Metsys

a bit confused here. If they update with the tactical map is to drop next week, how come NQ cannot show off their own working ingame version and instead they need to photoshop a screenshot of the UI of Elite:Dangerous. I'd rather see their take on this than a proof of concept they need to lift from another game's functioning ingame UI.

While I agree that we need a better UI, I don't think E:D radar ripoff will work for DU.

let's try to get an answer for these questions:
- Why E:D have this kind of radar?
and
- Would this work for DU?

E:D is a an immersive First-Person view game. Again, First-Person.
And this radar is your only way of knowing your surrounding.
Also the combat in E:D is at much lower distances
In DU you can just wiggle your mouse a bit and see what's going on.
I think we actually need some fleet markers, and better UI for already existing system. Not a ripoff from other game with different mechanics...

This is on the right track.

I hope to be able to tease you the update 1.3 with the management and the attribution of the energy :



 
I am joking.
 
I hope to see quickly what it will look like in NQ version

Hello, Noveans,
 
This is NQ-Entropy here to talk about our upcoming honeycomb HP and mass rebalance.
 
We know that our current system doesn’t serve the game well and we want to improve it. We are changing the way that honeycomb masses work, specifically, we are detaching them from their base material mass and unifying honeycomb masses into categories. We will also change how honeycomb HP is calculated and rebalance resistances across the board.
We also want to invite your thoughts on the proposed changes. The honeycomb mass and hp system impacts almost every area of Dual Universe, from shipbuilding to piloting and PvP. There’ll be an image at the end outlining the details of our proposed changes and a feedback thread where we want to hear your thoughts.
 
Now, let’s dive into the details.
 
SEPARATING HONEYCOMB MASS FROM ITS BASE MATERIAL 
 
In the past, our baseline for the weight of our honeycomb materials was directly based on their base pure and product materials. While a calculation was made to transform it into “honeycomb mass”, it was a straight transformation. 
 
For example: currently, the unit mass for a liter of Pure aluminum is 2.7kg, making its honeycomb mass 27kg for 1m3 (1000L). If a material weighs 2.2kg, its honeycomb mass would be 22kg/1m3.
 
This will no longer be the case, and we will take some liberties when transforming pure and product materials into honeycomb. This will allow us a wider range of weights, with a better distribution of weights at all tiers.
 
While we are taking precautions, this will have an effect on existing constructs. There are certain materials that will relatively drastically change in weight, and that could have an effect on existing constructs. We are actively trying to match the new and old masses as closely as possible, but there will be some outliers. It's worth noting that some materials will also benefit from weight reductions.
 
UNIFYING HONEYCOMB MASSES
 
To summarize, each pure honeycomb tier can access four mass classes: very light, light, heavy, and very heavy. Each existing pure material will take one of these 4 mass slots per tier.
 
Each product honeycomb will have 2 weight classes: light and heavy, with the addition of a special very light honeycomb at tier 1 for plastic. Similarly, each existing product honeycomb will take a light or heavy slot per tier.
 
Finally, we will have building materials such as Concrete, Brick, Wood, Carbon-Fiber, Marble, and Luminescent. These will have exceptionally light weights and are designed to be used explicitly for building with minimal mass.
 
Currently, our proposed values go as low as 2-3kg/m3 for the lightest building honeycomb and up to 100kg/m3 for Very Heavy Pures, which are now the heaviest honeycomb in the game.
 
HEALTHPOINT CALCULATIONS
 
Pre-combat core stress and pre-Shields, we had linear honeycomb HP based on mass. At that time, the meta was huge blocks of indestructible gold capable of absorbing massive amounts of punishment. This was possible in high part due to our poor initial voxel balancing, which specifically made gold a significant outlier. In an effort to curb that strategy, we made a number of changes to voxel health, firstly drastically reducing honeycomb HP and eventually introducing CCS. By the time that was done, Shields had taken over, and voxels were sparsely used on PvP constructs. Additionally, we now also have to consider the new speed limitations in the mass vs HP choice when it comes to honeycomb.
 
Now, with unified masses that we can better control and with CCS to control the extreme upper end, we are bringing back linear calculation of honeycomb HP based on mass. Simply put, a multiplier is applied to the voxel mass, which defines the HP of that material.
 
This will allow players to select light and heavy materials without feeling like there is a bad tradeoff in regards to their mass and their HP.
 
Currently, the mass to HP multiplier is set to 45. For the aforementioned very heavy materials of 100kg/L, that will give you 4500 raw HP.
 
REBALANCING RESISTANCE
 
We are not fundamentally changing how resistances work but are adjusting their values across the board. Resistances are generally increasing to provide better absorption and superior effective HP compared to previous iterations.
 
Resistances will still go up on a tier-by-tier basis, with building materials having the lowest resistances, then pures, and finally, high-tier products, which will have the best resistances.
 
We paid attention to two numbers in particular: Effective Healthpoints and Effective Healthpoints per unit of mass.
 
First, we wanted effective health points to make sense. We wanted honeycomb bulkheads to be capable of absorbing real firepower, and we wanted honeycomb to be good enough to protect elements inside a construct. While the final values and balancing may not be perfect, this is currently something that is starting to work. We’ve run tests with honeycomb bulkheads about a meter thick, roughly representing the armor on a medium-sized ship, and it was more than capable of absorbing multiple hits from max talented L weapons and protecting the elements we had placed behind them. Only after a good amount of shots did holes appear and elements behind start being vulnerable.
 
We ran multiple tests and generally found that they aligned with our expectations. Lower EHP materials were relevant vs xs and s weaponry but rapidly fell to larger weapons, medium EHP honeycomb was relevant versus medium-sized weapons, while high EHP honeycomb was capable of taking hits from large weapons.
 
Secondly, we wanted an EHP/mass curve that made sense as you progress up the material tiers. As of right now, going up a tier of a pure or a product guarantees a superior EHP/mass ratio with high-tier products having the best ratio on offer. This should ensure that going up a tier and upgrading your construct to a superior material is never a bad choice.
 
Finally, a small note on Core Combat Stress. It is currently unchanged as the tests we made noted the new honeycomb values lined up well with the old CCS settings. In view of that it is also a case of not wanting to change too many parameters at once so that in case of further iterations, it is easier to identify issues for tweaking.
 
FEEDBACK
 
It’s important to us that we get this rebalance right. Honeycomb’s role in PvP has impacted players significantly from the beta’s start. These changes will also impact many other areas of gameplay such as shipbuilding by altering honeycomb mass. Before implementing these changes, we want to invite your thoughts, especially on the numbers. If you have opinions on how we’re rebalancing honeycomb, please share them with us in this forum thread.
 
Here is the full breakdown of the proposed changes:
 

 
We look forward to hearing from you, Noveans.
 
Until next time, thank you for your attention.
 
- NQ Entropy

Markeedragon is more legit and trustworthy than Xsolla ever will be...
 
Not following the letter of the law in every situation doesn't make you wrong, mean you're doing wrong, or mean you can't be trusted.
 
There are mountains of companies that do business in the EU that don't post this information...often because they aren't familiar with the requirements, not because they are trying to scam you.
 
That doesn't mean they aren't trustworthy...nor does having this legal compliance mean you can be trusted.
 
I mean, anyone can post this information on their website...are you then going to check to make sure it's accurate before you ring you card?
 
It seems like this sort of regulation doesn't really do anything of substance to mitigate scams or foster trust. 
 
I know it's a total tangent but just saying...following every law or regulation doesn't always make you the more trustworthy party.

@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?

I don't see any downsides to this idea at all, it feels like a win win in that it 100% will improve on the existing pvp ideology that NQ started in Athena and doesn't feel like it requires a lot of changes to be made to the game to incorporate it!

Would love to see this taken seriously NQ, please

Sounds like another step away from player driven economy.
Producing items consume schematics copies.
Copying schematics will cost "a small fee".
This will create new TAX
 
Yet another "small fee".... When combing all situations where Aphelia collects those so called "small fees" total becomes wery big.
 
Great TAX simulator
 
 

Summer approaches and with it comes Mercury, our next update to Dual Universe.

As Cyrille Fontaine, our Creative Director, mentioned in his letter, our focus is currently on polish, and Mercury is no exception. This update also brings new features such as The Alioth Exchange, better lighting to improve visuals, Summer DACs, and more.

Read on for an overview.
 
THE ALIOTH EXCHANGE

We’re about to deploy a new installation in the heart of Alioth where players can apply to build a display to advertise and sell their creations. Applications will be open to all players who want to advertise their ship shops, markets, Lua Scripts, organizations, voxel libraries, or anything else that they create.
More details about, ‘The Alioth Exchange,’ will be available in an upcoming dedicated post.
 

 Note: constructs featured are samples only.

CONTINUED GRAPHICAL UPGRADES
 
We’re tackling illumination, vegetation, and explosion visual effects with the Mercury Update. You’ll find that the game world will be more radiant and realistic with our new global illumination, vegetation asset fixes will improve the look of foliage in the game, and whether you’re fighting or simply crashing a ship, you can enjoy more vibrant explosions.
 

 
SUMMER DACs
 
We’re implementing a separate, test version of DACs, allowing every active player to invite a friend to try Dual Universe free for one month. 
These Summer DACs are separate from real DACs, and will not impact your accrued pool of DACs from crowdfunding packages when gifted. 
One Summer DAC will be given to every active player and can only be redeemed by new accounts not yet subscribed to the game. They will expire by the end of the summer if not used. Summer DACs should allow us to test our web-based DAC system before the game’s release while offering your friends a chance to try the game for free!

NOVEAN OVERVIEW

We're adding an in-game interface which provides an overview of your general account information and unlocked possessions. We’ll expand this feature moving forward, but in Mercury, you’ll be able to see your unlocked cosmetic skins in a dedicated tab.
 

 
LUA API
 
Our vision for Lua has evolved over the years and with the new directions we’ve taken, it’s become necessary to entirely revamp our Lua API. These changes will future-proof the API and make it better serve the game by improving and tidying the system. We’re starting this process in Mercury. 
 
Naturally, such a major change will come with an enormous changelog, but to give you a brief overview of what’s coming ahead, we’re going to:
 
Restructure the entire Lua API Prepare an object-oriented approach to be ready for future evolutions. Reduce the use of JSON in the API to favor the use of real Lua tables. Rely more on event-driven code to reduce player loops and server requests. Reduce the complexity and size of scripts Add some of the, ‘nice to have,’ features Add further points of interest to some elements such as the telemeter.  
To summarize, our goal with this update is to reset the API and prepare it for future evolutions. Rest assured that your codes will still work in Mercury and that we’ll give you ample time to adapt your creations.
 
TALENT POINT RESET

Every character will have their talent points refunded back to their pool with the Mercury Update. While we must perform this reset for technical reasons related to upgrading our systems, this is also an opportunity for players to refocus talents into different areas and try new ‘builds’, or to simply correct training away from unwanted talents.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, we’ll publish a series of articles delving deeper into Mercury’s features, but for now, thank you for reading, Noveans! We’re excited to move forward with Mercury and are eager to hear your thoughts in this forum thread.
 
 

Strongly disagree. Building within the confines of the PvP environment, making designs that both push the limits and still look good, balancing compromises across the board, is far more interesting for me as a ship builder than making yet another hauler or warp shuttle.

You work with cross sections, keeping an eye on mass the whole time so you can keep your max speed as high as possible, as a fast ship has many advantages over a slow one. You keep an eye on thrust, because the more Gs of thrust you can manage, the faster your ship will accelerate and reach the top speed. But more engines for most thrust means more weight and thus lower top speed. Using more military engines or higher-tier military engines means more fuel consumption. Your decision on which weapon-loadout you equip your ship with also impacts the ship's mass and thus its overall performance. If you pick cannons, you pick close-range weapons that require being able to catch up to targets and get in close to them quick, but cannon ammo is relatively heavy compared to other weapon types. So now you fight the compromises of best-as-can-be top speed, thrust and also your ship's dps.

In contrast you can go big tanky battleship, where top speed falls out of the equation and it's all up to the rest of the stats, with focus less on quickness but how tanky you can make the ship. Also, for the most part, ignores cross sections.

THIS requires you to find creative solutions. It provides challenge. You build a million LEGO things that all do the same, how dull would that be.
 

What an uninformed statement of someone who does not know what they are talking about. Always so quick to judge when you lack the insight to know better.

All I see here is someone who is willingly not involving themselves with PvP pinning all the blame and all their issues with the game onto this aspect of the game, because that's the easy thing to do. Addition of PvP and their future plans to add more mechanics to it is not something bad, just because you feel whatever you enjoy in this game feels neglected for it. NQ is incredibly slow developing this game, most of what they do nowadays is rosey talk of a dream-like future while at the same time shooting down community feedback to what the community wants to see, saying it's not planned, not happening, not possible, or whatever else excuses they can find. That is on NQ though, not on the fact that PvP exists in this game.
 

No XL cores because those would be bad for performance. Too many elements it would need to load.

Okay then give us larger-tier elements so we don't need to spam them? Not priority, not happening.


NQ shoots themselves in the foot and then point at their wound as an excuse why they cannot walk further.

The reason we use L and XL engines instead of a million XS engines is convenience and so that don't HAVE to spam all the XS engines. They would also cause severe performance issues, understandably. But you gave us larger elements to avoid that issue. Only that you stopped halfway through, with some flight elements not going larger than M and requiring us to spam a multitude of them to get the required performance out of our flying constructs.
And now NQ points the finger at that and the resulting performance issues to justify saying NO to XL cores while at the same time saying larger elements to tackle that issue are not on their scopes either...

Strongly disagree. Building within the confines of the PvP environment, making designs that both push the limits and still look good, balancing compromises across the board, is far more interesting for me as a ship builder than making yet another hauler or warp shuttle.

You work with cross sections, keeping an eye on mass the whole time so you can keep your max speed as high as possible, as a fast ship has many advantages over a slow one. You keep an eye on thrust, because the more Gs of thrust you can manage, the faster your ship will accelerate and reach the top speed. But more engines for most thrust means more weight and thus lower top speed. Using more military engines or higher-tier military engines means more fuel consumption. Your decision on which weapon-loadout you equip your ship with also impacts the ship's mass and thus its overall performance. If you pick cannons, you pick close-range weapons that require being able to catch up to targets and get in close to them quick, but cannon ammo is relatively heavy compared to other weapon types. So now you fight the compromises of best-as-can-be top speed, thrust and also your ship's dps.

In contrast you can go big tanky battleship, where top speed falls out of the equation and it's all up to the rest of the stats, with focus less on quickness but how tanky you can make the ship. Also, for the most part, ignores cross sections.

THIS requires you to find creative solutions. It provides challenge. You build a million LEGO things that all do the same, how dull would that be.
 

What an uninformed statement of someone who does not know what they are talking about. Always so quick to judge when you lack the insight to know better.

All I see here is someone who is willingly not involving themselves with PvP pinning all the blame and all their issues with the game onto this aspect of the game, because that's the easy thing to do. Addition of PvP and their future plans to add more mechanics to it is not something bad, just because you feel whatever you enjoy in this game feels neglected for it. NQ is incredibly slow developing this game, most of what they do nowadays is rosey talk of a dream-like future while at the same time shooting down community feedback to what the community wants to see, saying it's not planned, not happening, not possible, or whatever else excuses they can find. That is on NQ though, not on the fact that PvP exists in this game.
 

Strongly disagree. Building within the confines of the PvP environment, making designs that both push the limits and still look good, balancing compromises across the board, is far more interesting for me as a ship builder than making yet another hauler or warp shuttle.

You work with cross sections, keeping an eye on mass the whole time so you can keep your max speed as high as possible, as a fast ship has many advantages over a slow one. You keep an eye on thrust, because the more Gs of thrust you can manage, the faster your ship will accelerate and reach the top speed. But more engines for most thrust means more weight and thus lower top speed. Using more military engines or higher-tier military engines means more fuel consumption. Your decision on which weapon-loadout you equip your ship with also impacts the ship's mass and thus its overall performance. If you pick cannons, you pick close-range weapons that require being able to catch up to targets and get in close to them quick, but cannon ammo is relatively heavy compared to other weapon types. So now you fight the compromises of best-as-can-be top speed, thrust and also your ship's dps.

In contrast you can go big tanky battleship, where top speed falls out of the equation and it's all up to the rest of the stats, with focus less on quickness but how tanky you can make the ship. Also, for the most part, ignores cross sections.

THIS requires you to find creative solutions. It provides challenge. You build a million LEGO things that all do the same, how dull would that be.
 

What an uninformed statement of someone who does not know what they are talking about. Always so quick to judge when you lack the insight to know better.

All I see here is someone who is willingly not involving themselves with PvP pinning all the blame and all their issues with the game onto this aspect of the game, because that's the easy thing to do. Addition of PvP and their future plans to add more mechanics to it is not something bad, just because you feel whatever you enjoy in this game feels neglected for it. NQ is incredibly slow developing this game, most of what they do nowadays is rosey talk of a dream-like future while at the same time shooting down community feedback to what the community wants to see, saying it's not planned, not happening, not possible, or whatever else excuses they can find. That is on NQ though, not on the fact that PvP exists in this game.
 

Player numbers and specifically PvP player numbers are very low, we're in a sub-to-play early access beta stage game.

The whole fight around Gamma Alien Core had around 150 constructs involved. You compare it to fully launched, decade-long running game that doesn't come with the uncertainty of the terrain DU is right now.
Not sure how the lack of players and a lack of unified opposition of the players towards a big adversary like Legion is "bad game design". Lack of marketing engagement to create hype or whatnot to bring in players might be NQ's fault, but it's not a question of game design in that aspect.

Where I do blame NQ here is that they didn't do anything with the Gamma fight. They could have made a video of sorts to promote it, show how PvP actually plays out in their game compared to the false advertising they do with their youtube videos on PvP. Get some info from the parties involved, backed by the data of the server and pull it off documentary style, generating some hype and maybe moving people to involve themselves with it, to at least check it out.

Player numbers and specifically PvP player numbers are very low, we're in a sub-to-play early access beta stage game.

The whole fight around Gamma Alien Core had around 150 constructs involved. You compare it to fully launched, decade-long running game that doesn't come with the uncertainty of the terrain DU is right now.
Not sure how the lack of players and a lack of unified opposition of the players towards a big adversary like Legion is "bad game design". Lack of marketing engagement to create hype or whatnot to bring in players might be NQ's fault, but it's not a question of game design in that aspect.

Where I do blame NQ here is that they didn't do anything with the Gamma fight. They could have made a video of sorts to promote it, show how PvP actually plays out in their game compared to the false advertising they do with their youtube videos on PvP. Get some info from the parties involved, backed by the data of the server and pull it off documentary style, generating some hype and maybe moving people to involve themselves with it, to at least check it out.

Player numbers and specifically PvP player numbers are very low, we're in a sub-to-play early access beta stage game.

The whole fight around Gamma Alien Core had around 150 constructs involved. You compare it to fully launched, decade-long running game that doesn't come with the uncertainty of the terrain DU is right now.
Not sure how the lack of players and a lack of unified opposition of the players towards a big adversary like Legion is "bad game design". Lack of marketing engagement to create hype or whatnot to bring in players might be NQ's fault, but it's not a question of game design in that aspect.

Where I do blame NQ here is that they didn't do anything with the Gamma fight. They could have made a video of sorts to promote it, show how PvP actually plays out in their game compared to the false advertising they do with their youtube videos on PvP. Get some info from the parties involved, backed by the data of the server and pull it off documentary style, generating some hype and maybe moving people to involve themselves with it, to at least check it out.

Of course they are. We're years ahead on talents than anyone who'd come to play at launch, who'd expect a fresh game (since, hey, the game just launched). A wiped game will give the impression of a fresh world to inhabit. And let's be realistic, it'll drive anyone with any competitive sense away to hear that they already missed out big time because they didn't spend money on this game years ago. There is no way anyone would be willing to pick up a freshly launched game when they hear that quite some players are 2 years ahead of them in trained talents.

If they don't wipe at all, then it's a different horse. They'd come into a game world they know is already inhabited and has been so for years. And with that comes the understanding that the players who comitted to inhabiting this world before them will also be vastly ahead in progress. That's kinda what we have now, any new player right now is well aware of all the players that came before them, that it enables them to buy all kinds of stuff on the market, because players trailblazed ahead to make buying everything possible.

With a wipe, we all start from scratch. Everyone needs everything for themselves or their orgs mainly. Everyone will be in the gold rush, everyone will be building. But with 2 years worth of talents on some of all the people digging through the dirt again, they will have a clear advantage that wont feel fair. We'll all be back in the dirt but us backers will be vastly overpowering the newbies and leave them in the dirt, and that will make it feel unfair to them

Of course they are. We're years ahead on talents than anyone who'd come to play at launch, who'd expect a fresh game (since, hey, the game just launched). A wiped game will give the impression of a fresh world to inhabit. And let's be realistic, it'll drive anyone with any competitive sense away to hear that they already missed out big time because they didn't spend money on this game years ago. There is no way anyone would be willing to pick up a freshly launched game when they hear that quite some players are 2 years ahead of them in trained talents.

If they don't wipe at all, then it's a different horse. They'd come into a game world they know is already inhabited and has been so for years. And with that comes the understanding that the players who comitted to inhabiting this world before them will also be vastly ahead in progress. That's kinda what we have now, any new player right now is well aware of all the players that came before them, that it enables them to buy all kinds of stuff on the market, because players trailblazed ahead to make buying everything possible.

With a wipe, we all start from scratch. Everyone needs everything for themselves or their orgs mainly. Everyone will be in the gold rush, everyone will be building. But with 2 years worth of talents on some of all the people digging through the dirt again, they will have a clear advantage that wont feel fair. We'll all be back in the dirt but us backers will be vastly overpowering the newbies and leave them in the dirt, and that will make it feel unfair to them

Translating Cyrille's Post:

#0 Cyrille: I’m Cyrille Fontaine, Creative Director here at Novaquark.
Translation: This is who I am, <insert credible title> Believe me when I say the following...

#1 Cyrille: A game like Dual Universe is a never ending labor of love and ongoing development, but there is a point when you just need to assess if it is ready for a release.
Translation: We promised way beyond our capability to deliver, and have decided to shove a broken game out for release cause we need revenue.
 

#2 Cyrille: Development of Dual Universe continues at full speed, and we’re spending the lion’s share of our focus right now on fixing bugs, stabilizing the game.
Translation: We 100% know our game is broken, expect months before you get new content.
 

#3 Cyrille: We’re close to deploying a brand new feature that we expect will be a hub for creators and merchants.
Translation: We are going to reskin the auction house terminals, and make them a player craftable asset you can place on your tile.
 
 
#4 Cyrille: We’re also working hard to deliver our promises to our Kickstarter backers that supported us from the beginning. 
Translation: Thanks for the money, we are obviously 4 years behind our delivery date.
 
 
#5 Cyrille: Our team continues to analyze game data and read your feedback to focus our efforts on where we can be most effective
Translation: We are reading your feedback and ignoring you, this will continue.
 

#6 Cyrille: Another gameplay feature we’re looking to add is recycling, which would enable ... turning parts of broken or unwanted elements back into components.
Translation: Our economy is broken, elements are worth less than their raw resources, here is a bandaid.
 

#7 Cyrille: The mission system is one area of focus for this goal in developing more complex, interconnected, and lore-oriented objectives. 
Translation: Our answer for PVE is more boring mission types which poorly reward players for their time.
 

#8 Cyrille: We’re also developing a power management system.... Players must decide how to specialize each ship
Translation: We are breaking your ships again, forcing major redesigns.... LULZ.
 

#9 Cyrille: We want to increase the quantity of discovered planets and moons... to produce planetoids the size of big asteroids,
Translation: Player population has fallen too much for multiple star systems as JC proposed, yet players are still too close for servers to handle the resource strain.


#10 Cyrille: One of the most resource-intensive features that we have to tackle is planetary warfare. It brings significant change to the game and, before we can achieve it, we have to bring PvP in general to a more mature state.
Translation: We Know PVP sucks, Planet Warfare in 2030

Hello, Noveans!
 
I’m Cyrille Fontaine, Creative Director here at Novaquark. These are exciting times and I wanted to give everyone an overview of our objectives and direction for Dual Universe.
 
 
A game like Dual Universe is a never ending labor of love and ongoing development, but there is a point when you just need to assess if it is ready for a release. After close to two years of testing and numerous major additions to the game, we have decided to prepare the game for launch.
 
Development of Dual Universe continues at full speed, and we’re spending the lion’s share of our focus right now on fixing bugs, stabilizing the game, improving our back-end systems, and overall continuing to polish the game.
 
We’re close to deploying a brand new feature that we expect will be a hub for creators and merchants alike to gather and present themselves to other players. It’ll be open to anyone who wishes to participate and advertise their shop, museum, service, or any other point of interest.
 
We’re also working hard to deliver our promises to our Kickstarter backers that supported us from the beginning. We’re searching for a new shipping partner to deliver the physical rewards as well as delivering the digital rewards through the major game updates of 2022. We’re also implementing an initial web-based version of DACs.
 
  Our team continues to analyze game data and read your feedback to focus our efforts on where we can be most effective, and this means that our plans can change with developments in the game, but looking to the future, I want to share some of what we currently have planned in upcoming content updates for Dual Universe.
 
Flotillas are a new feature we’re developing that will allow players to form temporary groups of constructs. These will help in identifying friend from foe, assuming your foes haven’t already infiltrated your squad. This will improve many different aspects of group play ranging from fleet engagements, running convoys, piracy, and more.
 
Another gameplay feature we’re looking to add is recycling, which would enable players to better manage their inventories by turning parts of broken or unwanted elements back into components.
 
We want to expand PvE with the goal of helping players bring the game-world to life and improving the story in which everyone experiences the game. The mission system is one area of focus for this goal in developing more complex, interconnected, and lore-oriented objectives. 
We’re also developing a power management system. A good way to consider how energy will work is to look at how construct maximum speeds have changed. Players must decide how to specialize each ship, and similarly, must make choices on how best to distribute power across their constructs.
 
We want to increase the quantity of discovered planets and moons as well as new aspects, biomes and gameplay opportunities, and to produce planetoids the size of big asteroids, much like the Thades belt rocks, but claimable as a territory.
 
One of the most resource-intensive features that we have to tackle is planetary warfare. It brings significant change to the game and, before we can achieve it, we have to bring PvP in general to a more mature state. We know that territory warfare is an important game system to many of you, so continue to help us improve PvP by engaging in fights to generate data for us to analyze and continue to improve the system.
 
There are also many other features that we are looking to improve or introduce in the future.
 
 
Now, let’s discuss the topic of a reset.
 
We have seen your many posts across Discord, our forums and social media. We’ve heard your frustration and know that many of you are waiting for a decision about whether or not we will reset. Let me assure you that no matter what we decide, you will not be reset back to square one. Of the different options we’ve been discussing in case of a reset, we are certain that you will keep your core blueprints, including blueprints owned by an organization that you lead. We are also looking into which other important parts of your game progress could be kept if we do reset.
 
Yes, the internal discussion about a possible reset does continue, and it’s no exaggeration to say that this is the most significant decision we currently have to make for Dual Universe. We appreciate our players and your engagement with us, but I also want everyone to know that all of us here at Novaquark are eagerly awaiting the day we can share concrete news with you.
 
That is all for this message. Until next time, thank you for your attention, Noveans!
Please don't hesitate to provide your feedback here.
- Cyrille Fontaine (NQ-Kyrios)

The slowing forums is people realizing their words fall onto deaf ears that say "we hear your concerns" all the same. We can complain and talk about all the issues here and suggest whatever we want, it just doesn't make a difference. This thread here alone is people voicing and talking about the wipe issue for a month now, making suggestions or stating opinions and observations on specific problems around the wipe. And NQ has not said a thing about it all this time, despite players begging for any word on the matter.

So here we are, talking to eachother and at eachother without the power to make it change anything. And with that realization comes apathy and activity slows down.

PvP is literally unplayable. This back-end radar change broke more than it could hope to do good. This needs fixing ASAP. No transponders was one thing but not even remotely half as bad as the current radar situation

PvP is literally unplayable. This back-end radar change broke more than it could hope to do good. This needs fixing ASAP. No transponders was one thing but not even remotely half as bad as the current radar situation

PvP is literally unplayable. This back-end radar change broke more than it could hope to do good. This needs fixing ASAP. No transponders was one thing but not even remotely half as bad as the current radar situation

@NQ-Admin Hi, it's important.

Can you put all the alien core in pause (production/lockdown) until PVP was fix? (Radar + Transponder + Anynewbug)

We can't fight in good conditions, we can't have fun or enjoy this content (and it's the only PVP available atm) and with the wipe no decision + all those PVP bugs, we just lost all our motivation.

Do something, don't be passiv, thx.