blazemonger

JC has said several time this would technically be possible. The idea has also been floated many times so there is a clear interest for the option. Due to the above, I'd say it is not likely NQ will spend time making this happen. If we're lucky maybe some time after "release"

They have been ignoring sensible suggestions from the community and coming up with their own ideas which have so far not had any effect to speak of, if not made things worse. So pretty much NQ has been NQ..

I'm not blaming the current CMs for anything, I am blaming NQ for having abysmal community engagement and interaction. Problem here is that the CM team is just doing what they are told to do and sticking with company policy. It is their choice to live with it and accept he job as-is, sure. This is not about "I want blue stars". This is about members of the community spending time and effort (sometimes a lot of it) to bring suggestions and ideas to the table that would provide solutions and options to enhance and/or improve the game. And NQ then just ignoring these efforts entirely and proving it by running around and doing what the general consensus here tells them would not be a good plan.

Sure, well at least I hope they do. Not he point though. The point is that one would expect NQ to engage with the community, certainly in a forum section specifically set up for us to voice ideas. But NQ has no time for us in this regard and still has no actual grasp on the concept of basic communication which is not a filler if there is some time to spare, but a vital part of maintaining and building loyalty and trust in the process, the ability of the team to plan and take feedback on board and generally, keep the project visible and active. NQ thinks communication is shoe-horning in some dev blogs around a patch mostly and is pretty much clueless about how their current attitude and strategy is actually harming the game. And I do not think it's the CMs delivering the communication, IMO it is the management behind them not having the skillset to actually support a CM team and fight for the value of a good team with a good interaction towards the community internally. I am pretty sure it is why we lost one of the CMs who did actually care enough to try and push the boundaries (but was yanked back and then left).

IMO obviously... If NQ can't make the PVP experience a more "real time" experience for performance reasons, they should decide to implement a more strategic gameplay for PVP. the current implementation is really more a controller style mode with some "real time" mechanics shoe-horned in and that is something I do not think will work all to well. NQ needs to make up their mind and start working on what works within the confines of the game. They really are out of the time they might have had to keep experimenting with throwing stuff at the wall, hoping something will stick. But I expect NQ will just keep being NQ and try to please everyone. And by doing so will please no one ..

1 and 2 Not needed, not recommended even for different reasons 3 and 4 Depends on your setup, if it provides better performance, use it

This is about players logging off an alt on haulers to use as a beacon mostly I guess. Right now, it is dead easy to get in to a ship, you just need to run fast and get in before the door spawns in (literally). That issue has been long standing and seems something NQ does not want or has no ability to fix. Also, you can just jump on a ship and log off. This is so widely exploited that NQ will just carpet bomb the issue instead of design an actual solution.

How does that work? and give you an advantage how? What advantage will one person with two character have versus two players with one character each? Guess what, the two players will _always_ have the upper hand in any situation, including industry. Having to log in another character for a specific purpose in the same situation seems like a hassle to me. The _only_ potential advantage I can see is a well trained pilot who will be able to fly characters and cargo around. And even then, the advantage is slim at best. As long as you can't effectively run two characters at the same time and have them co-operate well, the benefit is minimal at best. Most Alts are characters on beta keys at this point I am sure, and many of these will expire once the game comes out of beta. For me , that will leave me with a generalist, a pilot (or industrialist) and a trader ..

Besides most of those titles not being MMO titles, in all the ones that are (all the ones I know that aren't) you lose your inventory when you die and will need to try and get it back. We know that eventually inventory will drop in DU, it will not just vanish (and it shouldn't) as it does right now since that is not implemented yet. I've already mentioned that before. The problem here is that your expectations and definition of what constitutes ganking and griefing seem to be unreasonably broad. Ganking is a valid gameplay style in many cases. I have a feeling that anything that is hostile towards you will just get either of those labels by you which again points at your expectations not being correct. DU is a game where you may get shot at when you venture outside of safe zones, it has been defined like that from the start and it will not change. You seem to be someone who doe snot want risk, only reward.. I suggest you find a game that allows you to play in your own personal bubble with friends on a private server or by yourself in a single player game as it feels like MMO style games are not your thing. Nothing wrong with that but it is something I'd suggest you consider to be better for your preferred gameplay style.

I'd agree the nebula as it is now should be removed. The effect and "reality factor" of this can be seen very distinctly in Space Engineers where the default skybox has a similar function but replacing it with a realistic one makes the game world look so much better and less "comic book" styled. We know that, while nebulae exist, the sky will look the same anywhere in the universe potentially only "coloured" by the atmosphere of planets. Now as far as I know the lighting system in DU is still very broken in many places and NQ is applying (a lot of) workarounds and fixed to make things at least look somewhat "workable", but yeah, the existing lighting is way over the top and should be dialled down. Problem is also that light objects really do not work very well. In general light in DU is not rendered at all, something that becomes very obvious when you are underground where light gets "textured in" a few moments after you remove chunks of ore or soil.

I'm not quite sure what this means. Adding proximity VoIP in the current implementation of the game would be next to a a drop in addition of existing 3rd party tools like Vivox which would currently be free for NQ to implement as it comes at no cost up to 5000 concurrent logins which I am certain DU is well below at this time. The separators for this would already be in place through chat which is local or construct based and could be a (closed) private chat group. The benefits to the game of having proximity VoIP (as an option for those wanting to use it) have been discussed here many times over the past years but until now NQ has not ever said anything or engaged in a productive way with the community on this. The arguments used by NQ here are really not valid at all as they miss the point entirely and show a lack of basic understanding of the subject matter or how this would actually benefit the game and potentially add revenue by attracting new players and specifically the vast and mature RP community.

Still think that NQ fixing DU running on Shadow and then looking into striking an inclusion deal with Shadow for all new activations could be good for the game. And since Shadow, its new parent company and NQ are all French, this could be something to be agreed over a good bottle of wine

Having multiple accounts does not give you an advantage vs other players in game. That argument is simply nonsense. Anything one character does or can achieve is not transferable to another character owned by the same player. Any solo player using multiple accounts going up against several people playing together will _always_ be the underdog. It's good to see that you dropped your "friends" excuse to show this is just you and your opinion which really only shows that you have no real idea about this at all. Pay2Win would really only apply if you can only obtain a high tier, endgame or generally decisive item or attribute by using RL $$ with no way or option to do the same in game. While currently not yet activated, once the game actually releases you can use ion game currency to buy gam time so effectively you can have several account pay their way in game without the need to spend RL $$. As said, 4 players doing anything as at team will _always_ beat a solo player with three alts trying the same thing, regardless of what the activity is. There is no question about that at all. The _only_ advantage you get from multiple account is that you can choose your gameplay based on what you'd prefer to do at the time. There is no real advantage in having alts act together for the simple reason that you can't even run two accounts simultaneously on the same machine to begin with.

Never said that, I only uninstalled the game..

I certainly agree that NQ is responsible for a lot of the misplaced expectations by not setting clear ones from the get go or correcting them when misinterpretations come up. It takes some digging (unless you watched/listened to all podcasts and interviews) to find any solid information. At the same time I really think that the idea that "non PVP activity is locked behind PVP activity" is not fair or reasonable when you do look at the information we know. The idea here, and this is pretty much a default "operation mode" for MMO style games. is that PVE content would be the source to feed into other components of the game, one being PVP. I get that you would prefer that to not be the case but I do not agree with that. there always needs to be a risk/reward balance. Being able to achieve/obtain top tier gains without any risk just seems wrong to me and I really do not see how that would be fun. This is where IMO the incorrect expectations come in. Civilization is not "a counter to" or "the opposite of" PVP. PVP serves a purpose in the context of civilization building. It is not a goal in itself. Obviously there will be (small) groups which will choose to make PVP they "lifestyle" in game and that is fine as there is a place for that in game too. Overall, I really think you put too much weight on the risk of a combat PVP encounter while exploring or travelling through space. As is well proven in games like EVE it is entirely possible to spend years playing the game, enjoying the company of like minded players, without encountering PVP al that much. It is mostly a case of being prepared and being alert. And to that end it is for NQ to ensure they provide the mechanics and tools which will allow us to evade and prevent combat PVP encounters as long as we pay attention. There's always the chance of getting unlucky and there is always the possibility of a surprise but overall, there needs to be a way out or around encounters and it would then be for the PVP players to find ways to get around that ( and so on )

not a new idea Construct Management - The seat dance - Idea Box - Dual Universe (dualthegame.com) I suggested this back in February and obviously would agree this would be a good idea. It's one of the examples of IMO good ideas that get ignored by NQ and I can see that happen again. There will not be any engagement with is and the thread will move down the list and out of sight..

Shadow has been acquired by OVH which is good news. OVH is IMO one of the better service providers in their field, not the most cost effective but healthy and good quality. 2021 - Blade taken over by hubiC, Octave Klaba's company (gettotext.com)

One is making a pledge based on a promise/a pitch to get funding, the other is paying a fee to access an existing service. I feel the point is a relevant one. Yes, you certainly can and should voice your opinion. You should also understand that there is quite a few who got on board for the exact reasons you argue against and so will defend their expectations as something which was part of the promise for what he game would contain. But to get back on topic, what is it about PVP in DU that actually is something you do not see as a viable mechanic and how would you prefer to see it be implemented instead? For me, the current planned implementation, taking the existing available information into account (even when rather minimal) seems fine.

Chat in DU is an afterthought. For the game to work IMO what will be needed: Ability to hail/ping and chat with another character, group OR CONSTRUCT Sending messages (mail) as character or org to a character, org or construct (with RDMS to allow reading/writing mail from/as construct) Proximity VoIP based on location, org (both optional), group or construct (not optional) would be great if construct chat/VoIP can be nested (command/engineering/repair/weapons etc..)

Yes, you get to voice your opinion certainly. Expecting that NQ would consider changing the plans they laid out for the game as far back as 2016 when they presented their pitch for backers on Kickstarter is at best an unrealistic one, especially when you consider that everything we have seen and know tells us that PVP is here, will stay here and will be a big part of the game. What you do not seem to (want to) understand is that the ideas and mechanics you seem to be against are by no means what NQ has in mind for the game. You are "fighting" ideas that are mostly assumptions by some of the combat PVP community based on what they'd like the game to be like. If you follow the progress of PVP and listen to the many, many signals on where NQ feels they should take PVP eventually you will know that most of these assumptions are at best unrealistic and that PV will play a role, but not one that dominates the game, in fact I'd say PVP will be a supportive mechanic more than a leading one. And you pay your money to have access to the game, it does not entitle you to set or alter the direction of the game which is and was well documented long before you decided to subscribe for access. You do not get to decide how a baker prepares his produce just because you buy your bread there.

Unlike that other game some will still label a tech demo but that one has really gone past that and is an actual Alpha, I could agree that DU is pretty much that, a tech demo .. yes. There is no cohesive gameplay in DU yet, it's a loose collection of possible game mechanics. Whether it ever becomes a game will first and foremost depend on whether new VC funding will arrive, something that has yet to be confirmed.

Are the "birdcages" gone?

Actually that is not what a single shard is at all. In fact EVE proves that point as each star system is actually a separate instance and you could argue that each node in the DU server tech is one too. The only way you could achieve what you describe as a singe shard would be for the entire game world to run on a single server which is simply impossible. Single shard means that the same data is persistent across any of these and that you can reach anyone anywhere if the technology exists in game to do so.

It's interesting to see how NQ is clearly not doing what they said they would which is unfortunate but not entirely unexpected. They are not applying these new actions/rules across any constructs, constructs from players who left months ago but "look pretty" are allowed to stay visible, taking up space on markets and even attracting scam constructs.

Please name the MMO games you know that do not have loss of inventory. Or let's makes it easy, give me three .. As Lethys mentioned, you lose your ship in EVE, you lose everything in or on that ship and that may also include trained skills. You lose your pod and you respawn, losing any implants yo may have used in the pod. Now you might try and get back to where you were killed and if you're lucky be able to recover some of your stuff, but it will mostly be gone unless you got killed by NPCs and no one else came around to find and loot the wreck. And we know that NQ intends to implement a similar mechanic eventually, a loot container will spawn with your inventory which can be looted or recovered. You do not lose real money in game. As is the case in EVE, I would expect that the eventual Cash shop items will be permanent and bound to the character. If you fly around with DAC in your cargo (if that will even be possible) then that is a risk you choose to take as there should not be any reason why you'd do that. Now if NQ does not implement DAC in a way that enable you to use it in game while not putting it at risk then sure. But I doubt they will be that daft.