Demonneo

Hey guys!

So I had a sewing class at school (mandatory and ew), but I guess attitude is everything cause I totally zoned out and made this lel!

This is a "General Knowledge" thread to help provide newcomers with a list of hot topics, answers, FAQs, videos, and other miscellaneous information that pertains to Dual Universe. This thread will not contain everything about DU, but merely help to point you in the right direction. I have done my best over the years to keep this thread up to date for newcomers, so if there is something you think is missing and should be added, just private message me with the information and sourcing.
 
You are also encouraged to join the Official Community Discord for Dual Universe if you have questions, or just want to be involved in the community. 
 
PSA: Use the SEARCH FUNCTION in the forums before making a thread if you are new. Chances are, it has already been discussed and beaten to death.  
 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
 
-> Release Roadmap & Alpha Announcement <-
 
Official Links:
 
• FAQ from the Main Website
 
• Trello Community Suggestions
 
• DU Gamepedia (wiki)
 
• Developer Blog
 
• Kickstarter Page
 
• Youtube Page
 
          • DU Community Discord
                • Official Discord FAQ (Forum Link)
 
          • Soundcloud/Soundtracks
 
          • DU Reddit
 
 
Forum Links:
 
• "Ask Us Anything" Thread by NQ-Nyzaltar
 
• Forum Rules thread by NQ-Nyzaltar
 
• Pre-Alpha FAQ and Rules by NQ-Nyzaltar
 
• DU DevDiary Video Guide by Shockeray
 
 
Other (Non-Official) Media:
 
• Dual Universe Explorers (Podcast)
 
• Ark Central (Community News)
 
• Dual Insider (Community News)
 
• Dual Universe Sleepers (Fansite/Blog)
 
• Outpost Zebra (Blog)
 
• Community Org/Player Map (Community Tool)
 
 
Common Topics: (NOTE: All information below is subject to change at any time. Official responses from the developers, and sources, have been linked to each subject.)
 
• Price Model will be Pay To Play
 
 
 
• "Virtual Simulator" for builders to build in peace
 
 
• "The Economy"
 
 
• "Scripting" Dual Universe will utilize LUA Scripting and Distributed Processing Units  
 
• "FTL Travel" answered by NQ-Nyzaltar in the Ask Us Anything thread
 
  • "Unigine 2" Dual Universe will be running off of the Unigine 2 Game Engine
 
 
• "Single Shard Server" In Dual Universe, all players will be playing in the same server
• (Video) Server Technology review by JC Baillie
 
 
• "Active Lock On Targeting" In Dual Universe, combat will not be twitched base
 
 
• "Character Progression" There will be no character levels in Dual Universe
 
 
• "Survival Gameplay" Currently NovaQuark are still considering adding survival elements
 
 
• "Territory Control" In Dual Universe, you will be able to own pieces of land
 
 
• "Rights And Duties Management System" Sophisticated system for managed roles in your organization
 
 
• "Stealth Technology" Stealth tech is currently being considered by NovaQuark
 

ATV is under NDA during alpha (and beta, I believe), and only certain YouTubers have the right to stream during this time.

I will likely setup streaming or at least post videos of Alpha game play once allowed. I haven't done it before, but I do get annoyed with lacking or outright misinformation from early access/alpha games. So maybe I will  correct that by streaming DU. 
 
However, while it has been said they will allow streaming/youtubeing in alpha, it is not clear at what stage. The comment Mefsh posted came from NQ in response to issues regarding ATV, not the Alpha Team as a whole.    I suspect streaming will be allowed during the later stages of alpha when servers are up full time for general game play. 

I believe they said somewhere that ATV where not allowed to post videos until the public alpha begins.
 
But don't quot me on that. I might be wrong.
 
 
Edit:
"It has been said "between one and two weeks", not "it will be two weeks" . Currently it's more toward one week earlier than two weeks, precisely for NDA purpose. Yes, there will an unofficial NDA during this short period. That's why we would like to avoid let's play videos during this part."
 
This quot is from the ATV discord but I am not sure where they got it from.

A lot of people just don't care about the bickering over minutia which is largely what this and pretty much every other forum consists of. 
 
I fund/play a lot of games, i almost never join the communities because i find the constant arguing and posturing intolerable. This game was one of the rare few i cared enough about to put up with the community for

The strech goal seems to be impossible by now sadly. Maybe NQ will continue the crowdfunding after the kickstarter for the CvsC feature. I think that is an important part of the game that should be tested at the alpha/beta stages!

1 - CvC
2 - Salvage
 
Rest is just "whenever" for me.

https://gaming.youtube.com/watch?v=VVkbdfxiKxM
 
Enjoy,
 
Thanks,
Archonious

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-07-building-a-space-sim-in-a-post-no-mans-sky-world

They said the life time sub will be exclusive to kickstarter only! I think this was answered in one of the AMA events.

A ) Unless you can provide solid proof of your alleged PR career, I do not believe you.
 
B ) Would you prefer JC Baillie to overhype the game without showing any pre-alpha proof of multiplayer? You want more Sean Murray perhaps? You miss being lied to I guess, cause that's what a meticulously crafted trailer is (I also guess you would know that if you were into marketing to begin with).
 
C ) I (and many others) praise them for not giving an F for "pretty footage". Three people built a ship, it flies, you can see pretty textures and a base layout.
 
 
I prefer the devs showing clumsy videos with what they already HAVE done, than ultra-edited hype fuel that oversell their game and will force them in a corner around release. If you want some Kool Aid in video form to justify your hype, that's your issue good sir, not the Devs' issue.
 
Better luck next time, your withdrawal wasn't even felt :V

First of the devs won't create a city out of their hands that's really too long to do, and what they need is to develop the game. Now, about the ship I'm both agreeing and disagreeing with the post, in fact if you look the structure there are cuts into the voxel bricks but we didn't see how they'd made it, the video was like a low frame-rate time-lapse. The ship could have been better but in fact what lacks was the video as we didn't see HOW they've made the ship.

This is what happens when Devs try to be transparent and truthful to the current state of their pre-alpha demo..lol. I mean, they always said the demo was still very limited compared to what they want to do. No idea why some people think it's already possible to build huge cities or ships by hundreds of players at the same time when NQ do not even have the servers to begin with (why wasting money on that at this stage?). You will have to wait for the alpha to see that type of stuff. 

Hi everyone,
 
As the topic is derivating seriously in the last pages, it's going to be closed.
To all those who are wondering if the current level of funding already include the pledge withdrawal, the answer is yes: The pledge amount is updated in real time. If someone unpledge, it's immediately reflected to the amount pledged on the Kickstarter page. 
 
@ChipPatton:
 
To sum up your point of view:
1) Our communication is canned because we didn't reply directly to your community's experience.
2) You didn't try to discuss with us because the previous reply was canned in your opinion.
3) You said the PLEX is inefficient against goldfarming.
4) You assume that I'm convinced DAC is the perfect too and that, apparently, only my opinion counts in the Novaquark Team.
5) You consider that globally we are non-caring.
 
So to address this (very) subjective declaration:
 
1) We read your community experience and we understand that your experience with PLEX hasn't been fun. However, just looking by the prism of one experience, and refusing to look at the bigger picture is something we can't do as game developers: The problem you encountered is something that you would have encountered sooner or later even without the PLEX existence. Why? If unfair players want to harass a specific group and they have money for it, yes, the official staff can close as many accounts as possible if those use gold farming sites to get a lot of in-game money, but the unfair players will come back again and again, as money is not a problem for them. This is a neverending story. As an EVE veteran player, you probably won't refute the fact that you can harass anyone with fresh new toons, only a few hours old, in Tech1 ships in EVE Online. Again, even without the PLEX/DAC system, the problem remains as a whole, only less visible. So what you consider as a "canned reply" is just a different opinion from yours.
 
2) Avoiding to start a discussion just because we have a different opinion from yours, and that there are chances it wouldn't go your way... It has indeed no chance to convince the Novaquark Team. Self fulfilling Prophecy here. But you have no right to complain if you didn't even try.
 
3) Three big developers/publishers seem to disagree: CCP, Blizzard and NCSoft (Carabine studios).
Beside that, as gamers, we didn't experience the consistent huge amount of PLEX/gold selling you're mentionning in EVE (Yes, we have EVE players in the team). Do you have something to back your declaration about PLEX system being inefficient beside your own words? If it's the case, we are interested in this data.
 
4) The Community Manager status seems to have been misunderstood here: having a personal opinion and making the communication (both ways) between players and the Novaquark team are two different things. Whether or not I'm convinced of something is irrelevant in this case: If players have concerns about one aspect, I transmit the message to the team. If the team has an official stance on a topic, I transmit it to the players (the reason why you received twice globally the same answer). Now, while the team won't change a feature as important as the DAC system on a whim, if some solid concerns followed by facts are given in a well-argued discussion, everything is possible (except coming on what has been already promised to other players such as Kickstarter DACs). However, loud voices and threats of unpledging without solid reasons will not affect game design decisions. 
 
5) Just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean we are non-caring. We care about every opinion. However, we are also realistic about the fact that we cannot satisfy everyone. Nobody can.
 
If you have something else to discuss with us that are not: 
- Your (unfortunate) experience on EvE Online.
- Assumptions of the real intents of the Novaquark Team (like implying the DAC system has been chosen by greediness, when the game is free, the expansions will be free and there will be a free trial period when starting the game... not really a good way to start a reasonable discussion with a developer).
 
Then by all means, send me a private message on this forum and I will transmit the message to the team for discussion.
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

The trouble with a game company trying to be really transparent, is that sometimes the unfinished pre-alpha looks like an unfinished pre-alpha.
 
This video is pretty much what I expected, except I wasn't expecting multi-player-construction to even be in their pre-alpha. It isn't pretty, but very effective.

And we are happy with that. Nobody force you to play. Don't like --> Exit over there.

Ok, look man... You're way off basis, you're misunderstanding almost everything I'm saying, you're putting words into my mouth, and overall missing the point completely.
 
So let's just go through this point by point, shall we?
 
Alright. Now it's my turn to say that I have no idea what the above utterances mean. Lost in translation, sorry... Moving on.
 
 
Again, first sentence mostly lost in translation... And I've said nothing about banning organizations or communication...? Moving on...?
 
 
DAC trade is an intrinsic, inseparable part of the overall economy, since DACs can be traded for in-game currency. This is a matter of fact, and in public record.
 
 
I don't want to ban DAC. In fact, I've explicitly stated exactly the contrary.
 
 
No... As stated, he would get the money by selling the DACs he bought with real money, on in-game markets, for in-game currency. The whole point of this is that you can beat out players because you can effectively buy your way to the cutting edge, where no single player competing alone against him can do the same without also paying for DAC.
 
 
 
PLEASE read the rest of my posts where I outline what I think on the big picture level.
In summary:
* I think DACs are the best way to go
* We need to promote cooperative mechanics rather than competition to prevent things feeling like pay-to-win
* Even if we fail at the above goal, the effect of this real, but small pay-to-win element may be negligible in practice, time will tell -- but it's good to keep an eye on

Just to make an addendum and clarification to anyone who's been following along like a true masochist:
 
If I don't pay for additional DACs on top of maintaining my playtime, I'll get my ass kicked in an isolated 1v1 against a player who does, all other things being equal -- I don't think there should be ambiguity about this.
 
That said, it has been noted that I can join big unions, alliances, militaries, whatever protective organizations, to lessen the effect. This is true... HOWEVER, it's not that the individual mechanism mentioned above is less pay-to-win, it just diffuses the effect, such that the game as a WHOLE is less pay-to-win. I hope you can see the distinction.
 
So if we can find enough of these mechanisms (and I still think, as I have since the beginning, that we will) to have in the game, it is likely we'll end up with a game that will, on the whole, not be very heavily pay-to-win.
 
I just thought I should clarify this explicitly, in case some of you didn't bother reading every single comment I've made in this very drawn out thread.
 
 
[EDIT: Addendum addendum:] It is also worth noting, that this game isn't particularly skill-based, but rather the outcome of a battle will be mostly determined by seniorship (at least this is my speculation). In that sense, there is built-in asymmetry even without paying to gain an advantage. Given that, the notion of paying to win is somewhat less applicable to this type of game on the whole, compared to something like counter-strike or DotA or whatever, since it further dillutes the influence bought power will have in the already existing asymmetry.
 
Of course, you might argue (and I'd agree) that this in and of itself poses another issue, if you want to have a competitive game (which I don't, I like care-bear, pussyfooting, hippy-ass cooperation gameplay for Minecraft-like games such as this one -- I only compete in FPS where it makes sense). Which is another reason why I emphasized the importance of making the game more about cooperation than competition earlier.

First of all, I'm still playing devil's advocate for the sake of presenting both sides equally. I'm not running around touting end of the world prophecies, I don't think this is a big problem personally. Do you understand what the term devil's advocate means? I'm representing the OPs point of view after deconstructing his poorly put-together arguments, because I didn't think this thread was fairly representing both sides otherwise.
 
Secondly, you're completely missing the point. Which is that money buys influence. If you have to bring together a clan 10 times the size to beat mine, it's not a level playing field, because I'm using real life money as a force multiplier. As for how long I can hold it: as long as I have money to pay for it.
 
I've now expressed this more times than should reasonably be expected for a rational person to understand the point. If you still have your "side blinders" on, or whatever, I can't be bothered regurgitating this very simple notion again. You're not clearly defining your terms like I am, you're just roboticly gainsaying. What do you mean by pay-to-win? Do you disagree with my definition of spending money to gain resources and therefore a competitive advantage being pay-to-win? If you are, then I don't know what to tell you, because we're not speaking the same language in that case.
 
Nothing about pay-to-win the way I see it prevents a large enough group of people from creating an equivalent force -- the whole point is that you're creating the same kind of asymmetry with your wallet, rather than having to group together.
 
If you don't believe there is a "win" in the game, then congratulations, you've successfully resolved the second part of my message. That's my ultimate message here. If you design a game in such a way that there is no "winning" over others, you can't pay to win (if you think we're now in agreement, you should've read all my posts instead of just reacting to parts you think you disagree with).

Hi MrStarWars and welcome on our forum.
 
It was planned to contact you soon, but as you opened a thread on the forum, this will be much easier as it will clarify some points for all other members as well.
There are many fans of Starwars in the Dual Universe Community.
 
However, while we want to give as much freedom as possible to the players, Starwars material is copyrighted.
 
To copy openly the Starwars Universe as much as you do, we can't allow that for several reasons:
 
- The most important one is copyright infringement. As the community portal has a goal of promoting player-generated content, you can't use copyrighted material (not made by you) to promote your organization. In fact, to do the things well, you should ask permission to the author for each material not made by you (even if it's not copyrighted), to use it for your organization.
- Using Star Wars material can be extremely misleading for newcomers: We are NOT a Star Wars game. Dual Universe has its own story, and while we can understand you really love the Star Wars Universe, our game is not the right place to recreate it.
 
So in short, you can't use material with iconic characters or spaceships and the same applies for words like Palpatine, Darth Vader, and such.
You can reproduce in Dual Universe a social/political structure similar to the Empire in Starwars, but you can't say "Hey this is Starwars!"
 
Getting inspiration from the Starwars style for your spaceships can be tolerated, but you must keep in mind that at any moment, if we receive some complaints from Starwars copyright owners, we will have to remove it. This is the risk of copying something that already exists. 
 
We didn't delete anything until now, because we wanted to get in touch with you first.
We hope you'll understand our position as we ask you to remove obvious starwars content posted by you on the Community Portal.
In the case you wouldn't do it by yourself within a week, we will remove it without further notice.
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar, Community Manager at Novaquark

The devs decided to implement DACs because they wanted to prevent goldfarming. So I think that's all it should be. Allow player A to buy DACs from player B, who bought them from NQ. The DACs would become "soulbound" to player A. He cannot resell them. He must redeem them. DACs would not become another currency ingame, but they would still serve their purpose to combat goldfarming. Only those who need to use DACs for game time would buy them, so they would redeem the DACs immediately, making being lootable, or not, irrelevant.
 
As a second opinion, I would agree with DACs being lootable.

Stealing DACs (in the context of looting in the game) is not a real life crime. I've seen a lot of people say this and it's just plain false.
 
DACs are not cash equivalent as they cannot be converted back into real life money. If they could be converted back and forth then, yes, they would be considered currency and stealing them would constitute a real life crime. The in game economy would also be subject to all sorts of international currency laws which would make everything super messy (nothing like having to report your earnings in a videogame for real life taxes ). Once the customer pays for them, they turn into virtual, 'fake' property that is not covered by any real life laws. So long as the rules laid our in the game's EULA are not broken, people can do whatever they want with them with no consequences, including stealing or "scamming" them. They can be used for dollar-to-ingame-money comparisons based on their in-game selling price but that figure would just be for comparisons sake. 
 
As to whether or not DACs should be lootable, I say yes, but not immediately.
 
They should not be lootable until a system like EVE's redemption system can be implemented. Like many people who backed the kickstarted, I would be spawning in on day one with a nice fat stack of DACs and I don't want to lose them all the second I step out of the safe zone. 
 
In the long run, though, they should eventually be made lootable like PLEX in EVE. I don't think any of the arguments against this have much merit to them. With the redemption system in place, people who buy them could spawn them directly into the market where they were going to sell them with zero risk. Likewise, people who wanted to buy them for the gametime could buy them and activate them on the spot with zero risk as well.  Only the people who want to haul them around would have risk, and that's fine. DACs are going to very expensive in game by their very nature (that's worthy of an entire post in and of itself), so anyone who does DAC trading between the various trade hubs is going to be making obscene amounts of money off even small percentage differences in prices. Why wouldn't we want those people to have risk? (And if super rich players were smart they could still use arbitrage to avoid the risk of transporting it.) As to the argument that having DACs be lootable will lead to them only being traded in safe zones, and, possibly, that this will cause all the trade hubs to be in safe zones. Again, why is this a bad thing? For starters, safe zones will probably end up being major trade hubs anyways, depending on market destruction mechanics. It doesn't matter whether it's a billion dollars in ore or a billion dollars of DACs, if I'm trading high value items of any sort and market security is really such a concern, I'm probably going to do it in a safe zone. Additionally, the developers have stated that there will be multiple safe zones spread throughout the galaxy that would allow for there to major safe-zone market hubs in every region (region is kind of a loose term here but you get the picture).
 
For the other arguments, that lootable DACs will result in hatred or people quitting the game, I think that is unfounded. As NQ has said, we are all adults here (or at least we should be) and we should be able to manage risk. This is not a game for children. I'm reminded of the ever present argument in EVE over the concept of suicide ganking. Many people insist that ganking is driving people away from the game because they can't handle the danger. And yet, when CCP ran the numbers, it turned out that new players who were ganked within their first week of play had a much HIGHER retention rate than those didn't! The sense of risk gave value to the experience. Now I'm not saying that everyone start ganking each other all the time, but there is a difference between reasonable protecting people from unreasonable risk and unreasonably protecting people from reasonable risk. It makes the game boring and people go play something more exciting (like getting ganked in EVE haha).
 
DACs should be unlootable until a proper redemption system can be implemented. After that, I see no reason why they shouldn't be made lootable.
 
 
 
EDIT: In response to some other points I have seen made in this thread.
 
1) When people are talking about "looting" DACs they seem to use the words "steal" and "loot" interchangeably, and I think this is causing some confusion. What people are talking about with have "lootable" DACs doesn't mean that someone can just come a long and yank them out of your pocket, or steal them from your account while you are offline. What it means is that DACs would be treated like any other good in the game. If you are carrying them in your ship and it gets destroyed, people can loot them from the wreck along with whatever else you were carrying. Whether you are for or against lootable DACs, we all need to be on the same page about the specifics of what we are arguing over. I support lootable DACs but not the ability to just "steal" them from anyone.
 
2) Some people have argued that, in order to solve the DAC Problem, other items be made more valuable so as to "distract" people from DACs. This isn't really feasible since all high value items will still follow the same laws of supply and demand that DACs will. Some will trade them, some will use them, and some will hoard them. The main difference with DACs is the fact that they are tied to a real life currency value (although that does not make them a RL currency equivalent as some have suggested). Since they are tied into a real life value, they are less vulnerable to price manipulation on a global scale. In addition, the value of DACs will naturally rise with inflation rate of the in game economy, making them a good option for long term investment.
 
3) Some people have stated that since DACs are intended to be a way for people to pay for membership by playing, or skip grinding by paying for a DAC and trading that for in game money, people should only be able to trade them once or some other limiting factor that would prevent people from actively stockpiling/trading DACs. What they don't realize is that this would create huge problems for precisely those people who want to use it for its "intended purpose". Imagine if people could only trade DACs once, so the person who bought it in game had to use it. If more people bought DACs to sell than there were people trying to buy them, the people who paid real money will have essentially wasted their money as they won't be able to sell the DACs, or they will have to sell them so cheaply that it won't be worth it. Imagine the other way around, for some reason a bunch of people try to buy DACs off the market at the same time and there just aren't enough DACs to go around. Two things will happen there: first, prices are going to skyrocket, and second, no matter how high prices go, not everyone who wants one will get one. By having a market that can resell DACs, both buyers and sellers are protected. Sellers know they can always sell their DACs when they want to, and buyers know that they can always buy one when they want to. The price will also be kept in check by the supply/demand and will remain relatively steady. Again, look at the PLEX market in EVE Online. This isn't really an argument for or against lootability, more an argument against putting a limit on how many times DACs can be traded.

There is big wall of text =)
1. I am against lootable DACs. This will force to upset players, who may leave. Stealing DACs from trade increase chance somebody who need it, won't get it - as result player leave the game.
If I would be basic player, without time for grinding, and somebody will steal DAC, game woukd get negative feedback very quickly. Wasting real money, it is too offensive. Reputation of game going down. Players amount (who ready to pay extra money) going down. Players amount (who can not pay for subscribe) going down. Income of company going down. I don't see anything positive for game.
 
Words about "If DAC would lootable, we would get much more players", sound as funny stories. I have never met players who joined game because of lootable DAC (or similar system). But negative effect of players loss still actual.
 
2. My view.
DAC is option to pay for game time for those who has problems with subscribe (but have time to grind). So player 1 employ player 2 and pay him for job. DAC do not give any extra advantage, that can not be gained without real money payment. So P2W stories are too cool. Sorry.
With same thing, we can remove organisations, because it not fair to those who play solo. Org teams have much higher range of finances and abilities.
 
But I agree, unlootable DAC could be abused on markets. So IMO, DAC must be unlootable, but also could be trade only once.
 
That mean, owner (paid $) can freely sell DAC to any player without risk (if you want to put risk for game supporters, that mean you don't care about supporters). But as soon DAC was sold by owner, it become binded to player, that mean item can not be traded again.
 
Result: Supporter/owner get money without any risk (reward for support). Player who bought DAC from owner, will have option to use it to get 30 days of playing.
 
Pirates can steal resources, money and use it for buying DACs, if it so necessary to them.
 
3. Result:
-Supporter always will get what he paid for (real $)
-Grinder have risk while gathering and selling resources
-Pirates can steal resources and later use money to get DAC
-Prices for DAC can not be abused by large organisations, who can buy all DACs and make price x2 (some players time can run out)
-Perfect balance, when 1 player work for another (money do not come from air, like in typical P2W)
-Market balance. You can not sell 1000 DACs instantly, if there is no enough of demand
 
My opinion, not lootable or First-Trade-Bind.
 
Thanks,
Archonious

I am against having Loot able DACs in game. for the following reasons.
 
1)  It is assumed that once you use it to add to your game time, its a timer, so if you know you are going to be off line for an extended time, you should have the ability to buy them when they are cheap, and hold onto them for when you need to use them.
2)  It is not IMHO emergent game play to loot these, as they have no real game world purpose so why should a character even want them?  Resources on the other hand, yes a character would desire that.
3)  This whole market crashing BS can still be done safely using the safe zones or other methods as described by GrandMasterApex.
4)  If Credits are non loot able, which has a real presence in the game, why should DACs not also be safe?  It is more emergent game play to demand the ability to loot credits.
5)  IMHO it is a better plan to resolve these complaints of hoarding, by making these items only able to be sold or traded ONCE.  This solves almost all of the legitimate complaints against keeping them non-loot able, but also lets players hold in game purchased ones till they need to use them safely.  This will also stop scams and griefing people buy luring them out to remote PVP areas with extremely low prices, to only be pounced on after they are purchased.
 
I also think it is ridiculous to be taking so much of the community's time and NQ's time discussing this now when the release of the game is 2 years out.  I would much rather have the NQ team focusing on building a great stable Alpha, and construct vs. construct combat, you know the important EMERGENT game play.
 
 Also I thought since most of the PRO loot able arguments were coming from EVE players and supporting how great it works in eve I would share the following link.
 
https://community.ev...ges-on-the-way/
 
In particular this part of it.  "The PLEX Vault will allow you to move PLEX safely throughout the universe rather than having to move it in a ship."
 
So i personally consider all "this is how it works in EVE " ETC. arguments invalid since it no longer is the way EVE works.  Also I would like to add that if it was working so well why did CCP change it and should we also then consider the why and the route they went.