty. Take the feed back set a date where you will have the final conclusion.... GIVE US THAT DATE.... and we will wait to hear but not knowing is becoming more frustrating every time another post about this comes up. 
 
Also please clarify on "removing schematics" because it sound like you mean doing away with the schematic mechanic entirely but I think you meant removing existing schematics that players have already purchased... Definitely want some clarification on that

If ther eis a full wipe (which i would prefere) then there should be a way to regain the old talent points, because thats bascially what ppl paid for. Be it that they get all their TP back 2 months or so into the game, or an increase in TP/hour until the "legacy TP-pool" is empty or whatever.

After all the things. actually i'd just leave if there was a wipe. seriously, look at teh mega factories. The investments in the schematics. The time and faith of the community to provide content.
 
Resounding naw, Im out. Gimme monies back pls.
 
The billionaire things was fixed with athena I think and the new "way" for more schematics and rarity of plas.
 
anyway. pick right.
 

Not only did they forgot, they made even worse.

This is what I most likely will fly in when Athena is out...

It would be also cool to have RDMS right that makes constructs visible for the actors. By visible I mean visible in F4 -> Constructs list. Curently, only legates can see the constructs location. So, if you have "use element" right you can control the ship but you can't find it's location other than ask from the owner (or legate) of the ship or if you are registerd at ship's ressurection node. That is also one of the reason why in a small org legates are "assigned quite liberaly".

Thank you NQ for keeping us in the loop.
 
Have you considered a system with which a legate or super legate could use the construct list to see elements/materials on any given org construct? It would assist them in making an informed decision as to what they should chose to remotely abandon in the event they found themselves needing to do so in order to cut the core count down before the random-abandon deadline.
 
It might also help if org-constructs and private constructs had their own folders on the construct list (and if org constructs were separated in to sub-folders by org).

I wonder :

- NQ say that there won't be a core XL for several years because it will be too expensive and that we will use XL instead of L.
What I understand is that the bigger a core unit is, the less NQ likes it because it costs more to maintain.

- Now we're going to have a pretty hard limit of X core per player. This will therefore push people to have mostly L cores to optimize large constructions.
 
So what is it really? Is the number of cores the problem or is their size?

If that's the number, you have to quickly unlock the XL cores.
If it is the size of the cores, then it must be integrated into the counter and let the player choose what he uses.
(Example: Core XS: 1 pts / Core S: 8 pts / Core M: 64 pts / Core L: 512 pts)

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.

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.

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.

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.

15 Personal Constructs + 25 org assignable constructs=40 max constructs with maxed talents for a solo player.
 
Things I'd like addressed:
Why introduce MU's if you're just going to reduce our core count when they take at least one core per tile?
 
What incentive is there now to design and build ships/statics for sale?  People aren't going to buy them because they have core limits and we can't show them because we also have core limits.  How will I buy more of Tobi's ships if I don't have the core capacity?  Why would I try out Cobqlts PVP ships if I'm max cores?
 
Less builders/designers means less ships available means people will be less likely to risk their current ships to getting blown up at the hands of the PVP folks?
 
Less PVP targets means less PVP for those folks....are they supposed to start running missions?
 
Who's going to design racers for Friday night races now?  Is the Dome going away because AngryDad has to decide between his hauler and the Dome core?
 
A lot of people have bought ships and now are expected to just disassemble all of those ships despite the quanta spent on them?
 
For a game that is strongest as a building game, this seems to be a big slap in the face for the builders.  Whether it's the revenue lost for the sellers or the creativity that's being stifled because we don't have any cores left to build with, this change will have chilling effects on all of us.

OMG. i am a builder.. an engineer .. a collector.. a single player. and i have played for quite some time.
i use a construct org with maxed talents to manage my constructs. and it is always close to the construct limit.
enabling a limit of 15 for my org basically means the end of almost everything for me.
How is that supposed to work. people like building stuff or buying cool stuff, and they usually come as a single new construct due to how DRM works.
so we are killing construct selling economy?
who would assign construct slots to an org if you need them to even store your own single player stuff??
seriously?
and all the mining unit cores? dead as well..  sorry.. that would not be my game any more
 
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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