Mncdk1

The implementation we're going to get of recycling, seems to be - at the same time - both the laziest implementation they could have done, and also, a needlessly complicated implementation.
 
The needlessly complicated part is the need to rightclick on everything that I want to recycle. If I crash a ship a few times, and take the parts off when they reach one life each, then I now have a ton of parts that I need to rightclick>recycle on each one individually. You know, you could have just made a random machine that had an input box, and an output box. And players would have been fine with that. The machine only needed an "on or off" state; "Recycle the contents of the input box, yes/no?". Instead it was made pointlessly tedious to do.
At least that part feels familiar.
 
Secondly, the way the output seems to be chosen, at least according to NQ Riply and what was shown on the stream, the recycling process just picks a random input material, and gives you all of it? What kind of nonsense if that? I've destroyed and repaired an element X numbers of times, but every single piece of Y input materials that went into making it, is perfectly fine and the lot will be recycled?!? COME ON. At least make element lives matter. Give all of the materials, but some percentage of each, which is then reduced as element lives are reduced.
 
Sorry, Deckard wants balanced feedback, so I should say something nice. The tower with the colored lumi-glass rings looked kinda neat.

The implementation we're going to get of recycling, seems to be - at the same time - both the laziest implementation they could have done, and also, a needlessly complicated implementation.
 
The needlessly complicated part is the need to rightclick on everything that I want to recycle. If I crash a ship a few times, and take the parts off when they reach one life each, then I now have a ton of parts that I need to rightclick>recycle on each one individually. You know, you could have just made a random machine that had an input box, and an output box. And players would have been fine with that. The machine only needed an "on or off" state; "Recycle the contents of the input box, yes/no?". Instead it was made pointlessly tedious to do.
At least that part feels familiar.
 
Secondly, the way the output seems to be chosen, at least according to NQ Riply and what was shown on the stream, the recycling process just picks a random input material, and gives you all of it? What kind of nonsense if that? I've destroyed and repaired an element X numbers of times, but every single piece of Y input materials that went into making it, is perfectly fine and the lot will be recycled?!? COME ON. At least make element lives matter. Give all of the materials, but some percentage of each, which is then reduced as element lives are reduced.
 
Sorry, Deckard wants balanced feedback, so I should say something nice. The tower with the colored lumi-glass rings looked kinda neat.

The implementation we're going to get of recycling, seems to be - at the same time - both the laziest implementation they could have done, and also, a needlessly complicated implementation.
 
The needlessly complicated part is the need to rightclick on everything that I want to recycle. If I crash a ship a few times, and take the parts off when they reach one life each, then I now have a ton of parts that I need to rightclick>recycle on each one individually. You know, you could have just made a random machine that had an input box, and an output box. And players would have been fine with that. The machine only needed an "on or off" state; "Recycle the contents of the input box, yes/no?". Instead it was made pointlessly tedious to do.
At least that part feels familiar.
 
Secondly, the way the output seems to be chosen, at least according to NQ Riply and what was shown on the stream, the recycling process just picks a random input material, and gives you all of it? What kind of nonsense if that? I've destroyed and repaired an element X numbers of times, but every single piece of Y input materials that went into making it, is perfectly fine and the lot will be recycled?!? COME ON. At least make element lives matter. Give all of the materials, but some percentage of each, which is then reduced as element lives are reduced.
 
Sorry, Deckard wants balanced feedback, so I should say something nice. The tower with the colored lumi-glass rings looked kinda neat.

The implementation we're going to get of recycling, seems to be - at the same time - both the laziest implementation they could have done, and also, a needlessly complicated implementation.
 
The needlessly complicated part is the need to rightclick on everything that I want to recycle. If I crash a ship a few times, and take the parts off when they reach one life each, then I now have a ton of parts that I need to rightclick>recycle on each one individually. You know, you could have just made a random machine that had an input box, and an output box. And players would have been fine with that. The machine only needed an "on or off" state; "Recycle the contents of the input box, yes/no?". Instead it was made pointlessly tedious to do.
At least that part feels familiar.
 
Secondly, the way the output seems to be chosen, at least according to NQ Riply and what was shown on the stream, the recycling process just picks a random input material, and gives you all of it? What kind of nonsense if that? I've destroyed and repaired an element X numbers of times, but every single piece of Y input materials that went into making it, is perfectly fine and the lot will be recycled?!? COME ON. At least make element lives matter. Give all of the materials, but some percentage of each, which is then reduced as element lives are reduced.
 
Sorry, Deckard wants balanced feedback, so I should say something nice. The tower with the colored lumi-glass rings looked kinda neat.

The implementation we're going to get of recycling, seems to be - at the same time - both the laziest implementation they could have done, and also, a needlessly complicated implementation.
 
The needlessly complicated part is the need to rightclick on everything that I want to recycle. If I crash a ship a few times, and take the parts off when they reach one life each, then I now have a ton of parts that I need to rightclick>recycle on each one individually. You know, you could have just made a random machine that had an input box, and an output box. And players would have been fine with that. The machine only needed an "on or off" state; "Recycle the contents of the input box, yes/no?". Instead it was made pointlessly tedious to do.
At least that part feels familiar.
 
Secondly, the way the output seems to be chosen, at least according to NQ Riply and what was shown on the stream, the recycling process just picks a random input material, and gives you all of it? What kind of nonsense if that? I've destroyed and repaired an element X numbers of times, but every single piece of Y input materials that went into making it, is perfectly fine and the lot will be recycled?!? COME ON. At least make element lives matter. Give all of the materials, but some percentage of each, which is then reduced as element lives are reduced.
 
Sorry, Deckard wants balanced feedback, so I should say something nice. The tower with the colored lumi-glass rings looked kinda neat.

The implementation we're going to get of recycling, seems to be - at the same time - both the laziest implementation they could have done, and also, a needlessly complicated implementation.
 
The needlessly complicated part is the need to rightclick on everything that I want to recycle. If I crash a ship a few times, and take the parts off when they reach one life each, then I now have a ton of parts that I need to rightclick>recycle on each one individually. You know, you could have just made a random machine that had an input box, and an output box. And players would have been fine with that. The machine only needed an "on or off" state; "Recycle the contents of the input box, yes/no?". Instead it was made pointlessly tedious to do.
At least that part feels familiar.
 
Secondly, the way the output seems to be chosen, at least according to NQ Riply and what was shown on the stream, the recycling process just picks a random input material, and gives you all of it? What kind of nonsense if that? I've destroyed and repaired an element X numbers of times, but every single piece of Y input materials that went into making it, is perfectly fine and the lot will be recycled?!? COME ON. At least make element lives matter. Give all of the materials, but some percentage of each, which is then reduced as element lives are reduced.
 
Sorry, Deckard wants balanced feedback, so I should say something nice. The tower with the colored lumi-glass rings looked kinda neat.

Some schematics are in really over-simplified groups. The most obvious example for me, is Detection Zone L. It's a tiny little electronic doo-dad that apparently needs to take as long, to make a schematic for, as an advanced large engine. That's honestly just stupid.
 
There are probably many other good examples (gates maybe), but generally, items seem to be grouped around their naming schemes. It would make more sense to me, to group things around which machine size is needed to produce something.
 
Please fix the groups. A detection zone L shouldn't be considered a large element.

What is the expected timeline for adding the planets back?
You can't just remove more than half of the planets and give a vague "They're coming later..."
 
WHEN? Will all the planets be added within, say, a month? 3 months? a year?
 
Removing 7 out of 12 planets and then launching the game seems completely insane to me.

You mean AWS, that grinds to a halt every other time there's a new patch, or every time there's a wednesday in the week.
 
Also what Zarcata said. You're gonna charge full price for half a game? What a joke.
 
Edit:
And this is a flat-out lie. The game is barely out of alpha, every bug fix introduces new bugs. "Won't be in a beta state" my ass.
 

You mean AWS, that grinds to a halt every other time there's a new patch, or every time there's a wednesday in the week.
 
Also what Zarcata said. You're gonna charge full price for half a game? What a joke.
 
Edit:
And this is a flat-out lie. The game is barely out of alpha, every bug fix introduces new bugs. "Won't be in a beta state" my ass.
 

You mean AWS, that grinds to a halt every other time there's a new patch, or every time there's a wednesday in the week.
 
Also what Zarcata said. You're gonna charge full price for half a game? What a joke.
 
Edit:
And this is a flat-out lie. The game is barely out of alpha, every bug fix introduces new bugs. "Won't be in a beta state" my ass.
 

You mean AWS, that grinds to a halt every other time there's a new patch, or every time there's a wednesday in the week.
 
Also what Zarcata said. You're gonna charge full price for half a game? What a joke.
 
Edit:
And this is a flat-out lie. The game is barely out of alpha, every bug fix introduces new bugs. "Won't be in a beta state" my ass.
 

Keep in mind, that not all 12th gen CPU's even have E-cores.
12100, 300, 400, 500, and 600 only have P-cores, until you get to the 12600K which has 6 P-cores and 4 E-cores.
 
So anyone who has upgraded to 12th gen, but chosen to get a cheaper CPU "for now", could just have no E-cores to begin with.
 
Only Intel 12th gen have E-cores on PC atm. To avoid E-cores, avoid 12600K and higher.

Some schematics are in really over-simplified groups. The most obvious example for me, is Detection Zone L. It's a tiny little electronic doo-dad that apparently needs to take as long, to make a schematic for, as an advanced large engine. That's honestly just stupid.
 
There are probably many other good examples (gates maybe), but generally, items seem to be grouped around their naming schemes. It would make more sense to me, to group things around which machine size is needed to produce something.
 
Please fix the groups. A detection zone L shouldn't be considered a large element.

This could be a very interesting idea. I will share it with the team.

I love this idea. I've heard the idea tossed around before of having an instanced location where we can build ships, and I think it would be very cool to have a zone where we can design ships and code and copy paste out code, and save blueprints.

With the return of element lifetimes the development of Lua flight scripts (e.g. flying_construct.conf) carries the risk of excessive costs.

The solution would be to provide a VR environment similar to that in the "Challenges" tab of the Surrogate Pod UI, but where the ships have no DRM restrictions on their controllers. The code loaded into those controllers should not be saved to the server, but copy & paste should be permitted. Loading of configuration from the lua/autoconf/custom folder should be allowed.

Offering a variety of ships would be great and if a variety of elements (radars, guns etc.) were available to modify the ships it would magnify the development possibilities.

Yeah I was using 64 GB when I wrote OP, but I have not seen memory related crashes for a little bit.
 
My bad, I assumed it was DLSS related, because what you described is what the game does for me when I use DLSS.

Some schematics are in really over-simplified groups. The most obvious example for me, is Detection Zone L. It's a tiny little electronic doo-dad that apparently needs to take as long, to make a schematic for, as an advanced large engine. That's honestly just stupid.
 
There are probably many other good examples (gates maybe), but generally, items seem to be grouped around their naming schemes. It would make more sense to me, to group things around which machine size is needed to produce something.
 
Please fix the groups. A detection zone L shouldn't be considered a large element.

I built a brand new ship this week.  It worked fine and then the next day I logged back in and got into the seat and it said 'elements have been disabled because they are overlapping'.  For a freshly built ship with no tricks used, just placing elements next to one another.  The element being complained about was an adjustor and there seems to be no way to know which adjustor it is.  Nothing is highlighted anywhere except on the element list.  So I had to spend a miserable 20 minutes just moving adjustors around randomly to try and make the error go away, which it eventually did (although not immediately so I still don't know what was wrong.  There was nothing obviously overlapping.
 
So today I'm trying to make one of my existing ships work.  It was purchased from a well known ship-builder who does not use any sort of Janko on their ships.  I have the 'overlapping' error on one or more of 36 wings, 6 vertical boosters and 35 atmos airbrakes.  And no obvious way to see how to fix it.  I don't even know where all the elements are because I didn't build the ship.  And isn't that the whole point of buying a ship, that you don't have to mess about with this stuff.
 
This sort of thing might fly in a beta but, franky, this is not good enough for a release.  My pre-existing ship will, admittedly, be wiped so that will be a solved problem but a lot will not be and the ship I built fresh was a post-wipe ship I intend to use.  Brand new players are going to come into the game and build ships and this is going to be their first experience (after the dodgy element placement which is a lot worse than it used to be and errors about clashes when the item is blue, forcing a miserable trial-and-error which sometimes ends with the element jumping a few voxels after you place it. 
 
I understand why this was added into the game, but after all these months it still can't tell the difference between 'our game is broken and put something an imperceptible distance inside another element' and 'Sneaky Snake put 57 engines on top of each other to make his Rifter go really fast'.  This is not rocket science and should be really easy to code, erring on the safe side rather than making some flaky thing which tries to be perfect.  Then just permaban people who deliberately stack elements.
 
Frankly, either get it right or get it out of the game before release because this is a terrible experience.  And right now it seems pretty far from being right even after all the time which has been spent on it.

It was mentioned on an Ask Aphelia episode, that you guys haven't received a ton of requests to lower the memory usage of DU.
 
Let me put forth this request. Please fix the memory leak.
 
When I play the game for long enough, my game will crash. It's not a matter of "if", but rather "is the game open for long enough".
 
Obviously I don't see this issue anymore, since I don't have long play-sessions these days . For obvious reasons, which NQ caused. We're still waiting.

NQ, why do you ask for our input (and why do we waste our time on it) when there is zero response and you go ahead with every change regardless?
 
You are trying to address one area of the game (PvP) and are using a very broad brush. Please allow for at least one metal HC type (aluminum being the current popular choice) to be light weight. Ship builders for PvE ships have no metal textures at their disposal, except those starting at weight 50 now.
 
Building is one of the most popular aspects of this game. Please don't just casually impact the great parts of the game while you are trying to fix something else.

NQ, thanks for completely ignoring the input regarding tier 1 pures, specifically regarding aluminium doubling in mass.
 
Could have been such a simple fix, just swapping two materials of the same tier, and it would make a lot of builders happy.
 
You even adjusted some of the decorative materials, you could have easily made this entire change a 'meh' thing, but instead you stuck to your guns about doubling aluminium. It's so stupid.

It was mentioned on an Ask Aphelia episode, that you guys haven't received a ton of requests to lower the memory usage of DU.
 
Let me put forth this request. Please fix the memory leak.
 
When I play the game for long enough, my game will crash. It's not a matter of "if", but rather "is the game open for long enough".
 
Obviously I don't see this issue anymore, since I don't have long play-sessions these days . For obvious reasons, which NQ caused. We're still waiting.

NQ, thanks for completely ignoring the input regarding tier 1 pures, specifically regarding aluminium doubling in mass.
 
Could have been such a simple fix, just swapping two materials of the same tier, and it would make a lot of builders happy.
 
You even adjusted some of the decorative materials, you could have easily made this entire change a 'meh' thing, but instead you stuck to your guns about doubling aluminium. It's so stupid.