[Thanks for Blaming Us NQ!]

1 hour ago, DemonAn9el said:

Its funny if you think they dont already track this information. They do. Its not hard to see what accounts log in from what public ip address or even the mac address associated with it. 

Spoofing and VPNs are not hard. That wouldn't be a reliable solution.

[Thanks for Blaming Us NQ!]

The early economy broke so hard that they wiped accounts over a certain amount of quanta because people made billions in a few days, but that wasn't a true fix, as it didn't touch any wealth in the form of elements, ore, voxels or constructs. The buying power was still wildly concentrated. That is probably what they were referring to.

As for your multiple arguments about ore being income? You realise, you can use the ore to craft things, it's not just there to be sold for quanta. And if it's so cheap that you can't make income out of it, then it is cheap enough to buy with your 100k allowance and craft things with.

And the low buy orders? You only sell to them if you either:
a) click on the button for selling to that order, and then click the confirmation window without reading it, or
b) click on 'instant sell' and then click on the confirmation window without reading it.

As for alts? Yeah, feels like cheating, especially if you're one of the people who can't afford it, but how would you suggest they stop it? How would you prove that an account is an alt, without tracking data that everyone would be outraged at?

[QOL Inventory/Container UI Improvement]

When transferring items from one inventory/container to another, and you have both inventories open side-by-side, the notification about transferred items/failed transfers covers up the Mass readout of the left inventory and the Volume readout of the right inventory. I feel the simplest solution would be to move the Mass and Volume readouts to both be on the bottom left of the inventory, one above the other for left or singular inventories, and on the bottom right when there is a second open. I have added pictures of the current layout, of the readouts being obscured, and a mock-up of my suggested layout.

[NEW SCHEMATICS - Discussion Thread]

Why would you not just keep both systems?
Expensive reusable single-part blueprints, and cheap single-use part-range blueprints.
Also, a central schematic database unit, which you can connect to machines so that you can manage all the blueprints in one place, and share the blueprint across multiple machines (but only 1 using it at a time) would be really nice. Especially if you can pick it up and retain the blueprints inside.

[How hard (or easy) will it be to earn DAC?]

One solution that i can see, would be to create a second kind of item which is converted from DACs, or which DACs are converted from. i.e:

NovaQuark would sell DACs in Coupon Containers (or whatever they get to be called) which are unlootable, but also unusable and unsellable. In order to redeem or sell a DAC, it must first be converted to its lootable form. This protects those who buy their DACs with IRL money, but still allows for piracy of DACs after they are traded.

EDIT: I just noticed that other people have had similar ideas. I didn't really go through all the posts, just read the OP and had an idea.

[Ship Copyright Infringement?]

Ideas:

You design the blueprint for a ship, then you use it to create the ship.
Can't create blueprint from the ship. Can't edit "bought" ships.

 

Can buy, say, a core unit that supplies a blueprint around it, once built, it reverts to a normal core unit (blueprint lost).

This ship, built by you, off someone else's blueprint, can be edited by you, and on-sold (if desired), but you are unable to create a blueprint for this new ship unless you do it from scratch.

 

That way, "normal-quality" ships can be supplied as blueprint core units, that people can build and after that, edit. (must be built EXACTLY to the blueprint before it can be edited). If people go to the effort of reverse engineering, good for them, but not worth it.

Higher-quality ships sold as pre-built, and those ships can't be edited unless you take them back to the creator, and request the changes.

[DevBlog: Monetization, player happiness and economic viability]

I would suggest a buy-to-play system, but allow player to choose to pay in installments.

There is the financial incentive not to cause trouble, and those who can't afford to buy it outright are able to pay it off in increments.

In such a system, there is the potential to have different tiers of players, for example, each tier of payment unlocks certain extended features, such as skill caps, ship sizes, market slots, etc.

You can try the game to a point, and if you don't like it, there is no subscription to cancel, and you haven't payed for the whole content.
If you do like the game, you can keep paying to unlock the rest of the progression.
It would also be helpful for those whose exchange rates make them pay exorbitant amounts.