Anopheles

The "problem" is that NQ choose the easy/quick way out. IMO the solution here would have been to only allow using the Maneuver tool (to dock) on a construct you do not own if it it parked on a tile you have already claimed and not when you claim it with the construct being parked on it.
 
If you park your construct on a claimed tile.. you really only have yourself to blame, regardless of circumstances.
 

Challenging the validity of someone's claims is foundational to rhetoric; that necessarily involves calling out examples as valid or invalid through reasoning and discussion. And, yes, while the product of that is technically my opinion, it's based on logic and reasoning that I've laid out. It's no different from what you've done, and if you want your opinion to be take seriously, you have to be willing to defend it.
I agree with this, up to a point. Gaining new players and keeping them is incredibly important, obviously, and griefing should be addressed quickly and efficiently. But determining what is and is not griefing has to be more deliberate and specific than merely saying "don't be a dick." Establishing this concept has been the entire point of my posts. Game balance is an important discussion. Player interactions and behavior guidelines is an important discussion. Broadly labeling certain players or actions as "being a dick" does very little to forward either of these discussions.

There's no evidence that this will lose players, particularly if NQ are honest about the game.
 
It isn't a civilisation building game by the way it's a civilisation-s building game.  Some like Singapore where littering gets you a hefty fine and some will be like a war torn, barely functioning Mid African state and all the points in between.
 
Using the "over-gods" of NQ to solve not-actually-exploits but rather mechanics used "amorally" wont do the game any favours either.

Garbage ""FIX" - right now I can't dock my own ships to my own ships using the MAV. I immediately take damage if I try to fly off. GARBAGE!

This.
 
Frankly I'm actually upset that NQ seems to have issues with space dongs.

This will depend on the cross section of your ship.  If it looks like a wall from the front, go slower.

I have never mined a moon in this game, dont think i ever will, especially not the safe zone ones.  Just so you know, all the ore on the proper planets is flowing nicely, huge veins everywhere because the majority of players seem to be scared of pvp which is not going to be in the game for several months.

Dude. That’s not trolling, that’s strategically impeding your opponents.
 
Find one as near to others’ settlements as possible. That way you prevent your opponents from gathering higher tier stuff. The key is to find a pristine or loosely mined tile (just dig down a bit and then fill in your hole holding the alt key and you’ll poke through and be able to get a decent view of the current tile’s situation)...
in most cases, it will be just the T1 stuff that is gone. 
 if it looks like only the surface has been mined mine half of the high tier material. If you mine it all, your opponents will see a lack of high tier materials and pass on the tile. The key is to leave enough to entice your opponents to mine, but leave scraps so that your opponents will waste as much time as possible. Your aim is to create as much frustration as possible to encourage them to purchase ores from the market place at as high a price as possible. 
 
Ps. I’m not a miner, I’m just saying what “strategic miners” do.  

Chalk this up as lesson learned.  He should not be sanctioned. You attempted to buy something with ingame money.  Which is fine.  But you chose to try to buy something that doesn't exist "in game".  So this is a valid scam.  If you tried to buy for IRL money then it would be RMT and you both would be liable to be held accountable per their TOS.  Only IRL transfers can go thru NQ. For subs/DAC (when they come out).  If you tried to buy something that is an ingame item, you could use the barter system to be way more secure.  Buyer beware when purchasing services from other people.  

I think this slightly unexpected result of combining different mechanisms of the game actually makes it more lifelike - if you leave your bicycle unattended in remote area, it would also get stolen and police would not help you. Anything which moves this already amazing game closer to absolute virtual reality is cool.

It really is the non-pvpers who are the most toxic. I have a decade worth of eve experience and evidence backing it. Instead of daphne finding a game that's fun for her, she has to go to the forums of a game whose gameplay she doesn't agree with and tout "it never works" and thinks no person should ever be allowed to play a game with open world pvp, and those who do and play games like eve are psychotic.  Me on the other hand, understand that people have different tastes and while I personally dislike games like WoW or fortnight, am glad they exist and are there for people to play who enjoy them.  I stick to playing games I'm interested in, like a normal well adjusted adult.

What this dyng fire requires is a Daphne grenade to put it out.
 
I do feel for you Daphne, forced at gunpoint to play a game with explicit open world pvp in it.  Especially one with extensive safe zones where you can sit tutting to your heart's content.
 

What this dyng fire requires is a Daphne grenade to put it out.
 
I do feel for you Daphne, forced at gunpoint to play a game with explicit open world pvp in it.  Especially one with extensive safe zones where you can sit tutting to your heart's content.
 

Getting joy from taking someone's queen in chess is being sadistic.

Thank you for that clarification - in context that nuance slipped past me. When you addressed joao and questioned his social abilities directly, it seems to have biased me a bit towards interpreting the rest as criticism of his character. After that I've read "I wouldn't make such a stupid assumption" as if you were referring to his opinion/assumption about "most ppl playing MMOs". Sincerely sorry for calling that out, but at the same time I'm a bit happy I did too, because this gave the chance to make it perfectly clear. Reading again with your additional statement your comment comes across less aggressive and takes a bit off the edge in the sentence before that. Still a bit fierce, but I guess not enough to be called out like that.
 
Well, he said "most ppl" and not "anyone doing x" - a small but significant difference as well. But yes, it's not ok to storm into a biker's bar and announce something negative starting with "Most bikers..." either, as too many might feel addressed and provoked by this. When doing something like this one should at least start with "In my opinion..." or provide some statistic to back up the claim. Even better to replace "most" with "many" or if not provable "some" at best, just to make it less bold and keep it humble, which always sits better on the receiving end and takes them into maybe fruitful consideration instead of defense.
 
However, choice of words ain't always perfect (especially since many of us don't have English as their native language) and the receiver might make a mistake too - as seen above that doesn't exclude me either. So by default I'd prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, as I should have doubted my initial interpretation of your posting when writing that small foreword above my wall of text
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

I never called anything but my own possible assumption stupid.  A small but significant difference.
 
I'd wished you'd called out the "Anyone spending too long in Dual Universe is socially stunted and/or incapable" assumption instead, but you do you, I guess.

i pvp for the salt and tears of my victims. does that make me a bad person?

OP: NQ's attitude towards PvP and consent to PvP is SO refreshing I can hardly believe it. It really is about time that a game company put the responsibility of engaging in PvP back on the player where it belongs. This is the way the game is. It has PvP. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Thats amazing that you have the power to know that people who shoot people in a video game are getting sexual pleasure out of it.  I wish I had your powers.

Correct - we had a very different set of rules - but the rules of the game world did not apply to us.
 
The rules of the game world do not apply to JC.
 
Him owning 37 tiles does not impact your gameplay.
 
Get over it.
 

This isn't the T20 eve scandal. There is zero impact. Just uninstall if you're salty about it.
 
In fact, if you comment that you're uninstalling - I'll make another DU alt to cover the loss of your sub and the stupid drama you create over non issues.

Love too, sounds like a idea I'd want to crash into at speed.  Alas, I cant explain how to do an exploit.

This point about Sanctuary is spot on. It doesn't make a lot of sense that the game starts players on Alioth, asks them to move to Sanctuary to finish the tutorial, and then the mechanics of the game essentially force them to either move back to Alioth or another planet if they want to progress at a reasonable pace. It would make a lot more sense to start players on Sanctuary, have them complete the basic tutorial of the game there, and then have that basic intro conclude on one of the Districts of Alioth where they can either complete the rest of the available tutorials or forge out on their own.
 
Sanctuary is a deadend. There is currently no reason to be there other than the game telling you to go there, but it could have some value as the literal starting place for new players who are just trying to learn the basic mechanics. It just doesn't make sense to move players there if they aren't starting there.

Well topically this thread is incorrect. Mechanically I am of two minds - one, yeah it sucks to have your ship moved without your consent to PvP space and destroyed. However, the mechanics used to do this are sound. Why, do you ask, easy:
 
1) You want players to remove junk from their property. So we don't want the ability to remove constructs from your land as that just means folks will grief you by parking borg cubes on your ship/base so you can't use it.
2) You want players to be able to tow other player's ships (as a "business" or as an "org function" or something similar). This is immersive and potential gameplay - AAA ship transport and towing.
3) You were offline but 1 and 2 still need to be viable as not having them would allow worse things to happen or not allow emergent gameplay
 
I don't see folks complaining about people free range mining land they haven't claimed.
I don't see folks complaining about people putting borg shells over their property as a "denial of use" effort.
 
Yes it sucks, yes it's a lesson for us all, but no, as the game mechanics were used and you did park your ship at an insecure location and it got stolen, it is not an exploit. Sadly I can't agree with the OP no matter how much I want to agree with the OP.
 
Bottom line: Sucks - yes, exploit - no.  

23 hrs makes perfect sense. If you play every day from 9pm then having th timer set to 24 hrs would mean you’d have to log in later and later each day to get your reward. 
 
setting it to 23 hrs means that even if you logged in 15 minutes early at 8:45 one day, say, you would get your reward. 

Using voxels for defence leads inevitably to cubes, limiting design choices and combat interest.