InvestorStallone

Dear Noveans,
 
We’re going to launch Dual Universe! If you missed our launch announcement live stream, you can watch the replay here, and you can also read on for all the details below.
 
Dual Universe has spent eight years in development, with the past two of those in beta. Our team has delivered industry-leading voxel technology, enabling players to build amazing worlds in a single-shard MMO like no other. We’ve advanced by leaps and bounds, adding systems like asteroid and territory mining, missions, new PvP mechanics, and more reasons to fight, as well as creation systems like the Vertex Precision Tool, new Lua API, and the Exchange for our creators to exhibit their works.
 
In short, we’re proud of what we’ve accomplished and are excited for what is yet to come.

Thank you for walking this road with us so far, and it is with great pleasure that we can finally release the details of the launch with you here today:
Dual Universe is launching on September 27, 2022. To enable the launch, we will close all servers on September 22, 2022, and keep them closed until the launch. All active subscriptions (excluding beta keys and full beta access) will receive 6 days of subscription at launch to compensate for this downtime.
 
Here’s a message from Novaquark’s CEO, Nouredine Abboud, on the launch:
 
STEAM
 

 
We’re launching Dual Universe on Steam! It’s an exciting time for us at NQ as we bring our game to as many players who may enjoy it as possible and give those who prefer it the option to purchase the game on Steam.
 
Our Steam page is already live! You can support us by wishlisting Dual Universe on steam and recommending it to your friends, even if you already have the game!
 
The game will also continue to be available to buy on our website, as well as from our official reseller. And of course, you can still play it on almost any computer via the NVIDIA cloud-based platform, Geforce NOW.
 
FREE TRIAL
 
We will implement a free trial of Dual Universe with the game’s launch, which will be available exclusively on Steam. We’ll have more details on this in future communications, but for those who want to try the game's mechanics without committing to a subscription, we’ve got you covered!
We will be opening a separate server for the free trial to allow anyone the chance to try the game for free without impacting the persistent server. This separate server will be regularly reset.
 

 
The game has come a long way during these two years of beta. We want to give every player, including those of you who stopped playing before the game’s new systems and gameplay loops were introduced, a chance to try them.
 
If you were subscribed to the game at any point during the beta, and your subscription has lapsed, we’re adding two weeks of game time on your account from the 27th of September. These two weeks will give you full access to the main universe. Come see what the game has to offer at launch; it’s on us! 
 
A NEW HELIOS
 
The launch will come with some welcome additions to the game. A major one is that we’re upgrading planets. The launch is a great chance for us to bring the game's worlds to life more and to breathe more identity into them. As NQ-Sirg has described before in Ask Aphelia, we had built the Helios system for the launch of Beta and didn’t have as much time as we would have liked to make fleshed-out, living worlds. 
 
If you want a sneak peek at some of these changes, you can see them in the replay of our launch announcement live stream. 
 
This upgrade means you will see new biomes that feel more vibrant and alive. Players will initially have access to:
 
Alioth + Sanctuary + Haven (+ Moon 1 + Moon 4) Jago Teoma Madis (+ Moons 1, 2, and 3)
 
Thades (+ Moons 1 and 2)  

 
 
We’ll add more improved worlds back into the game in several phases. Please note that the release order below is still subject to change.
 

 
We are also adding more planetary body types into the game! The asteroid belts of Thades will be replaced with new, bigger asteroids which can now be claimed by players. We hope to introduce more claimable rocks around Helios after the launch.

BLUEPRINTS
 
Whether you’ve got a small holding or a sprawling, multi-core space station, rebuilding after the reset will be easier with better blueprint deployment tools. As a reminder, you will keep your core blueprints after the reset, so we wanted to make your life easier when deploying them at launch. We have already added pre-visualization to blueprints with the ability to finely move their placement using keyboard controls. We’re also adding three new features at launch and in the first patch after the launch:
 
 
SNAPPING - When deploying a blueprint, you can snap to the grid of another, already placed core, like when placing a Space Core Unit. Along with pre-visualization and keyboard controls, this will allow you to perfectly align cores with one another while deploying blueprints. HONEYCOMB SWAPS - You can now change any honeycomb type inside of a blueprint with any other of your choosing. ELEMENT OMISSION - You can now opt to deploy blueprints with elements missing should you lack them or to simply choose different elements to omit from deployment by choice.  
COSMETICS
 
Another addition to the launch is better cosmetics. We’re adding the much-requested purple plastic and colored luminescent honeycomb. Our newly announced Pioneer Packs will reward beta players and backers with collectible items only available to them as a thank you for helping to bring the game to life. We’re also building on the NOVEAN OVERVIEW to help players better manage their customizations and skins, with much more cosmetic and quality of life improvements to come!
 
KICKSTARTER REWARDS
 
In-game Kickstarter rewards will start being rolled out at launch, and we will share details about them in a dedicated communication. It will include topics such as how to update your physical-reward delivery address and how to claim your in-game rewards.
 
However, there is one piece of news that we want to share with you here. It’s an exciting time for any game developer when the project you have devoted years of your life to comes to fruition. We can already confirm that our Crowdfunding backers will be able to finally see their names in the credits at launch. 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Launching Dual Universe is the start of a new chapter in the game’s story, a story that we as developers and you, our community, are writing together. We still have much to do, and we’re more excited now than ever to deliver a game that can live up to Dual Universe’s incredible potential.
 
If you have questions about the launch, please send them to us here so that we can answer them in a dedicated episode of Ask Aphelia.
You can also share your thoughts and feedback with us in this dedicated forum thread.
 
Thanks again to our players for an incredible journey so far. We can't wait to continue it with you.

Hi, a new topic for resume some of our idea about PVP features in the future.

Wrecks
- add an element similar to the DSAT for them
- put them all in space
- add schematics in their storage, with a value that depends on the rarity of the wreck
This would be a cool first PVP approach for all players as well as an additional way to have content for the most experienced on the rarest wrecks

Asteroids
- delete T4 and T5 from the MUs on each planets/moons
- modify the spawn algorythm for dodge any PVP roid to spawn too close to the Safezone
- reduce their maximum spawn distance
- disable the possibility of create a station with a shield close to them
- allow imprisoning players who farm in jetpack with XS core and glass panel or give us GUNS
In order to restore the interest in asteroids and encourage people to interact with each other, whether through piracy or through group mining to protect/optimize themselves.

Alien core
- Increase the power of items requiring plasma
- Hide/protect ships docked to an alien core, or just on station, with a shield
- Less T5 in MU
- Scales the need for plasma in the schematics based on item size (example 1 for XS, 2 for S, 3 for M and 4 for L, and modify the production of plasma if needed)
This will add interest to Alien cores, preserve an important interest for asteroids by avoiding being the main source of T5
 
Piracy
- Bring back the boarding, the button feature work now, if people don't check their ship then it's their fault. (and the force field for counter boarding is so boring for dock/land)
- Rework the radar, add some range or be able to follow the signature of a ship or any other idea else than this 2SU max
- Delete the jammed zone, if people can see hauler going in space, PVP players can see pirates who hunt it or any other player who want help/warn/counter
- Need more reward for hunting mission hauler
- Go back on group missions and stop special missions (beta keys will end with the release and if you add more tool on pirates, big hauler will be hunted)
- Adds different icons/icons colors, allowing each player to set a reputation on an org or a player
- Add a right clic option on dynamic construct icon for wisp the pilot and allow players to talk (to find a deal, a ransom or a pass)

I tried to summarize some of my ideas as well as possible, if you have better or different ones do not hesitate.

Except the size, this sounds just like another data bank?
 
What is the use case you want to solve?
 
Edit: Personally, I'd like to extend the databank or a new element that you can paste/copy larger text data to/from, like you can do with a programming board.

With linear honeycomb HP based on mass what's the reason to use lighter materials?
They have same HP for mass added on ship, but adds much more cross-section, which results in less total ship's survivability.
I think with hit-prob based on cross-section only viable option of voxels on ships with linear HP are heaviest possible materials with as much res as possible

Haven't run any calculations yet, but it could be possible that Niobium (pure) is better than Mangalloy (product) just because of lower cross-section

Most of the upper third schemes are dramatically lower in price and are much more affordable.
 
Warp cells are a bit of a unique case on the new system. This is, in my opinion, a single point of detail.
 
I have several remarks on the subject of warp cells :
 
- Firstly: we can do without it. It is only a convenience of time to "save time". Time is money, you have to pay the price.
 
- Second: the most abundant source of quanta in DU will be the mission system which already does not allow warping with packages
 
- Third: warp cells have an impact on PvP, if they are too accessible then entire fleets can warp all the time in all directions. This makes actions impossible for groups of modest size because they will have to manage even if they are at the other end of the system of many ships.
 
- Fourth: Currently all the planets are in safe zone, being able to warp ore without taking any risk and being totally safe from start to finish is counterproductive for the game. You can always do it, but you will have to ask yourself the question if it is really profitable to teleport your ore
 
- Fifth: The game will evolve in the future, electronic warfare (certainly anti-warp or interuption of warp), the planets of the outer edges which will pass completely PvP. Possible reduction of distances between planets.
Maybe it's a good game to start now to adapt its gameplay to future game conditions before getting into too many bad habits that could lead to delicate situations.
 
In summary :
Take a step back and look at the different options available to you (as well as the new opportunities offered by the new schematic system) and I'm sure you'll end up finding your account.
Maybe the price should be reduced a little bit, it is possible to discuss it.
And it's true that I too would have liked to know what NQ is planning with regard to warps, if they want it to be less frequent, less used in PvP or in freight transport?
It will always be interesting to have the vision of the studio.

NQ just had better judgment than you and a better idea.
Instead of limiting the number of factories per player. We limit the number of crafts.
What does this change compared to your wobbly system?
It is that a player can sell to another his manufacturing rights.
It's still much more "smooth" than hard limitations of the number of factories.

On the contrary, small groups will now be able to do everything without having to spend millions of quanta in initial investment.

I just have a totally opposite idea about the price of those schematics, a lot got a too low price (end game items for example) but yes, I totally agree about the problems about the overflow of elements.
 
just keep in mind that the wipe isn’t tomorrow, we will have more revamp/change before it and we just need to improve this one and keep send feedback to NQ about those important other change we need. Not just block this new feature because it’s not deployed in the right order.
 

I would like to be able to configurate the industry units even without any schematics available in the schematic bank. Of course the machine should not start to produce anything but be jammed because of missing schematics. So my org mates can come later and fill up the machine with the necessary schematics and then the machine will start produce as I configured it and with my talents.

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)

Yea i agree. Mainly because of the lack of resources to do a balanced PVE. 
 
But i feel like a middle ground is missing. 
 
I would love to see a duel system. Where 2 players or 2 forces would agree to have a duel in a PVP free zone, protected from 3rd party interrupts. 
Maybe even with the choice of a rule set, like loot able ships at the end, quanta bets, etc. 

Resources worth nothing because you never broke any modules. You can lost your ship only if you want. Why you are planing to add recyclers?
- you craft modules and sell it mostly to new players, old players already have everything. There actually no working resource drain mechanics in this game
- plasma not worth it to fight, also because corp who owns plasma decide when to defend -- single powerful corp will own everything.
- asteroid fights not worth it. And you need to leave your ship when mining, so enemies easy to destroy you. You can't even know when someone is close to you.
After wipe nothing will change in long distance. For few monthes it will be lack of resources, and then again you will not require anything from market and everything will be overproducted.

You need to create situations when almost everyone will be shot, or will shoot -- and it will be on daily basis. A lot of 1v1 situations. Ideally Player vs NPC also -- it's easiest way and most fun.
PvP needed for pve players also, it will create market for modules, for ships, for resources

Hello there,
 
First off, thanks for the feedback. 
 
So there's a couple of different things to touch on here:
 
The internal balance of shields sizes CCS/honeycomb health vs Shield Health per mass Venting
I’ll try to address in that order but they will mesh a little since they have some obvious links.
 
First of all smaller shield sizes are at an advantage in regards to HP/mass. So something to keep in mind is that as you go up in size, as it pertains only to shields, you are losing out on the HP/mass ratio (in simpler terms, each HP weighs more on larger shields). This is an inbuilt advantage smaller sizes simply have.
However, the main and primary reason we have different shield sizes at all, is to support constructs of varying sizes and mass. This is the key center-point around which everything else mostly revolves.
 
If you are intending to make a larger, heavier construct, that is going to trend towards or go past the max mass, then the large shield becomes the obvious choice. However, should you want to make something smaller, more agile, and quicker, you may start to use shields of smaller sizes. We already see people experimenting with constructs of smaller sizes using S and M shields to take advantage of the speed, this is a great direction, as long as the pendulum does not swing too far in the favor of smaller constructs.
Now, if the weight penalties do not sufficiently affect the design of the ship, and large shields are still too mass effective even on smaller designs. That's a subject we will continue to address. We do not want to see S designs using exclusively L shields because the additional mass from larger shields doesn't matter in regards to acceleration, max speed, and rotation speed.
 
To answer your question clearly, there is no direct goal for an M shield and an equivalent 95t of voxel to be worse, equal, or better than an L shield and I’ll try to explain why as we go. You should take the shield of the size that makes sense for the design of your ship. If you have the mass available, or are willing to “spend” the mass to have a larger shield, then go for it.
 
Don't want to get into the venting subject too quickly, but using an M with a bunch of honeycomb could allow you to vent once or twice during a battle, especially on a lighter design that can also evade some damage. Maybe the balancing on that isn't perfect, but it should be an option.
At the end of the day the inbuilt advantage of an M shield over an L shield is that it's significantly lighter. You say it's always worth going to an L shield because M+HC is worse in HP, maybe this is the case (more on that later) but the point is that for that 95t you could probably build out a good part of a fully equipped construct, allowing you to have a quicker, more agile construct with a superior max speed, that's the upside.
 
Talking concretely in regards to the mass, if I made a competitive light-ish design with an M shield around 250t ( I don't have one on hand, this is probably on the lighter side after the changes). I'm going about 38-39k km/h max speed, just switching from an M shield to an L shield, I drop down to about 35k km/h. Now adding an extra 95t to a 250t design is probably going to seriously hurt my acceleration as well, so now I'm probably at least looking at redoing my engine setup, which likely adds some more mass as well.
So now the question is more along the lines of, do I prefer an extra 5mill HP from the L shield, or about 5000-6000km/h extra max speed and some extra rotation speed. Well that's a question I’d love feedback on, maybe the max speed and rotation speed isn't enough, I could see that.
 
Secondly there could be an advantage to being able to “modulate” your weight while still gaining some tankiness from honeycomb. An M shield with some honeycomb unlocks some venting on that design, while retaining some/most of the mobility.
 
In regards to your reasoning about M vs L shields. Roughly you're going from “it only makes sense to use the largest shield mass wise, so I can never vent on xs-m because I'm not going to be using voxels on anything smaller than the L”.
 
Well honestly, I don't particularly agree with that, at least not in theory. The interest of voxels is that it's scalable, and you can choose how much voxel you think you need. If you're going to use an M shield because that makes sense for your design mass wise, you don't “have” to use 95t of honeycomb. You can use 30t of a good hc over your ship. That's already going to give you a chunk of armor to help you get some venting going, and probably not endanger your cross-section too much. If that honeycomb buys you enough time for 2 vents (probably optimistic), then you’ve essentially caught up on an L shield in raw shield HP and you’re operating at more than half the mass. 
Now maybe that's not viable, maybe the honeycomb itself is too weak and even reasonable quantities of honeycomb get blown apart too quickly, that's possible and that's something we can look at. Perhaps at that point the subject is more that voxels are generally weak.
 
It's also important to note that in regards to your “real HP”, some amount of the incoming hits are also going to be hitting elements, elements that can be repaired which can give you more tankiness down the road. That means that when comparing raw HP to CCS, you have to take into account that CCS is counting every hit no matter where it's going, as opposed to your raw voxel HP which will, in effect, have additional health from elements.
 

For point 2, there's a couple things to say here. Shields are not inherently in competition with honeycomb, as mentioned we don't want them to be magnitudes apart in terms of HP because it wouldn't make sense, but fundamentally they are supposed to be complimentary.
 
Now in regards to your chart and conclusions. You didn't quite explain what “mean raw HP” is but I can guess it's the actual HP value of the deployed m3 HC multiplied by the average resistance, or at least I get close enough to your numbers using that.

Internally, in our tests using real ships CCS almost always goes first as opposed to the direct destruction of the core, I’d say in general this is situational depending on the design of the ship. In my experience, when constructs actually have a good amount of voxels, it's very difficult to dig your way to the core, and between the HC and the elements and the (occasional, hopefully fewer and fewer) lost shot, I believe that most of the time, you can count on your CCS HP being your “real” HP bar.  If that's not the case, especially on ships that have a good amount of HC, I’d love to see/hear more about it, since that would be contrary to what we’ve tested. Perhaps certain voxels are outliers.
 
My gut feeling is that in the “nano-age” during which CCS was introduced and voxels were rebalanced, people haven't been using voxels a ton in pvp. The goal is for that to change and honestly, if people start using voxels in some quantity, that's already good progress. If it does come out that cheaper voxels, or certain cheap voxels are always way better than more expensive voxels, I'll be more than happy to take a look at that (and to be honest, I’ve started already since I had to look at a bunch of stuff for this).
Lastly on this, you’ve defined that plastic is the best material on the basis of it having the most “mean HP” for the mass. That may be the case, but seeing how much effort players have put into reducing cross-section at almost any cost, I don't think 6700 m3 of plastic is always going to be the best solution.
 

For the last point in regards to venting, I feel like I’ve partly answered the question already but I’ll answer more broadly. Venting isn't something that will or needs to be used. It's a tool at your disposal and it's up to you to figure out how and when you're going to use it depending on the situation and the design of your ship. In contrast it's our job to make sure that those avenues can exist in the game.
 
In view of that, lighter ships now can try to disengage using their speed and try to get away and disengage to vent and come back, some ships may have honeycomb to tank on the CCS, some ships may not be able to reliably vent. If you design your ship in such a way that it cannot vent, then that's on you. However, if it is the case that there are NO competitive designs that allow you to vent at all, I agree that's a problem we need to change.
 
It will come down to the design of your ship, and it's possible that venting will be more usable in certain situations, and certain circumstances than others. For example, I don't expect smaller and lighter ships to have enough CCS/voxels to tank more than a couple hits (let alone all the elements that will die on a compact design) so if they can't escape the firepower using their speed/agility, they are likely dead. But who knows, it might be worth it now to dedicate some amount of HC on ships, specifically to be able to tank a handful of shots to get some shield HP back, even if you don't manage a full cycle off.
 
Essentially from my perspective, if you go no honeycomb, you are accepting that venting is going to be a tougher proposal than if you had dedicated some mass to HC protection, there's a tradeoff there. Now maybe that tradeoff isn't balanced, and there's one obvious better choice than the other, in that case we will take a look (that was sort of what was happening up to 0.29, there wasn't much point to using HC, but I think between the shield mass and health changes,  and the speed changes, HC could have merit again in at least some designs, but maybe it's not enough).
 
For an example on a relatively light design, even just 100m3 of that grade 5 titanium is going to give you around 1.2milll CCS health for 4-5~ extra tonnes. Is that enough to tank serious damage for a while? No, probably not. Is it enough to absorb a couple hits as you try to pull out of range, get your transversal speed up and start venting some HP back, probably yes. The downside is your cross-section may suffer and you'll lose some speed (honestly the speed loss won't be much, even at the most severe parts of the speed curve). Is it worth it? I’d say so yeah, in some designs and some situations, especially now that heavy L ships can’t easily rotate to keep up with smaller constructs, having a slightly larger cross-section probably isn't such a big deal in certain scenarios now.
 
To be fair in regards to that point, I agree that on lighter and more compact constructs, the damage dealt to elements will sometimes be what ends up killing you rather than CCS, or even the core being killed. If you take a nasty hit that blows up half your elements, you are essentially dead. My question is are you able to use some HC, to reduce the chances of a good hit taking you out of the fight entirely.
 
I did a quick test, put up 50m3 of grade 5 titanium and blasted it with a fully talented laser L. It took 3 shots to get through and kill the core I had placed  just behind the material. To be honest though, based on my hit chance on a totally immobile target with zero cone or range issue, I would actually expect an actual S design to take almost 0 damage from L weapons. The shield and the CCS at that point is more of an insurance policy for the occasional hit, or to fight off other smaller constructs.
 
There's also something to be said about balancing cross-section vs compactness. Not having all your elements in the same spot, even on smaller designs, means a single shot has less chance to obliterate half your elements.
 

Anyway, I'm just spitballing on a lot of things, I certainly don't have all the answers, and likely there's some things I’ve missed, or some things I've overestimated the importance of or underestimated the importance of.
 
 
Now to address your “problems to be solved” directly as a conclusion of sorts.
 
   Point 1: In regards to this point, if people start using any honeycomb at all it’ll be a good direction. Once we get to the point where we’re saying “we’re using HC and these honeycombs are all clearly better than these honeycomb”, we will be in a good place to start addressing HC internal balancing. The second thing is I do currently believe that especially on larger ships, CCS is a better representation of health than raw HP, and this is likely the opposite on smaller ships.
 
   Point 2: I‘m not totally set on this. Unplayable seems like a strong word here. I think lighter, smaller constructs have more opportunities now to disengage from fights in order to vent, or potentially exploit larger ships' slow rotation to stay out of the cone of the guns. Additionally, in my mind, some honeycomb can be a valuable addition to smaller designs, to give yourself some room to vent. However, If this isn't enough, we could explore more powerful and quicker vents for smaller shields, that's certainly a possibility.
 
   Point 3: Maybe, I’ve gotten some info by looking into it again today, and it's possible some changes can come down the line on this. In the past we’ve had the opposite issues, so it's possible we went too far.
 

I know this is a big blob, I hope my numbers were right, my brain is a little hazy, and hopefully I’ve answered most of your questions and made this a little clearer for you guys.
 
 
Thanks.
 

Hi, Entropy

First of all, thank you again for answering in such a complete way on these precise subjects.
Even if we did not necessarily have the same desires, knowing the motivation and orientation of the modifications and additions you make to the game will allow us to be more relevant in our remarks.
I will therefore try to dig into the subject now that I have taken a few days back, and that we have seen the fleets forming and more in-game testing as well.

The objective of this post is not to contradict your vision of the game, but to help you make the necessary changes to make it happen.
Here is the feedback I can give you on the subjects for which you have requested comments.

I would have liked to detail 3 subjects but I did not have time so I will focus on 2 points only.

-----
 

Here is a chart for the speed we need to achieve when spinning around an in-game target to avoid targeting.



It is the calculation of the rope resulting from the angle (tracking of the weapon) and the distance where the target is. I arbitrarily retained 4 values:
- 50km
- 100km
- 200 km (1su)
- 400 km (2su)
The tracking being in deg/s I transformed the distance obtained in m into km/h to make it more meaningful.
 
- The first line is an example for a tracking of 1deg/s
- The second is the value I have on a siege guner with my character (talent at 4)
- The third line is the value of the biggest weapon in the game that should hypothetically have the most difficulty aiming at a target and it is the talentless value to symbolize the worst case.
- The last line is a spin test with an M railgun battleship. In 10 seconds I have time to do a 360 + stabilize my aim on a target.

Remember that the rate of fire of an M railgun is 13 seconds without talent, which leaves a comfortable margin of maneuver to align its target between 2 shots.

Here is also the visual of the rail gun firing cone.
30° cone radius in optimal + 30° cone in fallof.
The further away your target is, the more area you cover to be able to hit it.



Here is a table to symbolize the distances covered by a railgun without the ship needing to move :



With the talents on a weapon we reach a fairly huge coverage, almost 90° without fall off and almost 180° with him and that on a basic weapon without cone bonus and talents not max at lvl5.

(The choice of railgun as an example is arbitrary, this is valid for all weapons, not take this for a nerf/up request.)

Here are the issues raised (in my sole opinion) :
- The penalty linked to the tracking of weapons is valid at very short range.
- Tracking is possible if your opponent is not moving or at low speed
- If you are attacked by an opponent further away than the one you are moving arround, you will not benefit from your speed bonus to avoid shots
- Desynchronization has a strong impact on your positioning and that of your opponent, it opens or closes shooting windows independently of the players' game.
- We still have M or L size combat ships that can do 360° in less than 10 seconds, which still allows near-hand tracking using the adjusters.
 
If your opponent is far from you, the more easily he can kill you.
That's why we think going for the shield is always better. It protects you against several hazards over which your speed has no control.

-----
 

From the first returns, we can see a very large majority of small ships (but based on M or L cores rather than S or XS).
Especially a lot of small ships with an L size shield.
 
Here is a comparison of what we find in game compared to the possibility offered :



 
On the previous meta we were with ships which for the biggest approached 5% of the total construction surface that a builder had the leisure to use.
We went to Athena and now we have M ships that hardly exceed 3% of the cumulative surface of the usable box.
 
There is certainly a lever to exploit on this subject at the level of the nature of the game. The voxel and the voxel construction seems to remain a main pillar of dual universe. We necessarily need small vessels and large vessels. But shouldn't the small ships be on an XS and S core category, and the larger ones on the much more massive M and L cores? (category of vessel damaged from the voxel massive nerve).

-----
 

Just quickly on this subject.
 
I started looking to make a ship with spacing between different elements so as not to lose everything on the first try.
 
The areas of effect and the damage are so important compared to the current resistance of the voxels that even using a full block (so no interior in your ship).
The surface needed to just spread the weapons apart does not compensate (or very little) for the increased chance of hitting given by the cross section.
Since the voxel gives you a weight penalty, we always come back in the case where we seek to maximize the cross section.

 
 
I think you can try without too much risk to improve the defensive aspect of the voxels a little.
You still implanted a triple nerve:
- Significant reduction in voxel HP
- Added CSS
- Weapon DPS buff
 
In my opinion the CSS has a good balance, it will be necessary to look more on the side of the damage of weapons and voxels.
For the voxels maybe not the HP pool, but why not look into the resistor values.

-----
 
I will end with a question.
 
Would you like to have the help of the community for all things HP of the elements?
 
There are a number of elements in play currently with quite unbalanced health points.
 
I know that for the Dev team it must be tedious to review everything and that you certainly have better things to do.
 
Can we help on this subject?
 
I already have a few examples in mind. Like decoration plants having more points than weapons.
Or very heavy armored doors but with less hit points than hatches.

@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.

- log in
- check market - make sure its still near dead
- log out

I want to explain my thoughts. I hope the devs read this. 
I have some experience in business. I have launched more then 10 different products(all IT connected). 
I know what is Client Retention, Life time etc. 
a core idea for this game is hardcore, PvP based, full loot game. everything should follow this Product idea. 
now I see that devs is losing focus. if someone afraid of dying and losing loot one should play WOW instead. 
core audience should be motivated and very active. I personally can invite many people and I also can buy a few accounts for different roles. 
but now DU is really boring. I am going to learn mechanics for a month and leave (if there will be not any changes) 
Devs you have seen a google trends. it is getting worse every months after peak in 2020. there are no new youtube videos for last year. you are doing something wrong with the game. the direction is wrong. I think making PvP game a safe nice spot is very very bad idea.  
 

This summarizes my feelings about what NQ just told us.

 

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.

.

Just want to remind to everyone that any game's value is an entertainment you have while you play the game. You did something - you got entertained, you achieved something - you entertained. Wipe does not change that entertainment gain.

been here since beta release got this to loose:


and I am not going to stop playing DU even if they wipe everything, because I do not see why the game will not keep me entertained.

We have been through wipe after wipe and major impactful changes in the last few years and it was never easy. I've rage quit myself a few times because of it.
 
Taking things into perspective
Having said that I can say that I'm 100% for any change needed to make DU the best it can be. Weather that means a full wipe or a partial one should depend on what that means for DU and not a few unhappy players. In the end if you want to achieve great things you have to go through the mud sometimes.
 
Reward
I remember some time in a long lost past I played a similar game. We had buildingcontests where people could win exclusive skins or decorations that were highly desired and admired. I think it might be a good idea to award everyone that has supported the development of DU with an exclusive skin or decoration.
 
Final word
Since the start of my DU journey a few years ago till today I still cannot see how it is possible to make DU fun without any form of NPC or survival element. And from the NQ video's I get the idea that even NQ doesn't know how to make it fun with it's current player only mantra. I have very little faith in this concept and I don't understand why it has to be this way other than that it's a lot of work to make. It may be a lot of work but also has a lot of reward if done right. In addition to that as a metaverse DU needs heavy social interaction features, there is none of that right now.
 
 

Just want to remind to everyone that any game's value is an entertainment you have while you play the game. You did something - you got entertained, you achieved something - you entertained. Wipe does not change that entertainment gain.

been here since beta release got this to loose:


and I am not going to stop playing DU even if they wipe everything, because I do not see why the game will not keep me entertained.

Just want to remind to everyone that any game's value is an entertainment you have while you play the game. You did something - you got entertained, you achieved something - you entertained. Wipe does not change that entertainment gain.

been here since beta release got this to loose:


and I am not going to stop playing DU even if they wipe everything, because I do not see why the game will not keep me entertained.

Just want to remind to everyone that any game's value is an entertainment you have while you play the game. You did something - you got entertained, you achieved something - you entertained. Wipe does not change that entertainment gain.

been here since beta release got this to loose:


and I am not going to stop playing DU even if they wipe everything, because I do not see why the game will not keep me entertained.