FoolsFolly

Terrible.
 
I was willing to accept a reset and move on, if a problem could clearly be stated, and an explanation could be given as to how the reset would address that problem. This announcement did neither of those things.
 
The 'problems' you described, some people having more money than others, old bases and constructs existing, those aren't problems they are game features. These factors do nothing to impair the experience of other players, and the reset does nothing to prevent them from happening again.
 
Let's face it, NQ have no idea what they're doing. With each update they backpedal, reversing course on previous decisions which were themselves reversals on longstanding standards. NQ are just throwing every idea at the wall to see what sticks, and since nothing is working this is their last desperate attempt to wrangle some subscriptions in hopes that they can keep Dual Universe running a little bit longer.
 
What DU needs is a clear picture of a fun gameplay experience, and a structured pathway for getting there. Most subscribers signed on to DU with the expectation of exploring alien worlds, staking claims, becoming part of a bustling active community and going to war with other communities in a perpetual struggle over land and resources. The creative ship and structure building was just the icing on that cake.
What subscribers actually got was a hollow shell of a combat engine and economic system, both of which actively discourage any sort of conflict and provide an entirely unsatisfying experience when combat does occur.
 
Not a single thing NQ has done over years of development time have moved us any closer to that vision; this reset certainly won't.

Terrible.
 
I was willing to accept a reset and move on, if a problem could clearly be stated, and an explanation could be given as to how the reset would address that problem. This announcement did neither of those things.
 
The 'problems' you described, some people having more money than others, old bases and constructs existing, those aren't problems they are game features. These factors do nothing to impair the experience of other players, and the reset does nothing to prevent them from happening again.
 
Let's face it, NQ have no idea what they're doing. With each update they backpedal, reversing course on previous decisions which were themselves reversals on longstanding standards. NQ are just throwing every idea at the wall to see what sticks, and since nothing is working this is their last desperate attempt to wrangle some subscriptions in hopes that they can keep Dual Universe running a little bit longer.
 
What DU needs is a clear picture of a fun gameplay experience, and a structured pathway for getting there. Most subscribers signed on to DU with the expectation of exploring alien worlds, staking claims, becoming part of a bustling active community and going to war with other communities in a perpetual struggle over land and resources. The creative ship and structure building was just the icing on that cake.
What subscribers actually got was a hollow shell of a combat engine and economic system, both of which actively discourage any sort of conflict and provide an entirely unsatisfying experience when combat does occur.
 
Not a single thing NQ has done over years of development time have moved us any closer to that vision; this reset certainly won't.

Terrible.
 
I was willing to accept a reset and move on, if a problem could clearly be stated, and an explanation could be given as to how the reset would address that problem. This announcement did neither of those things.
 
The 'problems' you described, some people having more money than others, old bases and constructs existing, those aren't problems they are game features. These factors do nothing to impair the experience of other players, and the reset does nothing to prevent them from happening again.
 
Let's face it, NQ have no idea what they're doing. With each update they backpedal, reversing course on previous decisions which were themselves reversals on longstanding standards. NQ are just throwing every idea at the wall to see what sticks, and since nothing is working this is their last desperate attempt to wrangle some subscriptions in hopes that they can keep Dual Universe running a little bit longer.
 
What DU needs is a clear picture of a fun gameplay experience, and a structured pathway for getting there. Most subscribers signed on to DU with the expectation of exploring alien worlds, staking claims, becoming part of a bustling active community and going to war with other communities in a perpetual struggle over land and resources. The creative ship and structure building was just the icing on that cake.
What subscribers actually got was a hollow shell of a combat engine and economic system, both of which actively discourage any sort of conflict and provide an entirely unsatisfying experience when combat does occur.
 
Not a single thing NQ has done over years of development time have moved us any closer to that vision; this reset certainly won't.

Terrible.
 
I was willing to accept a reset and move on, if a problem could clearly be stated, and an explanation could be given as to how the reset would address that problem. This announcement did neither of those things.
 
The 'problems' you described, some people having more money than others, old bases and constructs existing, those aren't problems they are game features. These factors do nothing to impair the experience of other players, and the reset does nothing to prevent them from happening again.
 
Let's face it, NQ have no idea what they're doing. With each update they backpedal, reversing course on previous decisions which were themselves reversals on longstanding standards. NQ are just throwing every idea at the wall to see what sticks, and since nothing is working this is their last desperate attempt to wrangle some subscriptions in hopes that they can keep Dual Universe running a little bit longer.
 
What DU needs is a clear picture of a fun gameplay experience, and a structured pathway for getting there. Most subscribers signed on to DU with the expectation of exploring alien worlds, staking claims, becoming part of a bustling active community and going to war with other communities in a perpetual struggle over land and resources. The creative ship and structure building was just the icing on that cake.
What subscribers actually got was a hollow shell of a combat engine and economic system, both of which actively discourage any sort of conflict and provide an entirely unsatisfying experience when combat does occur.
 
Not a single thing NQ has done over years of development time have moved us any closer to that vision; this reset certainly won't.

Terrible.
 
I was willing to accept a reset and move on, if a problem could clearly be stated, and an explanation could be given as to how the reset would address that problem. This announcement did neither of those things.
 
The 'problems' you described, some people having more money than others, old bases and constructs existing, those aren't problems they are game features. These factors do nothing to impair the experience of other players, and the reset does nothing to prevent them from happening again.
 
Let's face it, NQ have no idea what they're doing. With each update they backpedal, reversing course on previous decisions which were themselves reversals on longstanding standards. NQ are just throwing every idea at the wall to see what sticks, and since nothing is working this is their last desperate attempt to wrangle some subscriptions in hopes that they can keep Dual Universe running a little bit longer.
 
What DU needs is a clear picture of a fun gameplay experience, and a structured pathway for getting there. Most subscribers signed on to DU with the expectation of exploring alien worlds, staking claims, becoming part of a bustling active community and going to war with other communities in a perpetual struggle over land and resources. The creative ship and structure building was just the icing on that cake.
What subscribers actually got was a hollow shell of a combat engine and economic system, both of which actively discourage any sort of conflict and provide an entirely unsatisfying experience when combat does occur.
 
Not a single thing NQ has done over years of development time have moved us any closer to that vision; this reset certainly won't.

This is honestly one of the most ill-conceived ideas to ever hit DU.
 
Just get rid of schematics.
That's the end-result that you are going for, but you're trying to get there in the most needlessly confusing way possible.
 
Cut out all the nonsense. Look at the goal you are trying to achieve, and the most fun and satisfying way you can deliver it to players. That way is to just get rid of schematics.

This idea of a massive horde of potential players just waiting for a wipe is purely imaginary.
 
When was the last time you saw a game and thought, "That looks interesting. But it has a lot of established players already, and I don't want to be a noob, so I won't play that interesting game. But if they did a wipe, then I would start playing." I'm not saying that would never happen, but it's exceedingly rare. Most people who see an interesting game just start playing, and give little concern to other players who were there before them.

This is honestly one of the most ill-conceived ideas to ever hit DU.
 
Just get rid of schematics.
That's the end-result that you are going for, but you're trying to get there in the most needlessly confusing way possible.
 
Cut out all the nonsense. Look at the goal you are trying to achieve, and the most fun and satisfying way you can deliver it to players. That way is to just get rid of schematics.

Based on the explanation you have given so far of the changes, it appears that running a factory will involve running between machines, stuffing punch cards into them. This concept is laughable. We can access all of the industry machines on a core via lua, and see their status. The technology exists in both the game and the game lore. Why are we physically putting things into these machines?
 
If your goal is to reduce the number of industry players and factories, I do think you will be successful, but not due to clever design. This will so tedious that many people will want nothing to do with it.
 
Understand your product. What makes industry fun in the first place? I love designing the factory. Creating the layout, managing the connection limits, figuring out how to maintain a high throughput. These are all cerebral tasks. The people that are attracted to this style of gameplay don't want to put punch cards into machines. This is what automation in a factory is supposed to eliminate!
 
I am sure at this point the punch card design is too far into development to change. Could we at least have a way to interact with the entire factory (all industry on the core) and not deal with putting punch cards into individual machines? This would remove much of the tedium while also making it easier for multiple people to maintain a factory.

This is honestly one of the most ill-conceived ideas to ever hit DU.
 
Just get rid of schematics.
That's the end-result that you are going for, but you're trying to get there in the most needlessly confusing way possible.
 
Cut out all the nonsense. Look at the goal you are trying to achieve, and the most fun and satisfying way you can deliver it to players. That way is to just get rid of schematics.

No matter where NQ sets the cost, an infinitely recurring fee WILL eventually cost industrialists more than a single up-front fee. This change hurts any dedicated industrialists.
 
Meanwhile, the costs of industry machines and just time invested learning about industry make it impractical to simply dabble in industry, even with the reduced costs of one-off schematics. The idea that this change will allow new players to easily build parts just for their own small ships is a fiction. You have to go all-in with industry if you ever hope to make it cost effective compared to just buying parts on the market.
 
So, there are still no small-time industrialists with this patch, and the big-time industrialists will only suffer because of it...who exactly is supposed to be better off after this change?

This is honestly one of the most ill-conceived ideas to ever hit DU.
 
Just get rid of schematics.
That's the end-result that you are going for, but you're trying to get there in the most needlessly confusing way possible.
 
Cut out all the nonsense. Look at the goal you are trying to achieve, and the most fun and satisfying way you can deliver it to players. That way is to just get rid of schematics.

NEW Construct
Construct represents your construct. It gives access to the properties of your constructions and to the events linked to them, which can be used in your scripts.
 

 
Functions
NEW [string] getName(): Returns the name of the construct NEW [int] getId(): Returns the construct unique ID NEW [table] getOwner(): Returns the owner entity return [table]: The owner entity table with fields {[int] id, [bool] isOrganization} describing the owner. Use system.getPlayerName(id) and system.getOrganization(id) to retrieve info about it NEW [table] getCreator(): Returns the creator entity return [table]: The creator entity table with fields {[int] id, [bool] isOrganization} describing the owner. Use system.getPlayerName(id) and system.getOrganization(id) to retrieve info about it
  NEW [int] isWarping(): Checks if the construct is currently warping NEW [int] getWarpState(): Returns the current warp state return [int]: The current warp state index (Idle = 1, Engage = 2, Align = 3, Spool = 4, Accelerate = 5, Cruise = 6, Decelerate = 7, Stopping = 8, Disengage = 9)
  NEW [int] isInPvPZone(): Checks if the construct is in PvP zone NEW [float] getDistanceToSafeZone(): Returns the distance between the construct and the nearest safe zone NEW [float] getPvPTimer(): Returns the current construct PvP timer state
  NEW [float] getMass(): Returns the mass of the construct NEW [float] getInertialMass(): Returns the inertial mass of the construct, calculated as 1/3 of the trace of the inertial tensor NEW [table] getInertialTensor(): Returns the inertial tensor of the construct NEW [table] getCenterOfMass(): Returns the position of the center of mass of the construct, in local construct coordinates NEW [table] getWorldCenterOfMass(): Returns the position of the center of mass of the construct, in world coordinates NEW [float] getCrossSection(): Returns the construct's cross sectional surface in the current direction of movement NEW [table] getSize(): Returns the size of the building zone of the construct NEW [table] getBoundingBoxSize(): Returns the size of the bounding box of the construct NEW [table] getBoundingBoxCenter(): Returns the position of the center of bounding box of the construct in local construct coordinates
  NEW [float] getMaxSpeed(): Returns the max speed along current moving direction NEW [float] getMaxAngularSpeed(): Returns the max angular speed NEW [table] getMaxSpeedPerAxis(): Returns the max speed per axis NEW [table] getMaxThrustAlongAxis([string] taglist, [table] CRefAxis): Returns the construct max kinematics parameters in both atmo and space range, in newtons. [string] taglist: Comma (for union) or space (for intersection) separated list of tags. You can set tags directly on the engines in the right-click menu [table] CRefAxis: Axis along which to compute the max force (in construct reference) NEW [float] getCurrentBrake(): Returns the current braking force generated by construct brakes NEW [float] getMaxBrake(): Returns the maximum braking force that can currently be generated by the construct brakes
  NEW [table] getWorldPosition(): Returns the world position of the construct NEW [table] getVelocity(): The construct's linear velocity, relative to its parent, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getWorldVelocity(): The construct's linear velocity, relative to its parent, in world coordinates NEW [table] getAbsoluteVelocity(): The construct's absolute linear velocity, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getWorldAbsoluteVelocity(): The construct's absolute linear velocity, in world coordinates NEW [table] getAcceleration(): The construct's linear acceleration, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getWorldAcceleration(): The construct's linear acceleration, in world coordinates NEW [table] getAngularVelocity(): The construct's angular velocity, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getWorldAngularVelocity():  The construct's angular velocity, in world coordinates NEW [table] getAngularAcceleration(): The construct's angular acceleration, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getWorldAngularAcceleration(): The construct's angular acceleration, in world coordinates NEW [table] getWorldAirFrictionAcceleration(): Returns the acceleration generated by air resistance NEW [table] getWorldAirFrictionAngularAcceleration(): Returns the acceleration torque generated by air resistance NEW [table] getFrictionBurnSpeed(): Returns the speed at which your construct will suffer damage due to friction with the air
  NEW [table] getForward(): Returns the forward vector of the construct coordinates system NEW [table] getRight(): Returns the right vector of the construct coordinates system NEW [table] getUp(): Returns the up direction vector of the construct coordinates system NEW [table] getWorldForward(): Returns the forward direction vector of the construct, in world coordinates NEW [table] getWorldRight(): Returns the right direction vector of the construct, in world coordinates NEW [table] getWorldUp(): Returns the up direction vector of the construct, in world coordinates
  NEW [int] getOrientationUnitId(): Returns the local id of the current active orientation unit (core unit or gyro unit) NEW [table] getOrientationForward(): Returns the forward direction vector of the active orientation unit, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getOrientationRight(): Returns the right direction vector of the active orientation unit, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getOrientationUp(): Returns the up direction vector of the active orientation unit, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getWorldOrientationForward(): Returns the forward direction vector of the active orientation unit, in world coordinates NEW [table] getWorldOrientationRight(): Returns the right direction vector of the active orientation unit, in world coordinates NEW [table] getWorldOrientationUp(): Returns the up direction vector of the active orientation unit, in world coordinates
  NEW [int] getParent(): Returns the id of the parent construct of our active construct NEW [int] getClosestParent(): Returns the id of the nearest constructs, on which the construct can dock NEW [table] getCloseParents(): Returns the list of ids of nearby constructs, on which the construct can dock
  NEW [table] getParentPosition(): Returns the position of the construct's parent when docked in local coordinates NEW [table] getParentWorldPosition(): Returns the position of the construct's parent when docked in world coordinates NEW [table] getParentForward(): Returns the construct's parent forward direction vector, in local coordinates NEW [table] getParentRight(): Returns the construct's parent right direction vector, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getParentUp(): Returns the construct's parent up direction vector, in construct local coordinates NEW [table] getParentWorldForward(): Returns the construct's parent forward direction vector, in world coordinates NEW [table] getParentWorldRight(): Returns the construct's parent right direction vector, in world coordinates NEW [table] getParentWorldUp(): Returns the construct's parent up direction vector, in world coordinates
  NEW [table] getPlayersOnBoard(): Returns the list of player IDs on board the construct NEW [table] getPlayersOnBoardInVRStation(): Returns the list of player ids on board the construct inside a VR Station NEW [int] isPlayerBoarded([int] id): Checks if the given player is on board in the construct [int] id: The player id NEW [int] isPlayerBoardedInVRStation([int] id): Returns 1 if the given player is boarded to the construct inside a VR Station [int] id: The player id NEW [float] getBoardedPlayerMass([int] id): Returns the mass of the given player or surrogate if it is on board the construct [int] id: The player id NEW [float] getBoardedInVRStationAvatarMass([int] id): Returns the mass of the given player if in VR station on board the construct [int] id: The player id
  NEW [table] getDockedConstructs([int] id): Returns the list of IDs of constructs docked to the construct [int] id: The construct id NEW [table] isConstructDocked([int] id): Checks if the given construct is docked to the construct [int] id: The construct id NEW [float] getDockedConstructMass([int] id): Returns the mass of the given construct if it is docked to the construct [int] id: The construct id
  NEW setDockingMode([int] mode): Sets the docking mode [int] id: The docking mode (0: Manual, 1: Automatic, 2: Semi-automatic) NEW [int] getDockingMode(): Returns the current docking mode return [int]: The docking mode (0: Manual, 1: Automatic, 2: Semi-automatic) NEW [int] dock([int] id): Sends a request to dock to the given construct. Limited to piloting controllers [int] id: The parent construct id NEW [int] undock(): Sends a request to undock the construct. Limited to piloting controllers
  NEW forceDeboard([int] id): Sends a request to deboard a player or surrogate with the given id [int] id: The player id NEW forceUndock([int] id): Sends a request to undock a construct with the given id [int] id: The construct id NEW forceInterruptVRSession([int] id): Sends a request to interrupt the surrogate session of a player with the given id [int] id: The player id  
Events
NEW onDocked([int] id): Emitted when the construct becomes docked [int] id: The parent id NEW onUndocked([int] id): Emitted when the construct is undocked [int] id: The previous parent id NEW onPlayerBoarded([int] id): Emitted when a player or surrogate boards the construct [int] id: The id of the boarding player NEW onVRStationEntered([int] id): Emitted when a player enters a VR Station [int] id: The id of the boarding player NEW onConstructDocked([int] id): Emitted when another construct docks this construct [int] id: The id of the docking construct NEW onPvPTimer([int] active): Emitted when the PvP timer started or elapsed [int] active: 1 if the timer started, false when the timer elapsed

Putting a basic transcript in place so that people don't need to listen to the whole thing to see if a relevant question was asked. Hint: probably not. 
 
#1 - "Will LUA API change?"
Yeah LUA will change and break stuff, but we don't have details. 

#2 - "What is griefing?" 
Who asked this...lol
 
#3 - "Are we getting different colored lumi voxels?" 
Don't know (e.g. probably not), but you can use screens...
 
#4 - "If new FTUE is meant to improve starting zones, why shuttles to Alioth?" 
So people don't have to build ships if they don't want to (lol)
 
#5 - "Is T5 output on alien cores too high?"
Maybe. It's 'first iteration' which means trial and error. 
 
#6 -- oh there's no number 6. That's actually it. 
 
This time not even acknowledging the "discussion" they are having about a wipe. Hmmm.  
 

NQ please consider the type of players that are playing your game. It's not the type who's looking for 15 minutes of fun ... It's the type that wants to create something, It's the people, who want to build something that they and their fellow players can enjoy.
 
In other games, you're done after a week of intense play. So there is no loss in starting over. Such a beta can be played without remorse or risk. But DU is different! The only reason, I’m playing this kind of game already during the beta is, because I was told, there wouldn't be another reset.
(Otherwise I would have waited until release. So a lot of invested lifetime and several hundred invested euros are at stake. And at the moment I doubt that I'll have the drive to work on everything again.)
 
How much "lead" do we old ones have now? A year, a year and a half? Do you want to restart the game every year and a half just because new players would otherwise be disadvantaged? Seriously? That's not an argument in a continuous/persistent universe!
 
- Erase the schematics ... we will rebuild/modify our factories, but don't take our constructs away from us.
- Delete accounts that have been inactive for a long time.
- If you know that some players have gotten too rich too quickly by exploiting poorly balanced mechanics, then target them directly or set a credit cap immediately (use caution, please).
 
We can live with balancing and game mechanic changes - that's why it's a beta, but please find a way so as not to alienate the people who got you this far.
 
Edit: Mixed up schematics and blueprints.

Don’t wipe anything. We already have a soft wipe mechanism with reclaiming tiles and abandon cores from players who unsubbed 90 days.
 
The economy is fine. It really just needs more activity. The mega rich have no material effect on anyone. 
 
Wipe argument to get more players is a joke given that problem is perennial with any MMO.
 
Wiping skill points, if done, should absolutely come with refunds to paying players. Terrible idea as well.
 
Any wipe at this point is a giant F*you from NQ. 
 
This is a case study for how to not run a company. What a disaster.

Let's suppose a wipe is necessary and a good idea. Do you have the tools in place now to deal with the problems that lead to needing a wipe? 
Can you do a server rollback if something goes horribly wrong?
Can you find exploiters, and remove the damage they did in a targeted efficient way?
Is the economy fixed so that there is some churn and the wealthiest people at any given time don't just have an insurmountable advantage forever?
In other words, if you wipe into release, will you be able to then run a persistent MMO?
 
I have been waiting for some game systems to be fixed. My biggest complaint is that ships that die in pvp do not die. They just need a new core and 5 mins of scrap application. There are a lot of mechanics that favor the bigger group that don't exist in a better pvp game. Then there is the problem that people who do not participate in pvp never lose elements in any way. Which means that resources do not leave the game.
 
This wipe puts me in a different mood from "I hope they eventually fix it." It leads me to doing a cost-benefit analysis. "After the wipe I will have zero sunk costs in this game. At that point, is the gameplay good enough that I would want to play it?" I think the answer is no.

Obviously, you have decided to wipe.
This is the right thing to do for the game, you may attract new players and coming back players but for that you have to propose a game with an interesting gameplay which is not the case today.
By doing that, you are turning back against the community that is supporting you since two years, this is very risky.
If you don't want to loose this community, you have to explain us why the gameplay will be more attracting with a wipe.

By the way, we have lost motivation to continue playing knowing that the wipe is coming, so do it quickly now.

 

"Balance" is only important for healthy competition. DU is not competitive right now, so balancing it will not help anyone, only hurt people.
 
Even if updates manage to give DU meaningful competition, a wipe will only "Balance" things in a very temporary sense. A week or a month later, you will have some people with a massive advantage, and all the people who only joined for the "Balance" will be quitting. If you really want balanced competition then you need to come up with a plan to keep things balanced long-term, and a wipe is not that.

"Balance" is only important for healthy competition. DU is not competitive right now, so balancing it will not help anyone, only hurt people.
 
Even if updates manage to give DU meaningful competition, a wipe will only "Balance" things in a very temporary sense. A week or a month later, you will have some people with a massive advantage, and all the people who only joined for the "Balance" will be quitting. If you really want balanced competition then you need to come up with a plan to keep things balanced long-term, and a wipe is not that.

A few rich players in the economy will have absolutely no impact on the experience of new players, just as they have no impact on most players right now.
 
If this was a competitive game, where most players engaged in pvp regularly, and there was some sort of win-condition that players really wanted to achieve, then it would make sense to wipe so that everyone was on a level field. In fact you would want to wipe regularly after each season so that nobody ever got too far ahead.
But that's not the kind of game you've created. You've created a game where most players focus on grinding and creativity. Your wipe will hurt those players, to improve the competitive scene that doesn't exist.

First a wipe in this scenario would be attacking the symptom instead of the actual cause, meaning a wipe will fix nothing and the same problem will be back again in no time what so ever, without first fixing the underlying problems.
 
Secondly a full wipe is like trying to repair a broken tooth at the dentist using an pneumatic hammer drill, when a soft-reset and/or more specific interventions would solve the problem much better.
 
And third you are now effectively punishing all players for the actions of a few, not a good place to be for a MMO game company in my opinion.
 
 

A few rich players in the economy will have absolutely no impact on the experience of new players, just as they have no impact on most players right now.
 
If this was a competitive game, where most players engaged in pvp regularly, and there was some sort of win-condition that players really wanted to achieve, then it would make sense to wipe so that everyone was on a level field. In fact you would want to wipe regularly after each season so that nobody ever got too far ahead.
But that's not the kind of game you've created. You've created a game where most players focus on grinding and creativity. Your wipe will hurt those players, to improve the competitive scene that doesn't exist.

Right... Where to start with this train wreck...
Talk about curing a head-cold with decapitation... People didn't like schematics when they were released because you just suddenly stuffed them in to the game after people had already established themselves and effectively kicked a lot of dedicated factory players just about back to square one with the only way to continue their chosen style being "go buy something only aphelia sells".
 
Advanced warning that you were going to do that would have taken some of the edge off, adding the schematics but not requiring them for a few months would have helped take the edge off, adding a research system that lets people make the schematics themselves (even if spending the same amount of wealth via material-costs) would still make them annoy people less...
 
Schematics were added in to cut down on the server and connection loading produced by everyone having their own private mega-factory. If you want to cut out the schematics for all the t1 stuff (since we already make that in our nano-packs) then go for it, but if you drop them all without a system to replace it then you'll be regretting it again later. 
 
Its' called a roll-back. You keep a copy of how things are right before a patch, and if someone finds an exploit in short order then you get rid of it and re-load that un-abused copy with a patch to fix the exploit. People generally don't mind losing a few hours of play too much if you have a good reason such as fixing an exploit that would destroy the economy.
 
Or if you kept a log somewhere, you could just quickly close the server down for a bit while you went through it and deleted the the resources produced by the exploit. 
 
Or you could have gone after people for abusing the exploit and kicked them from the game.
 
Or you could do another partial-wallet-wipe like you did back near the start of beta (without any forewarning to ensure people don't just move assets around to avoid it).
 
This whole fighting chance for new players thing is absurd, and if we're being honest here repeating it is a bit insulting to the people that have thought that one through and explained it a dozen times now.

-Someone will always have more money than someone else.
-If you wipe the server clean then the returning players will still have more money than any new ones you somehow attract five minutes after the server opens just because they will know how to get it faster (you point this out in your post),
-The power-players will still have more money than the casuals because they will be putting more time in to it,
-The people running mission-alts or playing cooperatively will still have more money because this is an mmo, and conservation of ninjutsu must not apply,
-Everyone will still have a lot more than any brand-new player, because they will have had any time at all to get it while the new player will not.
 
The only thing this gives to new players (and only the competitive ones that don't think too hard about the existence of beta-players) is the sense that if they want to compete then they wont start far behind anyone else for that first week or two. For all the rest of the new players all you are really doing is clearing the universe of anyone that is willing to give them a head start with free stuff, pay them to run jobs or perform tasks, or inspire them with grand and epic constructs that show them "players can design and build this themselves".
 
You left out the pro of keeping people's trust, and if you don't wipe and just drop schematics you probably wont lose as many players as you will by wiping the universe clean. If you want to be really nice about it you could even make Aphelia willing to buy the schematics back, (and before someone complains about the exploiters getting money by selling schematics they picked up during the exploit-sale, please consider whether or not that would constitute a significant gain for an exploiter's wallet, and the possibility that she could buy them back at a reduced price for the happy middle-ground between refunding lawful factory-wizards and throwing a few more quanta at people that already have exploit-cash).
 
That said, I still don't think you should drop most schematics from the game, I don't want to have to pick my tile claims based on how many mega-factories other people have deployed close enough to lag my game out when I'm just trying to build, fly, or work my mining units.
 
You left out the pro of keeping people's trust, again.
You forgot the con of the loss of non-factory-players ability to use an established market to advance.
Also, you've done resets of planets before with things like magic prints and admin-construct excavation. so I must ask that you please refrain from inferring people now need to choose between keeping their stuff or having good looking planets.
 
This will annoy the market-players, and the factory players, and the ship-sellers, and the wipe-monkies because someone somewhere may still have more stuff than they do, and a lot of other players because they'd be losing some of their stuff. In short, this will probably annoy the most people, but you'll still be able to claim that you didn't negate the whole "beta is soft-release" claim made way back when beta was starting, and people will be willing to see it as a reasonable compromise.
 
As for old bugged constructs, try opening a thread and listing the specific bugs, I'm sure players would gladly offer input on potential fixes (could always add an "old" tag in the code of old constructs and prints that prevents operation/docking/BPO creation until all elements are moved with the move element tool or picked up with the deploy element tool).
 
Just be sure to not warn anyone if you decide this, otherwise people will just shift their assets around to try and avoid it, and don't forget to make sure people have something to keep their taxes paid and their fuel tanks full for a bit while they get the economy running again.
 
On one hand, if you simply didn't apply any new patches to the legacy server then most people would probably eventually migrate over to the new stuff on their own as you enticed them with cool new features (assuming you come up with said features).
 
On the other hand, such division of population would initially be potentially quite substantial, and would risk making the game seem "too empty", and you'd need to re-run procedural generation of ore distribution so that people don't just pull ore-coordinates from one server to be used in the other.
 
Of course you could probably take the 3rd option people have presented here where by the two eventually become linked as the previously promised extra solar-systems, but that would probably entail eventually allowing old resources in to the new system, at which point we'd be on the same track as having never wiped, so you'd probably be better off just not wiping if you did this so that old players could still help uplift new ones.
 
I've already been over the schematic and planet points in this post, but until you make missions have a random start and end location for each and ever person each and every time they take them, I'm going to say this wont fix that particular "economic loophole". 
 
As far as cons go you forgot:
-Loss of the trust of a lot of people that believed NQ wasn't going to full wipe after beta-launch unless it was absolutely nessicarily for the integrity of the game, 
-Bad pr along the lines of NQ being willing to nuke the entire universe to make their job easier in dealing with a few exploiters and/or patch implementation, 
-Temporary loss of old players' ability to uplift or inspire new players,
-Loss of established-market use by non-factory players to advance in to doing what they want to do without waiting for factories,
-Temporary loss of established player's ability to identify/test mid/late-game loopholes and exploits in a time-frame that would still allow rollbacks or "targeted maintenance" to limit the damage they could cause.
 
 
 
So, what's it going to be NQ? The longer this debate goes on, the more people are just going to get frustrated at it all and question whether or not they should just go else-ware, and the worse DU will look for it. Time to make final call quickly and stick to it, you don't want the pr from all this fence-sitting on something as major as a universe wipe still hanging around when you get to full release.

This idea of a massive horde of potential players just waiting for a wipe is purely imaginary.
 
When was the last time you saw a game and thought, "That looks interesting. But it has a lot of established players already, and I don't want to be a noob, so I won't play that interesting game. But if they did a wipe, then I would start playing." I'm not saying that would never happen, but it's exceedingly rare. Most people who see an interesting game just start playing, and give little concern to other players who were there before them.