Ram
-
Posts
37 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ram
-
-
5 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
The text is correct and refers to how USERS interact and not how CHARACTERS do.
So you can within events as they unfold in game prevent someone from leaving or entering their base but you can't go to their house and cut the power or call SWAT to their house so they can't defend their base. May sound silly but it has happened in the past and will in the future.
You can scam a character in game but you can't try and scam them as a person by using game assets or mechanics.
I'd absolutely agree the text as it is is written horribly bad but the context is clear enough for anyone who has some form of understanding of general MMO rules as there is very little there that is unique.
So yes, you have a point, but not in the way you may think
Really really ironic that you are defending this. I agree with you, but how you fail to see this exact logic applies similarly to an...overly talked about incident, is beyond me.
-
22 hours ago, blazemonger said:
Can't disagree that the routes in and out of the districts should be relatively clean and clear. But NQ has pretty much given up their ability to enforce or act against this by not setting rules for this in advance and not creating an option for themselves to wipe and remove these once they refine and balance the game and their TOS/EULA in the course of the beta.
At least, not yet..
It's almost like they intended the players to manage this kind of thing ourselves. Like most of everything else.
-
12 hours ago, blazemonger said:
Talking to a mirror now are we?
I'd say the ones trying to pin this on one party is actually the ones trying to make this all about he players. NQ plays a part in this all because they made a dumb but I woud expect honest mistake of leaving a market RDMS open to the public. They also posted very specific rules about RDMS which in no way exclude anything from it being fine to steal from a public RDMS construct.
NQ makes a big effort to spin the events into using an exploit or bug to gain access which his not the case. They also claim these guys went in with intent to cause damage to the database and the market mechanic which is not correct as there is no evidence at all that even remotely would make this viable.
I'm not seeing anyone saying these guys need to go free, I do see many saying that NQ not in any way taking even the slightest bit of responsibility here and owning up to it is not good. Punitive action is absolutely in place and justified. A permaban is way over the top. NQ tried to show how tough they can be, in stead they pretty much showed they have no sense of what is a measured reaction and totally lack any form of empathy and understanding of the situation.
It is crazy that a NQ dev even needs to touch RDMS to move a market, it is also at best a weakness that removing a market terminal will actually break the database to the point where it's not a matter of pasting a new market object in, renaming it and restoring the link. There is nothing there that NQ can blame these guys for outside of maybe the fact that they cause the problem NQ now has.
I actually understand the reaction by NQ but the pendulum on this swung way across into the red on the opposite side form where it came and that is now causing a fallout that is far more damaging than the in game damage and NQ could have prevented that from happening but choose to pretty much close the book and go back to their usual silence.
What you'd say now contradicts your previous post, again I'm disappointed, blaze. There is only one thing to pin on one party and that is the offending players. NQ pasted a new market and a bug reset RDMS, players wilfully broke EULA/TOS and took advantage of that mistake for their own gain. Pin blame for making the mistake of not double checking RDMS glitches after pasting, but that is a normal Human oversight anyone could make. Wilfully taking advantage of that is not a Human oversight it is wilful intent to do things they admit and you already admitted they shouldn't have done. Very specific rules relegated to PLAYERS. Not developers. Again why do you make points and then contradict them later?
These guys exploited an RDMS bug that resets permissions on a moved market. A construct which the game tutorial states is a critical gameplay structure. They did exactly what they were accused of. What intent behind dismantling any part of the market is not intent to ruin the market? Even if the database wasn't harmed the fact remains they did something they shouldn't have.
It is not crazy the devs need RDMS for markets. That is how the game is designed. In what world are developer made constructs the same as player made? Developers are not players. Developers using the tools they made to make a market construct does not mean the construct is applicable for targeting like a player construct is. Obviously. Why do you keep flipping your argument on itself? First you say they broke EULA/TOS and deserved punishment but now you are saying there is nothing NQ can blame these players for?
YouTubers making biased videos with the narrative that players did nothing wrong, which is a lie, and spreading this garbage argument is what causes any sort of pendulum swinging into the red. What video games allow players to mess with developer made things and not get banned for it? Which? None? At all? So why would this be surprising to anyone with a moral compass and an average IQ? Only the ones who think it is acceptable to do something like this would find it unfair and boycot the game they didn't even know about and if they did wouldn't play for longer than a few weeks anyway because they're most likely not the niche type of player this kind of game appeals to anyway. Regardless of that, do you really want a ton of people who think its acceptable to mess with developer stuff and have no concept of the separation between developer and player to be in the game with you?
Nothing NQ could do would appease the ones complaining. They're the type that nothing is ever good enough and they'll demand more. I've seen plenty of people, in this thread even, saying that the players shouldn't only be unbanned, but be apologized to and given free 3 months sub. You could all be making ban appeals and actually probably get their bans reduced but instead you want to fill the forums and discord with ridiculous arguments defending wilfully harmful actions and acting like NQ should take responsibility for players deciding of their own volition to commit an act they themselves knew and admitted they shouldn't have done. NQ takes responsibility for bugs and glitches like RDMS resets when moving markets. The players need to take responsibility for their actions taking advantage of this. Idk how many more times this needs to be repeated. Again, we can argue over the severity of the punishment, but they deserved punishment and everyone arguing is arguing from the standpoint that the punishment wasn't justified because of the lack of severity in the action committed, and the severity in the punishment. This is morally bankrupt.
-
14 hours ago, blazemonger said:
I'd say that people seeing a Youtube video and then actually coming here to post about how they'd never consider the game due to this nonsense is not exactly "good press". There's many people right now, who never heard of DU before and never actually came here, talking smack and advising their friends to stay away from the game. How is that good press?
Yes, what these guys did was against EULA/TOS and yes, there should be consequences. Had NQ followed this line, smacked these guys over the head, emptied their in game wallets and locked them out for a while then I'd say fair enough and should have known better.
instead NQ pretty much went out of their way to try and set these guys up as maliciously using an exploit (which they did not), not bothering to report (which they did) and deliberately and with intent o do so wreck the markets (they did not) and cause loss of data (that happened due to NQ's now exposed sketchy way of implementing the market mechanic and how it interacts with the database. NQ can certainly make the case that these guys are accountable for the damage and can hand out punitive consequences for it but the permaban is really way over the top.
If you break the law and in the process kill someone by accident you can't be convicted of murder, you would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter which is still a crime and you'd do time but you can't be put on the chair for it which is what NQ pretty much did here.
Yeah, anyone who is going to waste time coming here just to virtue signal that the devs were meanies to players willfully doing things everyone knows they shouldn't is someone who a sane community doesn't want or need here anyway. These are the people who would get banned for similar infractions in the future anyway. You already agree here there was a deserved punishment. Why are you mentioning people outside of the game who do not understand nor agree with you on this?
Also, you are wrong about the law there. Very disappointing you keep defending and minimizing the wilful harm these players caused. We can debate about the severity of the punishment, but there is no excuse for trying to defend these actions.
-
15 minutes ago, DavidDavidson said:
You're the one who started using RL analogies talking about barring your door, et cetera. I felt you might be able to connect with those or understand them, so I used them. Reading through your post you seem to have me confused with someone else. You should read the username of the person you quote before posting. It's usually a good idea.
Why should I ¿brush it off? I literally have nothing to do with scoopy other than agreeing that the reason he was banned is spurious and based off of butthurt rather than rules or the EULA. I've kept up a bit of a dialog with uber as he seems like a decent guy caught up in something he didn't deserve.
As for the EULA, you are twisting it a EULA is an agreement between players and the [/b] developers[/b] not a set of rules for all players to abide by but a license agreement. Find something in the EULA that says that players can be banned when a developer fucks up. The OP reads like a straight up whine from the developers with the "this isn't a quick fix" line being the icing on the cake. That reads, to me as "thanks to what you did we needed to fix things rather than keep collecting your money every 3 months"
As for it being a "developer owned construct" maybe the developers should have put in some code so that these developer owned constructs can never be tampered with by players. How's that for an amazing idea, its almost like what the developers should have learned from this, rather than getting their game negative publicity on multiple sites for childish behavior.
As for the "no sign" the sign is that you can interact with the item. That is the sign. It doesn't have to be a giant neon billboard.
"There is no bad press surrounding this" sure there isn't. A video from a popular YouTuber with nearly 100k subs is no bad press. Keep living in your own little world. You also keep referring to me as someone who took part in this, one of the 4 players it would seem. I'll state again, I am a third party.
You're saying that people do not need thanked to beta test then are saying that beta testing is a job in the very next paragraph. Have you ever had a job? A job isn't paying someone to use their unfinished product.
As for beta testers and pen testers, they are one and the same. This flaw was known about for a long time before this incident made the developers have to do something. In fact (from what I've heard) this was reported in discord DM to a GM before they decided the developers didn't care and as such they showed what happens when you snooze; you lose.
Finally (thank god) just because it doesn't say something in a EULA doesn't mean the developers can do what they want then cite said EULA for the reason they dished out bans. That just further weakens their position. An EULA is like a set of demi-laws or rules and as such it must be throrugh. You don't just get arrested for "you were breaking a law that isn't a law yet but you made me work so you're goin to jail buddy".
Now I'll be going to bed, I've had enough of your tirades and verbal valium to practically put me into winter hibernation. One last thing though, why do you keep saying "mental gymnastics" you've said it at least once per post. It is extremely repetitious.
Sorry to confuse you with other people but you have to admit it is difficult when you all parrot the same ridiculous excuses for poor behavior. The reason he was banned was for purposefully messing with developer owned constructs and acting like it is fine to do. You are pretending like only the devs are to blame and nobody else is at fault for anything, which is empirically incorrect.
What does an agreement between devs and players have to do with there being rules in the agreement specifically for players? Nothing. I am dev and I release EULA that says, "players can do this this this but not that that that". It isn't beholden to me as a developer. You as a player must agree to the rights and restrictions set forth by the devs in the EULA. There is no equality or equity to it. The developers didn't "fuck up" they made a small mistake. The actual fuck up is players taking advantage of the mistake, which can get you banned. There was nothing to fix for the devs in this context except maybe a reminder to always check permissions on dev owned constructs, prior to the actions that broke the market data. This isn't an instance of some long overdue bug that was never addressed until player did X and now suddenly it is being addressed. If it was something they knew about and put on the backburner, it still doesn't justify taking advantage by players.. All they did was paste the market back in place and put the data that they apparently do have backups for, back into the terminals. Oh and maybe actually set the permissions this time. Not doing this is no excuse to go rampant with dev owned things.
The developers have nothing to learn from here except their normal mistake. They made a Human mistake because they're people. The players who took advantage willfully attempted to do what they knew they shouldn't do, and will hopefully learn from their ban not to do that kind of thing elsewhere.
The sign is not being able to access the item. This logic is exactly the same as saying an unlocked door is a sign you have an invitation to enter. It is not.
Firstly, all press is good press. Secondly, one video by one YouTuber isn't going to do anything except bring more attention to the game. Even if it was more, thats all they are doing.
Yes, people do not need to be thanked to beta test. You are paying to test the game, paying to do a job that normally developers would hire people to do in-house. They do not have to when players will either do it for free or pay to access that.
Beta testers and pen testers are not the same. I explained the very obvious differences.
Devs can do whatever they want with their game. It is their game. EULA is a set of rules for players to agree to before getting access to the product. You don't agree you do not get access. The EULA is quite clear when you understand how to read, that developer made anything is not subject to rules for players. I keep saying mental gymnastics because everyone parroting your arguments is jumping through illogical hoops to come to insane conclusions. It is mental gymnastics to read, "Come in and do whatever you want" into, "RDMS wasn't set properly for this developer made construct", or "Devs said RDMS theft was allowed and they wouldn't get involved as an organization into any of it" into "We cannot get involved if a individual or org uses RDMS theft against other players". It is all very tiresome that you continue to rail against justified punishment. I have already said I agree that permabanning from everything is probably too harsh. That is not me saying there should be no punishment, however.
-
15 minutes ago, DavidDavidson said:
Again you are wrong. You cannot seem to comprehend that real life and video games are not the same thing. This actually worries me.
They the developers should be held to a higher standard than players, so when they drop the ball and screw up they should brush it off and act like adults. They didn't. In fact:
As for it being against the EULA, which is the claim of NQ. Let me quote the EULA for you:
"We can not get involved with permission based theft, whether as an individual or an organization."
It seems that they, as an organization have gotten involved. They have violated their own EULA while quoting their EULA as reason to ban.
That is the textbook definition of trying to throw a mods=gods hissyfit and you are enabling them.
As for your final paragraph, you are either distorting facts intentionally or are too much of a smoothbrain to understand what you are saying. Your analogy once again does not fit. Instead it would be like placing a sign on or beside the back door saying "this door is open, feel free to come in and see the buffet inside" with the "free buffet" sitting just inside the back door.
To sum up. The developers have it in their EULA themselves that permission based theft is fine. This is like a developer alt getting scammed then banning the person who scammed them because they wield the banhammer. Childish and liable to get them bad press (which they are now getting in spades). They should have said "oh, well its a beta, we screwed up, we will amend the EULA, fix the problem, thank the people for paying to beta test our game (not sure how old you are but when I grew up you got paid to beta test, in cash or a free product or at least got to play for free for the beta duration) and start fixing things from there. That would have been an adult move to make.
However they didn't do that.
Also on the fact that the game is filled with beta testers you don't seem to understand that the job of beta testers is to find out things like this. We have real life beta testers for both cyber and real life security. They are called penetration testers. They are literally paid to break into buildings, steal employee data, engage in corporate espionage by the corporation they are stealing from, on the grounds that they (obviously) give what they take back. They are paid generously for their work, they don't get fired for exposing a flaw, unless their employer knows about it and wants to ignore it.
Novaquirk have been ignoring permission issues for quite some time, so I see this as ingame pen testing by beta testers, kind of like the difference between an IRL pen tester breaking into Joe the Janitor's office, helping himself to Joe's lunch and sitting in his seat, but instead breaking into the CEO's office, using the exact same method and sitting at their desk sipping a glass of $20,000 per bottle wine.
I would liken it to (but not compare it directly to) fallout 76 and the developer room. I liken it to that as players found a problem. Only difference is they hacked their way into that dev room. It wasn't like the developer room was sitting around for all to see. I'm sure you know the amount of shit Bethesda got for their reaction to the dev room saga and that was legitimate hacking into a room that should have been removed. This is a group of players discovering that an area wasn't under the right protections and under the game rules and EULA they proceeded to help themselves.
Nowhere in the EULA does it say "developers should be immune to all player acts" so your analogy is wrong and the EULA backs what I'm saying.
If I am the one who cannot seem to comprehend that real life and video games are not the same thing why do you keep referencing reality in relation to this event? This point is irrelevant. It is irrelevant that video games are not real life. That isn't the point at all, and video games not being real life does not give you permission to do what you want, like you want to pretend it does.
If the devs should brush it off and act like adults, why shouldn't you or Scoopy? Absolutely nothing you did or have done was mature. Yes, let's see you quote and then misinterpret the EULA, like you misinterpret RDMS.
"We can not get involved with permission based theft, whether as an individual or an organization". This doesn't mean what you think it does. This means, whether RDMS theft involves a single individual or an entire IN-GAME organization, we cannot get involved. This does not mean, "individuals nor NQ as a company cannot get involved" Or they would have said, company. Organization is the specific word used in this game to refer to an Org, a group of players who make an Org through the org system. NOT NQ as a company "organization". So, no, they did not violate their own EULA. This quote is saying that if players use RDMS theft against other players, NQ cannot (doesn't want to) get involved. However, this is NOT the case. Players used RDMS theft against NQ themselves, who are not players, but developers. How you twist these things to defend yourself is beyond me but you guys get a gold medal in mental gymnastics here.
My analogy does fit. There is NO SIGN giving permissions to do anything you want. You pressing the Build mode key and finding that permissions were not set IS NOT the same thing as purposefully not setting permissions to purposefully allow you to do anything you want. They just are not the same thing, whatsoever. What is the same thing, is you accidentally finding out the permissions weren't set, and someone accidentally finding a door wasn't locked, then taking advantage of that. You keep twisting and twisting reality as if it helps your case at all.
The developers have it in the EULA themselves that permission based theft AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS, individuals or an organization, is fine. YOU make assumptions that are wrong and get punished for it. This is nothing like an alt getting scammed then banning you. This is a straight up, developer owned and made construct. Not a dev's alt. It isn't childish, your continued mental gymnastic defense of your reprehensible actions is. There is little to no bad press around this, most people agree you got what you deserved, and none of you are arbiters of reputation for video games. They should not have said that, because while they made a mistake, they did not make the mistake. You did. Intentionally ruining developer owned constructs is not beta testing. There are proper ways to do things and you did nothing properly here. You should have, as everyone has told you, simply reported it and moved on with your day. They do not need to thank people paying to beta test, people get their thanks for payment by being given access to the game. However, they do thank their testers and supporters. Cowtowing to digital criminals is not an adult move to make.
The job of beta testers is to REPORT things like this they find out, not continue to dismantle whatever they wanted. We are not penetration testers. I figured one of your arguments might be referring to yourselves and what you did in the same light as a paid penetration tester. These people are being paid to find faults, exploit them, and then give all necessary data on how it was done to the person that hired them. WE are paying to find faults, NOT exploit them, and then report the faults and move on. This is not comparable. I do not care about F76, nor the players of the game. It shouldn't have even been made IMO.
Nowhere in the EULA does it say, "developers are players therefore rules designed for players also apply to developers." Because devs are not players. That is your indication that whatever rules are made for players, they do not affect anyone who isn't a player, i.e. a developer. My analogy is spot-on and the EULA you are misinterpreting to fit your own narrative.
-
13 minutes ago, DavidDavidson said:
Your analogy is entirely flawed.
What the developers did was akin to leaving their door open with a big sign saying "mi casa, su casa, you can take what you want" permissions aren't locks but permissions to do what you want with the stuff, the developers are clear on this themselves when it comes to friends taking your stuff and running. They have said they will not treat that as an offense as you gave them permission to interact and do what they want with your stuff. Much like how in EvE online some of the biggest losses have been because someone gives roles (permissions) to the wrong person (such as a spy) NQ set their rules out in the same way, however when it's their stuff that they forget to put a "This is my property" sign on they cry and ban because the other players now have their toys.
Video games =/= real life. However the best way to phrase open permissions for anyone is eating from a buffet in the middle of a public area (with CCTV) with a sign that says "free buffet, help yourself" then the cops are called for theft after you eat some and the owner of the buffet saying "well I never fully filled out the sign there, it should have said;" " gluten free buffet help yourself if you are me, or a close personal friend of mone "
If that were the case you might be detained, but when the CCTV (the logs) show that you followed what the sign said you would be released and more than likely the owner of said buffet would be in trouble for wasting police time.
No, you want to pretend there was a sign saying you could do anything you wanted, because you had the physical access to. Again, there is a difference between accidentally giving physical access, and intending physical access to be granted. Accidentally not setting permissions is NOT an intention for you to freely mess with things. This mental gymnastics is WHY you were banned.
Additionally, it is common sense to anyone with morals that the developers and owners of the game are exempt from rules pertaining to PLAYERS of the game. We are not devs, or owners. We are players. Rules for players to not apply to developers. You think it should because you think that is fair. This is not about fulfilling your personal sense of fairness. Life is not fair.
Video games do not need to = real life for actions to have consequences. Principles exist across everything. Violating these principles is generally unacceptable unless specifically stated otherwise.
Your analogy is flawed. You can fix it by accurately stating the intent of the buffet. What you did was actually akin to walking thru the open back door to a buffet, and started eating whatever you wanted, because it is a buffet, without acknowledging that the buffet hasn't opened and no one should be in there eating until X time of the day when it is open, as that is the intent. The intent here was not to allow anyone to access the buffet without permission. The intent here was not to allow anyone to access the market without permission. But someone forgot and left the back door to the kitchens open so you guys thought you'd walk in and eat. But someone forgot and left the permissions open to the market so you guys thought you'd start taking whatever. No one intended for you to eat at the buffet without permissions, despite it being a buffet and that meaning people eat at them. No one intended for you to access the market without restrictions, despite it being a market and that meaning people access them for trading. Accidentally making a mistake is never an invitation for you to take advantage of that mistake. You can still take advantage though. Being able to do things and the intent for you to be able to do them are separate.
-
19 minutes ago, Promulgator said:
lol. They dropped a ban on someone for using an in-game mechanic that was their fck-up. Nobody cares if someone edited market 15 because the devs left it unlocked. Just like nobody (including NQ) would care if you cried because you left your base unlocked.
I'm not going to put more time into this game when arbitrary bans are handed out.Plenty of people care. Ones with decent moral standing. Thats why offenders were punished. Arbitrary lol. Ingame mechanic lol. Yes completely leave out any contexts to make it seem like they didn't do nuffin.
-
15 minutes ago, nottheuberjuice said:
Wrong. Leaving rights to do something is what it says. Its not opening the door, its opening the door and giving rights for someone to do what they want within those rights. That open door example is a flawed analogy despite being and easy one to understand.
And you are talking "rules" side of things, me speaking that it shouldn't be possible to be done in game if its not intended on a mechanical level. Players will always bypass rules and look for advantages in games if they are creative and curious, which devs don't seem to appreciate. Banning people for their curiosity to explore your game is barbaric.
Regarding happening in other games: Ark is a pretty terrible example from equally immature developers, if that indeed happened. If it happened in a poorly thrown together game it doesn't mean it is fine to do it if you want, as a developer, to have any kind of good reputation.
Novaquark fucked up for not having good rule book and acted out of emotion, not following any of their own rules that are vague as hell anyway.
If you want to see good example of set rules: look at games like EVE, WoW, Starbase, Star Citizen, etc where they have explicit and very clear sets of rules instead of blanket statements that have been thrown together out of necessity to protect yourself.
"... know a bit more than a fresh noob about the build mode and RDMS in order to even think, "oh hey lets see if build mode works on these dev owned constructs" and then do it"
This is not what happened. Not sure where you took it from. I was at station when me and Scoopy were about to log off for the night. I wanted to modify my ship that was parked at marketplace and accidentally clicked on the floor, which allowed me to enter build mod.
If you want facts -- ask devs to provide logs that say when was my first login in the game and how long have I played, which they will likely not, at least I wouldn't expect that from lying cowards like NQ.What is said and what is meant are two different things. Just because the system is called permissions and rights doesn't mean that if I DON'T set restrictions I am inviting everyone to come and mess with my stuff. It means that it becomes physically possible for them to mess with my stuff. Similarly, if I lock my door, barring violent entry, it is not physically possible for you to come in and take my TV. Leaving it unlocked gives you access to do something but it does NOT mean that access is intended, and additionally while it would be OK to take advantage of another player who foolishly didnt set permissions, this obviously does not apply to the developers of the game. None of these analogies are flawed. It is the principles behind them and the violation if the principles being compared, not the specific acts themselves. Its crazy to me how some of you can sit there and argue, "oh its just online, it's just a video game I can do whatever I want cuz it isnt real and nothing from the real world can be extrapolated to what I do in game". I want you to repeat this as a mantra to yourselves when you find out there are consequences and you cannot do whatever you want just because it is a video game online. See if it helps get you unbanned. Yes, criminals also try to bypass laws and take advantages with creativity and curiosity. Does this now nullify the concept of crime and law? This is why rules and punishment for breaking said rules exist, exactly BECAUSE there will always be people trying to get around them. Calling wilful intent to ruin developer owned constructs, "exploration" is a disengenuous load of BS my friend. I also find it funny those of you defending this are acting like you are the arbiters of good will and good reputation in the gaming industry. "Oh man if they rightfully ban me for exploiting a mistake they make their reputation is gonna tank!". In what world do you believe your position is the majority?
So you did understand the fundamentals of the game then? Because knowing how RDMS, build mode and removing/editing constructs works is a fundamental knowledge of those systems. You then took advantage of the open market instead of reporting it and leaving it alone.
-
13 minutes ago, nottheuberjuice said:
Hi, I am that guy. I put money into this game 2 years ago, paid for a $120 package because it is the kind of game I love to play as I am a fan of Sci-fi, tech, games like Space Engineers etc and coding part was also appealing as I am a dev myself.
But I got into the game just now and literally had LESS than a week of playtime. So no, I had no idea that anything was tied to an object, which is a ridiculous design, neither did my friend knew about it who have been here less than a month. NovaQuark staff didn't care to check or even talk to us and just jumped to their conclusions based on assumptions, even banning people who have taken nothing else but some random lamp or leftovers of the construction for their own base.
In fact, me and Scoopy didn't even take all the terminals and MARKET WAS FUNCTIONING when we left it, it only didn't have walls and floors and couple of items missing, like glass and triangular glass.
Whoever was in charge of this is utterly incompetent and seeing CEO tweets doesn't make me think that this game has any future since it is his PERSONAL stance that we were rightfully banned permanently. Whoever is in charge of communication about us doing something unintentionally based on a human error from the company we paid money for to Beta Test and took it personally, instead of being professional about it. Banning paid beta testers in BETA test phase of the game is unprecedented, doesn't matter if devs had to spend more of their time to fix the issues or not -- every development studio has to face the bug and their mistakes and own them, not blame their users/players/customers as it is just childish and unresponsible.
In every single game out there if something works mechanically, without breaking the game, it is not a bannable offense if something states in some obscure rules (who the fuck reads rules instead of playing the game, you kidding me?).
IF SOMETHING SHOULDN'T BE DONE, IT SHOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE TO DO IT IN GAME <- good game design, NovaQuark approach is to make everything on paper it seem, not in game.
If players shouldn't destroy dev buildings, then it make it not possible as in every decent game out there. The reaction from all of your dev team is just lame and nothing more and you deserve to have a bad rep for this and held accountable, instead of putting all the blame on your community members and paying customers.What made you think it was okay to go testing developer owned constructs with the Build mode in the first place? This is like going door to door in a neighborhood looking to see who left their door unlocked so you can rob them. Incompetence of "leaving the door unlocked and open" (no RDMS restrictions) aside, this does not give you a free pass to take advantage of the situation. Similarly, just because a neighbor was dumb enough to leave their door unlocked, it is not an invitation for you to come in. Absolutely nowhere does, "if I shouldn't be allowed to do it why is it physically possible for me to do it still" fly as an excuse or argument.
Banning paid beta testers in early access games is not unprecedented. It has happened in Ark and other early access titles that you have to pay to test. Firstly, in every single game out there, if it works mechanically but was not intended to work that way, it is an exploit. Secondly, regardless if anyone knew it would ruin the market data or not, the messing with the market caused a "gamebreaking" issue that affected others. You are being absolutist. It was a mistake on the dev's part to leave the RDMS open, accidents happen. It was *also* a mistake on the players part who took advantage of this to edit the market. One is an accident, the other is willful intent to do something that really you should have known not to do. The blame is shared, but the lion's share goes to you and Scoopy. If you are really a dev yourself, you can't seriously say that if a player in one of the games you were making decided to take advantage of a mistake on your part to ruin something that wasn't supposed to be touched by players, you wouldn't punish them and anyone else who decided to do the same, regardless how much they did. Stealing voxels and a lamp is still stealing. We can sit here and debate on the forums or discord if the punishment was too severe or not, but there is no argument that punishment wasn't necessary for the morally and lawfully (rulefully?) bad actions committed.While I do not know about any claims that anyone knew how the game fundamentally works, I do know you have to know a bit more than a fresh noob about the build mode and RDMS in order to even think, "oh hey lets see if build mode works on these dev owned constructs" and then do it, and then act like dismantling or taking anything there was completely acceptable to do. Most arguments defending these actions are, "but the devs said RDMS theft is ok". Well it seems really fishy to me that a fresh, less than a week playtime player knew that every construct has an owner, and B enters the build/edit mode on that construct, that markets are normally not accessible, and that the devs had allowed RDMS theft in one of their posts. You guys either had to be randomly pressing B while jumping around after spawning (which is unlikely as someone THAT new wouldn't then instantly figure out how to properly remove elements or voxels as 99% of new players constantly ask ingame and on discord HOW to pick up voxels or elements) or you decided to purposefully check if build mode was accessible on every construct you went by. OR you purposefully decided to specifically check if markets were available. Either way, it isn't a good look and it is clear you guys aren't being completely honest.
-
18 hours ago, Lethys said:
Thing is tho, it IS connected and required as JC stated himself
Well then blow me down...dang it JC
-
Just now, Mordgier said:
Great, so lets be clear here, if there was a MMO where only a handful of players can 'win' - I sure wouldn't play it - because that doesn't sound like fun to me because I know full well that despite how much I poopsock I don't come close to the level of the top .0001% of the players who stand an actual chance.
That is the whole damn issue with RPO and this event. It caters to outliers. That's what makes it a bad event. That's what makes RPO a terrible game. That's the whole point. That's why looking at RPO and saying DU is like it is absolutely toxic.
A good event is where a much larger part of the community can participate and much larger number can win. This wasn't it.
The worst thing is that DU is building on a foundation of other REAL games not absurd fiction that did events and did them so much better that it blows my mind that JC does not see the DU event as an absolute failure.
Did you play Elite? Did you participate in the alien event? You know....this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/01/06/the-elite-dangerous-alien-discovery-is-one-of-the-coolest-gaming-events-ive-ever-seen/#5f5179c37389
That was in my opinion an example of an event that was well done. Who won? The community did.
Look, I get your point, but it is misapplied here. Every MMO is an MMO where only a handful of players can "win". What do we define as wining in an MMO? Being in the top PVP rankings and/or being in the top endgame PVE content rankings (raids, etc). THOSE are the "winners" of the game and there's a handful of people that good. EVERY MMO is like this. However, the goal isn't to "win" in an MMO it is to be a part of a community and have fun with your character, regardless of how good you are. DU's "winning goal" is NOT to find easter eggs, and it isn't to be the first to do it either. The only real win conditions here would be a result of future PVP where two or more orgs fought a war and one had most of their infrastructure/constructs/tiles destroyed or looted to the point of being useless. The one(s) who caused that upon their enemies would "win" DU, in that context of that war. Obviously, if the goal of DU was to find easter eggs and whoever did "wins", then yeah, I agree, I wouldn't play it either, but that isn't the case. This is just a fun little side event.
I disagree with you about what constitutes a "good" event, however I will agree that this DU easter egg event was not one. It wasn't horrible either. To me, it's not relevant to anything in DU. Let's say there's 100 easter eggs like this spread around the system. That's 100 more chances for tons of more players to find them in the future in other events. They're easter eggs, the entire point is that they're irrelevant, but neat little things to find in the game. They have no impact on the gameplay whatsoever, or the rest of the players. Now if these easter eggs turn out to be connected to a similar alien event like the E:D one you mention, and they are "required" for that content to happen, I agree 100% with you. That remains to be seen. As long as this is a mini-event that has nothing to do with the game but is a fun thing they can repeatedly do over and over so that eventually, almost everyone has participated in the events and found an easter egg, then there isn't an issue in my mind.
I did play Elite, but unfortunately not during the alien event. I agree, that is how you do a game content event, and if DU ever has one, they should emulate it. But this, is not the same type of event.
-
Just now, Mordgier said:
That's an interesting take - so who where the characters who solved the puzzle in RPO?
This is an interesting leading question. Let me break down your point behind your reasoning here. It's a competition. Competitions are everywhere in the real world. From sports to video games to companies competing for consumer attention. Does every company win? Does every sports team win? Does every video game player win? No, in a competition, there is usually 1 winner, regardless of the number of competitors. That is how it works. In any competition, most people do not win. You are attempting to say, "look, only like 5 people who were super nerds were able to dedicate the time and effort to solving the RPO puzzle" out of some idea that this is bad, because you compare it to, "look, only like 5 people who were super nerds were able to dedicate the time and effort to solving the DU puzzle". Even IF everyone was told about the DU puzzle and given ample time, the first few dedicated nolifers would still have found it and the same exact outcome would have happened. What is your point here regarding it? That competition is bad? It's a non-starter. You have no real point I'm afraid, except that DU should not be like a fictional video game, which it isn't, but ingame easter eggs have nothing to do with that, and neither do mini-events around a handful of players finding them. Additionally, now that *one* out of the doubtless many scattered throughout the solar system, has been found, and covered, that now gives everyone else opportunity to look for others. Now everyone *does* know and *does* have ample time to find more. What is the problem here?
As to directly answer your question, a small group of players who knew their stuff because they were supernerds about Halliday, was able to solve the puzzle. They were not the only ones trying, however.
-
I'm sorry, but I have to address your complete ignorance of RPO's plot, story and setting. The entire PLANET in RPO was using VR to play Halliday's game. Not only that, most of the economy was done through VR, people using it to work virtual jobs, or real jobs remotely via VR, and education was all done through VR as well, students putting on headsets at home and logging into a virtual classroom. Ironically not much different from the current environment of Zoom meetings and other virtual meeting software being heavily used due to the pandemic. This was the entire world of RPO, and the easter egg hunt that is the main story of the book, involved literally everyone who had a VR headset and access to the game. The company and CEO that serve as antagonist hired endless people to search for the easter egg in the game for them just so they could beat the rest of the entire planet. In fact, the game itself is so integral to the world, that owning it makes one, one of the if not the most powerful and richest people on Earth, and this is exactly *why* the antagonist CEO and company want control. This is NOT as you say, "a tiny group of players" or "no lifers". The end battle of the book and film involves EVERYONE in the entire game gathering together to battle the antagonist CEO and his company. You are 100% dead wrong about your entire comparison of this DU easter egg event to RPO. I do agree with most of your other points about DU, however.
-
Uh, I'd like to point out to the OP that the first established colony in Canada was a French colony. Canada is a constitutional monarchy under England, with the queen as it's head of state. Your royal anthem is God Save the Queen, she's all over your currency and yet you somehow arrive at the conclusion that you shouldn't be beholden to European anything? You are not the child or cousin or brother to America. You are, like America, a child of Europe and the UK. You are America's hat and while you might be a fancy hat at times, it is an English top hat with a monocle. Of course, of BLOODY course, you're beholden to the Euro and different prices than America, sir.
Also, good luck with this situation.
-
-
-
1 hour ago, triplehelixxx said:
I'm somewhat curious as to how signing this NDA with work.
Will it's simply be something we have to agree to here on the forums, or will they send out emails that we then have to agree to with an electronic signature?
Or are they actually going to mail us some documents we have to sign and then return?
No I highly doubt they'll mail anything. It'll probably just be an email for the accounts that have gold backer status and up. You'll have to digitally sign the NDA and click you accept. I don't think it'll be anything on the forums either.
-
This is a great video. I particularly enjoyed the map screen and the bookmarking features.
I noticed the atmospheric entry heat effect doesn't seem to contour to the ship. I assume this is something that will be changed by release, not an issue at all. It looks very neat and I'm enjoying the UI developments as well.
Keep it up, NQ! Can't wait for alpha! Just think, only 3 more dev diaries.
-
I don't know about blender. Always used 3DS.
This. If you know 3DS Max, how hard/easy is it to learn Blender?
-
I, RAMMFORGE, refuse the premise of this entire thread and commit to uphold the universal laws nature sets forth for beings and their interactions on any field, real or digital, not arbitrary limitations based on trying to hurt as few people's feelings as possible.
-
Okay when I was reading your Q&A something came in mind to me. What do you think of this: killing people should be rewarded like you can steal a dead body before it re-spawns or a dead player releases some of its objects where he or she has been killed. In this way the killer is rewarded and the killed has penalty.
Lol you want to reward killers and punish victims? Good thing you have no say over real life systems!
There should be a possibility of reward, but also risk. Like if you kill someone and it's not exactly secret, you'll get flagged as someone who has committed a murder, and get tracked down. There are similar systems in most MMOs that track player killing players with skulls on the map.
-
Awesome stuff! Glad you guys got that experience.
Did they mention anything about the maximum users they've tested on that server you were mentioning? 5 people is fine, but have they tried connecting 50 or so yet? What was their max or did they not reveal any of that? I want to know if they've tried stressing the server even slightly yet.
-
@GalloInfligo
I'm not sure why you're so concerned with kids or children. The devs have made sure to state this is not a game for children as an entire universe run by players requires adult level understanding of society, economics, politics, etc. A child in this game will hopefully be rare, but also is not really something we should be focusing on. If a parent wants their kid to play this game, and the kid makes a mistake and loses DAC by some foolish method, I say all the better. It's a life lesson that's better learned in reality, but is rightly expected to happen by the adults who will play. Kids have to understand consequences somehow and this game will have many if you don't have the mind and responsibility of an adult to handle it.
It seems like you want to protect people from making mistakes and learning from them, when this game is going to be about exactly that. It will be a trial and error of thousands of players attempting to make a virtual civilization.
Yes, scum bags exist and griefing will happen, like everywhere. The goal here is to make sure that it's 100% player responsibility if you want to keep DAC or not.
Official protest! to constitution on planet -> up to 1 km
in General Discussions
Posted
I agree, we need tools made by the devs to help us as players to manage this kind of stuff within safe zones, and we do not have that yet.