Daphne Jones

As long as it doesn't cause lag (but it does), yes. The most annoying thing is the 10 advertisers, none of which blocks the entrance, but collectively they make it very hard to get to the entrance. Even if you clear that, there's lag. My game always (literally always) crashes right after I land at a district market and often does that at non-district markets too.

Putting a wall around the scammer's construct would definitely get you banned, ironically. That's in an NQ clarification somewhere - no blocking other people's advertising. I'd really like to see advertising at the markets/districts banned.

I mine T4 because people buy and pay high prices for it. I don't do industry if I can avoid it, so no idea what it's used for. I don't mine T5 for the same reason. Prices may be high, but the total market volume doesn't justify hauling much of it back to Alioth (usually).

First, in the long run, there won't be any pure pve ships because what you can do in a safe zone is too limited. And you should attended the upcoming expo. Might change your mind about what ship builders can do. If we're going to have engines applying torque, 1. adjustors should also apply linear thrust and 2. I should be able to building functioning lifting surfaces from voxels. BTW, they tried applying torque from the engines/ailerons in pre-alpha and found it made building ships too hard without providing much fun. I really don't see them going back to that.

Well, I'm glad I'm not using AGG anymore, cause that's gonna be FUBAR with the physics change. But otherwise, good and needed changes.

Hi Pann. Welcome. What does ICYMI mean?

Except for the bot sellers/buyers, the prices are the buy and sell orders from players at that market. (AFAIK, bot prices are global but have some randomness to them).

Good insight OP. To play devil's advocate, DU does have a lot of Eve players as well as a lot of former Landmark players. I came in from SC and there seem to be quite a few SC players, although community toxicity keeps most of us quiet about it.

Oh. I thought Mario was jumping on his ship. If Mario is jumping off the ship he's not likely to hit moving target.

Why would you land a ship that big at a market? Park it at 1 km.

Actually it is broken for me and works fine for pirates. They can sit out of range in their XS borg cubes with L guns and destroy my ship before I can get in range to lock. (Remember, you're proposing dropping me into this situation from warp, so I'm starting disoriented and stationary.) I have L guns too, but they're useless if I can't get in range. (I assume the meta ships can accel backwards fast enough to prevent me closing the gap - they would be able to if I built them).

AGG resists gravity directly. Increasing the mass will reduce your acceleration, but not crash your ship.

Dropping undefendable (because combat is broken) ships into combat space is forcing combat on ships that can't defend themselves. Why do you want to attack ships that can't defend themselves? Your argument will be valid when combat works well enough that the guns I do bring give me a chance of escape, but that's not the case now.

Forcing PVP when PVP is broken would just result in a mass exodus of most of the players. My cargo ships are already set up for combat but they wouldn't survive against the current meta - and the current meta can't haul cargo. I do assume that when combat is better balanced, I will have to enter combat zones on some trips (and if you fly cargo for an enemy PVP org, I will be griefing you... and yes, it's griefing even when I do it.)

So I got an answer to one of my old support issues. The issue was : I lost a ship irretrievably before I had a chance to BP it; is it possible to retroactively get a BP for it? I won't quote the response here, but it was essentially: sorry you had a problem; we fixed it (totally false); try relogging and clearing the cache; closing the the ticket. It gave no sign at all that the support person had even read the issue. My guess is that this response was actually sent by a bot - a bot that sent an identical response to all outstanding tickets just to clear the queue. More evidence that NQ is totally MIA ?‍♀️ P.S. I recognize that my request was a long short... the game may or may not store the data to recreate an un-BPed ship and even if it does, it may not be easy to retrieve.... "No" would be a perfectly acceptable response. "I can't be bothered to read your request so F off" is not an acceptable response.

Definitely a good reason to mount the containers on the outside of the ship and unamored lol.

Objects in a set of containers on a hub are not in any particular container. Destroying a container in the set would presumably be just like removing one from the set - it reduces the total volume capacity of the set, but doesn't delete any items contained in the set. I suspect that if the new capacity is less than what's stored in it, you would be able to remove items, but not put them back in until you were below the new capacity.

Generally this looks like good game design to me. I have two concerns about it: With bots no longer selling basic elements, it's already difficult to put together parts for a ship. It requires flying to 10-20 markets on 2 planets to get everything needed for a M core ship... and some things, elevators, T2+ elements, T2+ honeycomb are often not available at all. Except for honeycomb, element destruction will exacerbate this problem. I am definitely seeing T3+ ore drying up on several planets. It's taking 5 times as many scans to find it now compared to about a month ago. We will need renewable ore sources.

Glad to hear you're starting to monitor the in-game channel again. I hope that means the highly toxic environment that developed there as soon as beta was opened up to the public will get moderated a bit.

1. CS tickets are just ignored as far as I can tell. I reported a game-blocking bug on day one of beta (dynamic core exploding on deployment) which has yet to get a response. I assumed it had been fixed, but one of my org mates experienced this bug last week. (And you still owe me a Territory Scanner to replace the one taken by a container bug - I doubt anyone in NQ has read that ticket yet.) 2. NQ no longer monitors the badly mis-named support channel in game. Support used to actually be available there for critical game stopping bugs. I used to have pretty relationships with several NQ- people, but now they're ghosts. 3. Apparrently the only remaining channel for communication with NQ is a discord completely controlled by players who are hostile to me... so not even slightly useful. (And to be fair, I'm hostile to them too, but they started it.)

That's why "different" is first and unqualified in my statement.

I bet it has a rectangular collision box, lol. I've seen some very strange stuff with collision boxes that are too big or the wrong shape.

I've suggested before that NQ should add T1 "solid fuel" rockets that are very cheap and even less controllable than the existing T3 rockets. That would allow them to require rockets for getting to space - for example, if space engines had to be in vacuum to operate at all, transitioning from atmos directly to space would be too hard for most pilots. You would use T1 rockets to get out of atmo until you could afford T3 rockets. But if T3 rockets are required, space flight would be too limited. BTW, AGG is T4 compared to rockets at T3. Of course it has different and to some extent better capabilities.

Well, I haven't quit yet. But there are two reasons I might 1. NQ's complete lack of engagement with players. Used to be I could get help when a bug interfered drastically with game play. That's no longer the case. 2. Dumbing down of building. I used to build ships with working airlocks; functional engineering stations; bunks; bathrooms - but now I have to build for unwanted combat encounters. I can't afford to have to replace those things to re-deploy from a BP if I get ambushed. I also can't afford the extra mass that could be allocated to either armor or cargo. So instead of cool, fun spaceships, I'm building easy to replace crap. I don't even use doors on most of them. I no longer use windows. Building isn't much fun any more. Hmmm... I guess there's a third reason. 3. Lack of progress in Lua - actually regression in Lua, since we can no longer capture info from radar. My big complaint on this is lack of access to orbital parameters. NQ said back in alpha that we would get this and I've been holding off on adding nav to my script set until with have them (rather than adding ad hoc orbital calculations in Lua that will fail as soon as the next star system is added). I'm assumed the game was calculating orbital parameters in C to draw the trajectory lines - but now that I think of it, if the orbital parameters are not really being calculated, that would explain the apparently unstable orbits.

I keep asking that, but everyone just seems addicted to it. Any other T4 scrap is better. Even lithium scrap (T3) repairs more per kg of scrap I think. (I need to actually test that). Pay your market taxes... much cheaper than getting scammed.