blazemonger

It's because of what I mentioned I believe. NQ tends to not actually address issues like this, they will broadly bomd the area, hoping they eliminate the target. They also seem to still be more inclined to remove symptoms than the actual cause of the issuees. And with it, the technical debt continues to grow.

I had a talk with some buidlers I own ships from and generally they are adamant none of the elemnts they use are glitched or stacked in anyway and so there should not be an issue. But the report seems to indicate there is. It will be very interesting to see how NQ will try and spin their way out of this, frankly, I can only see this getting pulled form the patch until it is properly investigated and working as it should, prevent glitched or stacked elements and not punish buildiers due to lazy hitboxes and generally silly behavior that whould not be a problem.

The question should be asked why the asteroids are not an integral part of the game, despawning once below a certain percentage of ore left and a new one spawning shortly after in the same general area. Why is it seemingly the case that a script needs to be run at a specific time to restart the cycle? Why is what NQ considers an important faucet for the game (and it could be) a bolted on event? I'd actually go as far as to say that the majority of ore needed by players could be coming from asteroids, maybe even should be.

So you do have the option to selectively not have constructs show on radar, I do seriously hope you apply the same to constructs once TW arrives.. And in all the hours I have spent on sevral planets I have never, not once found anything. and I have actually tried specifically on a number of occasions..

This, absolutely. The change is massively overshooting it's purpose and I called it carpetbombing while a surgical strike is needed. The impact of this is far to severe for what it is trying to prevent. This comment from three months ago is very valid and a great example of foresight which seems to have been ignored. As-is, this change will possible be the most destructive for the game as a whole and will cause a massive amount of problems and as @Atmosph3rik correctly states, the ability to use stacking has already been removed, this broadstroke change to exsiting constructs where the vast majority of identified "issues" in no way relates to the reasons for the removal of the exploit is really a bad sign of things to come. On top of this, it is communicated in a terrible way which is already leading to many frantically trying to fix something which is not and never was an issue in this matter. And as I really do not see how NQ can push this through unles they just choose to ignore it and decide to take it as it falls, all that effort will be for nothing so NQ will need to act and act quickly @NQ-Deckard @NQ-Sesch .. please look at this withy urgency.. I fear you are about to throw the baby out witt hte bathwater here.

The issue here seems to be that NQ is taking this way beyond "stacking" elements and pretty much punishes anyone who puts elements down in a way tha they even slight ly touch. The hitboxes being off in many cases and also the snap points seem to be all over the place. The level of feedback already seen wil lbe an interesting testcase for NQ's commitment to better listen to their community through the feedback and frankly, they wil lneed to do quite a bit of work before they can follow through on the planned changes in Panacea unless they choose to take the fallout of ships no longer flying and/or suddenly behaving very different as it comes in. Just talking to DUscord and forums will not suffice here as it is well knowsn many players do not frequent either. We'll see how this plays out but I'd really like DU to take a step back here and first make sure they will not cause major issues in game form something they hav eallowed and are not taking with way stricter boundries than previously understood or expected. This was never about designers placing elemnst close together to have a good base to then voxel a nice looking ship together, it was about ships having multiple engines in the same place and so gaining massive advantages and performance while there was a very small footprint. This seem to be another carpet bombing action where a surgical strike is really needed.

This now makes absolutely no sense at all after @NQ-Deckard shared in DUscord that the "suspension" is ONLY for existing active paid for territories and NOT for any new ones or for those that were inactive before this comes into effect. So, how exactly does this help in "This will allow the Design team time to revisit the tax rate, which many community members said was too steep.", this actually contradict this very statement/excuse/reason entirely and just adds to the (usual) confusion and vagueness of what NQ is communicating. Inquiring mind wants to know.. [EDIT/UPDATE FOLOWING THE ACTUAL PATCH] As it turns out, what Deckard thought was the case is not so. Territory which was inactive prior to the patch now is active despite not having made payment [ANOTHER UPDATE] To make thinsg less complicated, it seems that tiles that have been inactive with no taxes paid on them ever (HQ tiles) will remain inactive with this patch. It's also possible that tiles due tax yesterday were activated after all.. who knows.. It's all very .. vague..

I'd certainly like to see a "Scanning Analysis" and maybe "Advanced Scanning Analysis" talent. Scanning analysis would reduce scan time by 5% per level, advanced requires this talent to be L5 and then allows for a further 5% per level so when trained fully you reduce time for a scan by 50%. I'd be fine with that being an x2 and x4 talent respectively.

I'd say that the massive and extensive API EVE has shows this to be plain incorrect. Many of the excellent and generally very useful tools publically available are helping everyone playing if they choose to use them. There is no way NQ can disallow this. If they would not want us to have access to this data they'd have to encrypt it. It's a plain text file on my computer, I have every right to do with it as I see fit. Tools like this are (again) public and open for anyone to use equally which makes it not an exploit by definition.

As I've mentioned before I certainly believe an upkeep mechanic is needed and has a place in a sanbox MMO like DU. The choices made by NQ here though are very "easy" and really are just a tag on and not something that follows from gameplay or is part of it. I talked about a suggestion I feel woudl be much better suited HERE. I play a few other games and all of them have upkeep, EVE certainly does for citadels and it is a well balanced system. I also backed and play Fractured Veil where a "construct" has a "totem" which needs to have the main material for the foundation of the "construct" in inventory to maintain it and prevent decay as wel las protects agains mob attacks (somewhat similar to how 7D2D works). Once you run out of material and do not replenish, the "construct" foundation starts to lose HP and when it runs out, it collapses and you lose whatever was placed on the foundation. By choosing a better material as foundation, with higher HP, you not only create better protection but also allow for a longer decay time if you run out in the totem. Those materials are still easy to get but are more "labor intensive" to maintain stock of. Basically, you spend 20-30 minutes to get a week of upkeep and you can upgrade the totem to allow for lmore inventory and longer periods where you do not have to gather fo rthis purpose. A very simple but effective system which puts players out in the world gathering resources and opening them up to interaction with either other players or the environment. You know.. like gameplay..

Good response in general but at the same time it feels like it overshoots the purpose a bit. But overall, I'd say fair enough. One thing in all this that really stands out for me is that it seems NQ is looking at this from a technical balance side while I think the actual "issue" is that while NQ has a certain flow in mind, they do not explain it as such from the outset. Additionally, when doing a Q&A, a very different reasoning for the taxes is provided which in turn sets a very different expectation for a solution. In this answer suddenly Asteroids play into this equation while on the Q&A, the answer given when asked how NQ ended up at the 1M/week number was (and I paraphrase here) that is was half of what would be the yield from an average tile. Based on this explanation, You can't deny it is fair for us to expect a balance pass for this to be far less complex than NQ now suggests it is. Asteroids, I would agree, are a good way to make Quanta, probably much better that using MU in general. But they are not designed to be a major resource for the player base as a whole. Asteroids are more of a weekly "bonus" event in how they are implemented and managed and frankly, in the context now presented there is not enough of them at all, certainly not in the safe zone. The fact that the answer you get when you ask NQ a question (if you get an answer) depends on who it is you ask for me is really one of the bigger issues in communication NQ has. The point raised here is one example, the recent issue of Lua Parameters not working and the answer that eventually came is another. The answer given here obviously took a bit of time to get and that is fine, if I would be allowed to make a suggestion here it is that it really is fine if that happens but then please both communicate that (some time needed to get the answer) and make sure you do follow-up within a reasonable timeframe and do not let those who do not have the insights "make up" an answer based on what they may know or think they know. Also, let announcement like where this originates sit and simmer a bit to get clarification on these. It is a trend for NQ to be vague on these things and there is no need, the announcement could have waited a week, allowing the different people or teams who can provide clear answers time to do so. In closing, IMO it is for the CM team to really understand where the community will place question marks and so it is for them to make sure that does not happen. And it is in that regard that for me the CM team needs to do better.

That is not eexactly what Sesch has said several times now, including during one fo the vlogs. And please, we all underestand you have no intention to reset "everything" again, that really is not what anyone is eexpecting nor is it the argument/point of discussion here. You missed the point here as it's not about a one day delay. Downplaying it that way really does not help the argument. Every game I run or ran servers for has live switches for this stuff (and yes, some with separate backend databases), no need to bring them down or "take risks of introducing bugs". It's a matter of ticking a box on a live server in settings. So, if switching off taxes is more than a flag flipping from on to off on the back end then my question would be why is that? There can be very valid reasons and so your response here may be perfeectly OK and in itself absolutely acceptable The point is that "it needs to happen during a maintenance. The materials for the maintenance are not ready, and rather than introducing new bugs and issues" is what should have been communicated BEFORE you change the post (and seemingly think no one would notice). Players get their hopes up AND plan according to what you announce. That point seems to not yet have sunk in with NQ.. Let's hope for better next time as I know you guys can do this since you have sone so on occasion in the past.

@NQ-Wanderer @NQ-Deckard @NQ-Sesch In light of the promise of renewed openness and communicating with your community; could you maybe tell us why you, without announcmeent or notification, changed the date on which you will disable taxes for two weeks from 11 to 12 January in your announcement? And also why, with some valid and viable feedback already in this thread, not a single word from NQ in response yet to open a dialog, engagement and exchange of ideas? Or is the current itteration of "we heard you" just going to be another "give them a carrot and they may be less noisy for a while".. So far, it seems @Lethys is not wrong in his assesment. Thank you, and I look forward to your response here..

You hit the nail on the head though @Physics, with how you describe the "it's more complex than you think". Because saying you'll do better and then immediately go back to pretty much saying "you just do not understand" is not exactly a good start there.

A lot of vague, much of the same, some interesting but mostly a lot of vague. Good to read NQ, again, realizes they are not listening to their community which they once more find were not wrong on many counts after the fact. The repeat of the "we heard you" message in this post as well as yet another promise of doing better is all well and good, but it's really time now to actually show NQ can and will do so. That would be a great change of attitude and IMO a big leap ahead. So, here's hoping it's not just words this time. Something I'd really like to have a better clarification on is this: How is this more complex than it appears and give us a clue of what plays into this. I'm serious here, this is actually interesting and good insight in what goes on and into making these choices and would help the community to better understand. What role do ATC or MC teams play at this point? hwo active are they in providing feedback before you go public. Or is NQ there no sounding board with a chance to adjust before going public which will only lead to a level of feedback NQ may well drown in it again and fall back to their previous ways. NQ, you need help in getting these things out, there’s plenty here who are able and willing to do so.. Maybe you should actually start using your community as a resource before putting in the time and effort to then find a lot of it simply is not working. There have been some signals of NQ getting better, I can only hope though that this "we heard you" edition finally and actually brings changes and is not just a paragraph of words without weight or meaning.

Others and myself posted ideas on this several times.

That's not true though, unintended behaviour can be beneficial and actually enhance gameplay, that would be what is actual emergent gamplay. When the unintended behaviour creates a situation where it gives someplayer an unfair advantage is what is an exploit. This is not about "preventing bugs" with rules, declaring exploits and making using them a bannable offense while you fix the underlying issue is pretty much standard practice. The fun bit is that NQ seems afraid to call this out for what it is and I have no idea why as their action here is perfectly fine and as I would expect.

Hats off to NQ for quickly addressing this after getting back to work from the holidays.. Well done, clear and decisive reponse.

The point is that power/energy management is a tool in a gameplay scenario that can take care of a lot of problems you run into. For NQ howver, the issue is that for that to work, it really needs to be a core function and embeded in _everything_. As it stands it seems NQ does not really have the ability nor the resources or means to make such sweeping changes unless maybe when they find a massive pot of money somewhere. A massive problem for them is that these core features may at several stages need a wipe to get fleshed out and they can really only afford to do one and I expect they have no time anymore to really go back and dig in as they have set their internal planning for the release date agreed on.. Everything they are doing tells me that his date has been set and al they are doing is rushing in as much "features" before that date comes around. NQ do not plan to release when ready, they will release whatever is ready at date X and hope that all the boxes are ticked by then.

Been there, suggested that many moons ago (and not for the first time)

orgs need.. ways to be orgs.. Orgs need to be able to assign roles with unique permissions for each for one..

The surface harvestables from the MU minigames are the perfect link into more diverse gameplay, especially the mentioned idea of gems which may be found in these rocks. That would for instance play nicely into THIS idea.

I can see how from your perspective this may be good, but in my view it really is not. Warp is supposed to be safe and it should not be possibel to be locked and shot at, I agree that is the understanding and many have it. NQ needs to speak up if this is not correct or if this is in fact a bug being exploited. In a balanced combat/PVP loop, there needs to be countermeasures other than "fighting back". NQ has talked abouit ECM and I expect them to bring that into the game before they remove the safezounes and introduce TW. There is plent of oprions in hat regards which will allow for non combatant players to mitigate the risks to the point it becomes acceptable to take: Decoys, ECM to break lock, Radar jamming and Stealth are just a few options. I would not be a fan of Cloaking in game. At the same time, withthese options I woudl expect NQ to bring in Warp interdiction as well. My fear here is that NQ doe snot have the ability to do all this without some major work on the game code.

I returned to the game with Demeter and spend a bit of time "fixing up" my base first, setting HQ tiles and then looked into the MU, it's clearly a "feature" driven by non gameplay choices and reasons, specificalyy financial ones for NQ. I set up four "pockets" of three connected tiles for each T1 ore on Alioth and have an alt who just goes around and calibrates each setup on consequtive days. This works pretty well actually and doe snot take that much time. I copy the surface ore locations to a textfile and collect them once every two weeks. Using a hagboard this is fairly fast. It seems to me, and I am now moving to that, Asteroid mining is where you actually make the most gains in collecting ore. As an experiment I will start a new toon and see how well he can do getting into asteroid mining. I plan to stream the whole thing so that will be fun And no @SneakySnake, he'll stay in the Safezone for at least the first weeks, so you can't have his ship