blazemonger

I've come close before but just do not see the point of giving it another chance to improve so the cord is cut I left it behind me as I would only return to it if I see NQ turn around, change their overall attitude and make it worth my time again. And right now I have serious doubt that will happen. I guess that is one way of looking at it and it does align nicely with my perspective on NQ.

He can't talk about the state of the company he pretty much ran into the ground obviously. He can now freely fantasize and dream in public about what we all seem to not understand about how his game science experiment is the best thing in the world.

I have left the game behind.. the punching bag that is these forums and Discord is too good to not mess with now and then.. ;)

I'm pretty sure we'll starting seeing the real JC now.. with no inhibitions about sharing his dream. And with it more clarity about why NQ is where they are.. in more detail than the recent blogposts.. Biggest problem I see is while JC no longer call the shots, there is JC fans still inside who carry the torch, believing their fallen leader was just "misunderstood" Some of the things said by JC or confirmed by him from what the interviewer asks or says here puts an interesting spin on things.

Yeah.. I found myself getting very annoyed by NQ's overall attitude and general avoidance of any real ownership or willingness to actually use the many resources they have here and on Discord to their benefit.. They seem to think they know best and I think the last 3.5 years have shown that to not be the case. This last spat in the continuing "we heard you" saga to me just means they do not get it and will probably never will until they find themselves with a dead game wondering where it all went wrong. So, it's better to not bother anymore and move on as why should I continue to care when they don't..

So I finally make the choice to leave the game behind me for now. I really do not see how the current company will be able to make this work and I feel their attitude and overall outlook on what they are doing will help any chance of a revival of the viability of the project. And no amount of pushing the buttons to try and see some movement will have any effect I believe. Maybe I'm wrong but I do not think so.. I see no reason to spend more time supporting a company when I do not see much of anything to make me believe they can and will support the game. So there, all you haters can rejoice as I'm out.. been a good few years but unless things change drastically, this game will not make it. And no, you can't have my stuff..

@Gangolf Ovaert I'd agree with your thoughts. It seems NQ is not realizing that many existing and a potentially much larger future number of their player base would not be able to afford the kind of system needed to run DU comfortably but can (and do) use Shadow as a viable alternative to owning a decent spec gaming PC. It's just very unfortunate they appear to just brush this aside as "not a high priority". And that means they ignore a potential problem in the code that may at any time trigger a much broader problem. It really is part of the bigger issue with NQ, having a very short term outlook on development of the game and not really setting the priorities which will allow them to move forward faster over time. If it's not a quick fix, it's not a priority it seems.

Subscriptions going up in cost is not a matter of if, just when IMO. €7/mo is silly for a game this scale, even $10 is on the low end and I really expect to see the sub at release go back to the initially planned $15. Putting such a low cost on subs is IMO just another short term choice that works against you over time. Had NQ gone with $10 on "beta" the player number would not have been much different but the revenue from that would have been massively more. I doubt the difference would have been enough to prevent where we now are but it would have been more for sure. Worst part of all of this will be that I expect the biggest loss will be for the early backers who see their pledge devalued by over 50%. NQ pitched and sold these packs on a cost of around $15 for a month of game time and have yet to even hint at how they plan to compensate for that as they will have to unless they push up the price to where it was originally intended to be.

While I do not think this is or should be hard at all, any of the points you raise should be pretty straight forward database queries which are being run ar frequent intervals several times a day, at least once an hour. The point here is that it would be great if NQ actually engaged with us on such suggestions and provide us with feedback as to why they believe something may or may not be feasible. It is well possible there are actual reasons for not choosing an option like this.

Of course you are right here and I can only agree that (and I'm just sticking with the example here but it applies in general) exploration needs to bring a sense of danger and risk for the reward it can deliver in return. And a big part of that risk should be the PVP player base, that is certainly true. BUT For PVP to work in this context, what needs to be in place first is the exploration mechanic. If that sux and no one engages in it then there is nothing feeding into PVP. And that is why I will always agree with the idea that, while important as part of the whole, PVP needs to come into play in development once everything that feeds into it has been done to the point PVP can serve it's purpose. If development starts with PVP then what will happen is that the unbalanced interaction will chase away the food .. I understand that there is many who are hungry for combat PVP and I get that NQ has not delivered on their promise yet. But that is an overall problem and assuming for a moment that this will start to change over the next few months and we finally start seeing some structural and methodical development of game mechanics, as that process gets underway and evolves this is where NQ can start introducing PVP into the mix. Combat PVP in DU is part of the whole and IMO is the end of the loop, bringing it back to the beginning. But for that to be feasible, the loop still needs to get to the point where PVP can begin and we're a long way away from that point. So yes, it will be a while if NQ does their job.. patience grasshopper.. Patience.

Oh, that is certain. What would be interesting to hear is what challenges NQ sees in this regard an how they view some of the solutions that have been brought up here. For me an impound system would be good. It keeps the markets with an "in use" vibe while removing the clutter that just lays around. I'm not a fan of the "squeeky clean" way SC does it for instance where your ship get yanked of the pad in a few minutes. The suggestion of impounding constructs after say 48 hours, which are then retrievable from for instance the ARK ship (for a fee) as a one time spawn in blueprint seems like a sensible approach that I would not expect has a very high dev cost or development time as it uses existing mechanics.

If NQ would push in ways to maintain resource supply while they work on the problem of the database load from voxel manipulation I can see that and would be fine with it as long as it is a temporary change. All of this really drives the fact that a wipe will be coming eventually though. I just hope NQ chooses the right moment for that as I think they will only get one chance. A big factor for this would be improvement of placing static blueprints especially. If NQ manages to get that sorted, as said earlier, if a wipe comes with retaining blueprints and the accrued talent point back in the pool, I'm good with that.

It took me a whole 5 minutes to get the information how NQ can request priority access to a Shadow for development purposes.

While I question a lot of answers given in this post, especially the two I posted on above, I do see first signs of some things that are really needed but at the same time it's a shame NQ stops short of actually taking ownership of these and come out clean and clear. Also, the complete absence of anything related to the change in leadership is .. well.. questionable. I'd expect all of this is still up ion the air until the final word comes doen from the investors on the viability for NQ to continue and fresh investment to be made available. Yes, it is good to see NQ finally letting go of the 2021 "release". But then you turn right around and set the expectation you are shooting for a delay of about 6 months. No amount of " this is not a commitment" will stop that expectation from being established. The roadmap is obviously out the window and that is fine as it makes sense to anyone with a brain. NQ can't currently say anything solid as they are still trying to figure out whether they can actually keep going and then how much time they will need to get done what needs to be done. And until then, a new roadmap makes no sense. I mean just say it.. You should know by now your community is perfectly willing to accept reasonable and sensible updates whatever they are as we all see the signs. And thank you for taking the "no wipe" of the table, even if worded in a very cautious way.. that was needed and is sensible Lastly: Do you _really_ need us to tell you what we expect/would like to see here? Frankly, that you even ask tell me you are pretty much oblivious to what is happening on the forums specifically. Maybe if you replace "communication" with "Engagement with your community".. Does that ring any bells? DU would be a better game and further along if NQ actually took note of so many threads in the forums with some great content, suggestions and ideas. But not ever a beep from NQ, no idea if it is ever seen or taking on board/considered (from the lack of any follow up it appears not) and then we see NQ make mistakes or strange choices that we discussed and suggested for months prior all of which was for nothing and ignored. There was one CM who understood this and tried, she really tried (at least that is the impression we all got and we appreciated her for it) but NQ lost her for whatever reason. And I will leave it at that.

No, that is what NQ thinks, and we're well aware of this misconception by NQ on what communication is expected/desired/needed. It's unfortunate that this only affirms no changes in this regard anytime soon.

And what is preventing you from asking any of the many who have reported this issue to help test by installing additional tools or gather data from their Shadow PC? Frankly, from the answer it seems that NQ does not actually understand what Shadow is of how it functions especially in relation to other platforms. The issue is very distinct, has a 100% reproduction rate at a very much specific point in the load in phase, so what happens around the 75-78% point when loading the game as that is where the crash occurs. The answer really evades the question. And the answer really only shows that NQ does not have the first idea on where to start on this. I am also pretty sure that access to a shadow PC can be arranged on shorter notice for NQ. (and no, the wait time for activation is not a year) Shadow is a full Windows PC, it is not a platform which is limited to loading specific games. It is a windows PC with a dedicated GPU and the specs meet or exceed the requirements to run DU.

This is probably one of the, if not he top issue voiced around here. Unfortunately NQ is dead silent on this and has not shown any interest in addressing the issue beyond silly changes like making the available surface area bigger which only led to more junk being spread in a wider area. Not that we told them this would happen...

I'd agree, in EVE the attacker does initiate the engagement in a vulnerability window set by the owner and from there the defender gets to set the time for the actual attack to happen within a specified timeframe. On paper that hardly sounds engaging and fun but in reality for a global /multi timezone game, this is really the only fair way to set this up. It wil be interesting to see how NQ will solve this, I hope they more or less follow CCP's lead as it makes sense but I fear they may only take parts of it and try to "reinvent" the rest. We'll know by the end of the year..

Schematics should be created by recycling salvaged T1 XS elements From there you can research the schematic with a chance to gain knowledge (and a schematic) to created larger versions of the element the input schematic is for. OR For subcomponents, you can research the schematic to increase efficiency (same output from less input) or productivity (more output from same input) OR For elements, you can research time to produce (less time to completion) Also, using an analysis/Science station you can invent higher tier component/element schematics from the input blueprint And, using a duplication station you can create multi run schematics for elements allowing a limited number of runs per schematic So much gameplay and progression possibilities there.. all it takes is some creative thinking..

After recent new that Microsoft was looking to acquire Discord it now seems that Discord has rejected the offer and plans for an IPO instead. Discord going public is way worse than being bought by MSFT. It means shareholders who will want to see profits or else. This just feels like Discord is merely in it for the cash grab and has little consideration for the use base. I think now would be a good time for NQ to consider options, Guilded would be a good alternative for a number of reasons, for one, partnering up with them will provide a lot of free publicity as Guilded will start screaming about that through all their available channels so DU gets free exposure. And Guilded is really a better platform as well with better quality and better options for audio, integrated forum style thread options and more. Potentially they would even be able to assist in porting the message base over to their platform, I can't say but I could see that as a possibility.

Actually, many of the things you describe would be included in the rack space rental agreement they would use for this. And that owning hardware has higher upfront cost is obviously true but those cost would be one time and over the long term (which was the point I made) are more cost efficient. It's very much the same as buying or renting a house. the choice between the two is not just a matter of whether you can afford buying. Also the cost for server infrastructure, being a physical asset, has a real world value that can be paid for by ways of lease/loans. I get your point but it's not that different from mine. You seem to put more weight on the related cost which in most cases are included in the different way of getting servers in a DC and running.

Much of what is discussed here is pure peculation, nothing wrong with that IMO. As I read the devblogs, I took it the overall Database design is not so much the issue, it's more the cost of running the database due to the amount of I/O needed. AWS cost is modelled on that traffic more than anything else so NQ pays through the nose because of that. While I'm guessing here I do believe that to be fairly close to what is happening. I would also not be surprised if the database servers are actually not in the same location Many here have suspected NQ has been throttling I/O traffic in order to cut cost and have made drastic changes to the way the game interacts with the database to keep things alive. We know the latter is true, I assume the former is the reason for this. It is what the big "database update" that took many hours was about last year The choice for rented servers was a short term choice, if you look over many years, owning hardware yourself will pay itself back and then some. Hiring rack space may be a much more efficient use of funding over time. But knowing pretty much exactly what CCP uses to run EVE, the hardware in the DU cluster will be as expensive if not more so.

EVE has no PVP fences outside of NPC stations and the starter systems, PVP is open anywhere. the only thing in place is that in HS the consequences of opening engagement are quite lethal but there is nothing preventing you from engaging in PVP in HS outside of certain death by Concord. But based on the potential payout, that may be a small price to pay.. Which should be the ultimate reason to engage in PVP (or not). There is also plenty of PVP engagements in HS which will only yield you a temporary suspect flag. IMO NQ should implement consensual PVP within safe zones and use that mechanic to allow players to clean up wrecks and abandoned constructs by adding upkeep for cores which, when it runs out, will open up the construct for PVP/salvage. Interesting twist could be for players who engage in this to get a timed flag opening them up to attack themselves (maybe with exception for Aphelia tiles). Could make for some interesting gameplay, maybe it could be a replacement of the safe zone as a mechanic that will protect you if you are a straight buildier or trader but will impose risk if you choose to go scavenge.

What @Maxim Kammerer said.. It seems that NQ really has no grasp on the way their game works or should work and continue to entirely miss the point of why what they expect/envision does not happen or creates problems. The problem her eis not that players do things that are unexpected, the problems is that NQ has not actually thought their game design ideas through in advance AND does not see why what they design does not work, despite the many pieces of feedback they receive on this. That is my main issue I have with the recent dev blogs, they show a continued structural and chronic issue with NQ which is they have no idea why something happens to then go on to fix the symptom instead of the root cause (because they do not know or investigate what that is and do not pick up on the many comments from players about this). Nothing new here though, this has been the case since pre alpha. From an initial look at the mission system it seems that the return on time spent there is not even close to selling ore to bots so unless NQ removes the latter or seriously nerfs the income for that, I 'm not sure how the missions wil even begin to provide a viable alternative.

It's pretty safe to assume actually that a vast number of backers have not yet actually played, at least not since beta started. We know the number of backers from the kickstarter and knw how much the first pledge round on the website brought in as wel as the second round. Add to that at least one beta key per account and you already end up well beyond the number of claimed tiles on Sanctuary. I think a conservative estimate, based on the initial rush in the week before public beta, is that there is about 10-15K backers active or at least were active and about the same number of beta keys was activated. Let's say that total is 25K which leaves less that 15K actual subscribed players. We know the concurrent login count was about 3700 at the peak after beta and dropped off to about 3200 when NQ closed the API shortly after that. I'd be very surprised of the current concurrent login count hits 4 digits ever, I expect that number be more towards 300-600 at peak times. Back in October 2020 you would stil encounter a good number of players at most any market, now some are just littered with constructs and are a blue sea on the mini map with the occasional yellow dot. A conservative guesstimate for the monthly operating cost is probably around 350-400K or so. that means NQ would need 75-100K active subs to get enough revenue out of the subs to stay alive, more to actively grow and develop the game. IMO NQ made two mistakes here, both driven by short term concerns and both with much more long term potential Sub cost too low, this should have been $10 at least and really should have been the industry standard $15. Short term yo may not grow as fast , but you get more from the subs and over time this gives you more space and a better chance to grow. Rent server space/time/traffic. Owning your own hardware, when you need to be able to scale the way DU needs to especially, may be massively more expensive upfront, it will pay itself back over time and in the end reduce the monthly operating cost massively. It is also an investment in value which you can borrow and bargain against. Overall, I really think the short term mindset of NQ is what drives many problems they face. Developing and operating an MMO the scale of DU needs to be a project that is planned for in years, not months or even weeks.