decom70

If you are not willing to participate in PVP, then:
Do
Not
Enter
The
PVP
Zone
Simple as that.

Deine Schiffe sind doch nicht verloren, nur weil du irgendwo gegengeflogen bist.
In der Map kannst du deine Konstrukte finden und einen Wegpunkt zu ihnen setzen.
 
Ich kann verstehen das du ärgerlich über Raumschrott bist, aber das gehört zu so einem Spiel, denke ich, einfach dazu. Durch die zu hohe Geschwindigkeit beim reisen, und selbst die stärkste GPU das rendern nicht schnell genug hinbekommt, sollte der Hersteller Objektkollisionen, ab einer bestimmten Geschwindigkeit, einfach abschalten. So fliegt man halt dann durch die Objekte. Oder man muss eine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung auf Leistungsbasis der GPU implementieren.
 
Sei nicht verärgert, schließlich ist das Spiel noch in der Entwicklung und ich vermute das die Entwickler nicht "aufräumen" liegt daran, dass die "Leichen" Performance ziehen und somit viele Spieler simulieren, was der Spielperformance beim Release sicherlich keinen Abbruch tut.
Tief durchatmen ^^
Homer

How do the devs justify the current nonsensical DSAT asteroid broadcast mechanic fitting in with DU's theme of emergent gameplay?
 
Emergent gameplay would result from two (or more) parties that happen to scout the same asteroid at around the same time finding each other by pure chance since there are many asteroids to choose from, and not from a forced conflict brought about by broadcasting the location of an asteroid soon after anyone finds it.
 
If you tell people interested in pvp where to always find pvp, they will always go to there to engage in it. It's lazy, and not emergent gameplay. On the other hand if two parties happen to find the same asteroid by chance anything can happen. Maybe they decide to fight each other. Maybe they decide to mine ore together. Maybe they agree to mine ore together peacefully, but one of the parties decides to secretly call in reinforcements to take out the first party. That's emergent gameplay, but scenarios like those are never going to happen if asteroid locations are being broadcast to everyone.

@Sinfil
Actually, no.
 
Shadow _is_ a fully fledged Windows PC. The hardware is very straightforward and as long as the software plays by the rules of Windows programming then it should not make a difference that his hardware is in a rack in a data center and not on your desk, that is the whole point of the service.
 
Also NQ would not have to get in line to get access to a Shadow PC, they can, and IMO should, apply for access as a developer and I actually  looked into this, taking all but 5 minutes to get the names of the people they would need to get in touch with to arrange this.
 
And it is actually a matter of "looking through files" which is exactly what I did, analyzing the Windows crash logs, and these logs show a standard Windows stopcode which would generally be indicative of one of two possible reasons for the crash, either a memory leak or the code not using the normal calls to allocate memory (which could also be somewhat of a definition of a memory leak actually).
 
 
That DU suffers from memory leaks is not a secret and is easily tracked and logged if you know how and have the toolset to do so. The problem I have here is that NQ pretty much shoves this aside as "not a priority" while there is a real and present danger of this becoming a more widespread issue on future patches, potentially impacting more configurations. And then shit hits the fan as it's quite possible many "normal" users will encounter similar issues.
 
The given that NQ is unable to  recognize this as a potential problem and pretty much dismiss it as "we do not support this configuration anyway (which is not a sustainable position as they do, Shadow meets and exceed their spec requirement)" is both a risk and nonsense, it's a straight up cop out where NQ once more does not take ownership of their responsibilities  as a developer for a live service game. It's part of why I decided to stop playing as it's clear to me NQ is not capable of actually understanding the risk they take her and elsewhere so I'm not going to invest time and effort into a game I expect could fail massively at any time or see further considerable delays in development as the dev runs into a brick wall they though was just a styrofoam block.
 
As long as DU plays by the rules code wise, there is no reason for it to not run on Shadow PC hardware. This is not a Shadow problem, it is a NQ one.

I just responded to this update on the ticket. And no, this is not an acceptable excuse here even when I did predict that eventually NQ would just throw the "it is actually not supported" line out there as they would not be able to find a solution.
 
That DU is not supported on Shadow was never before stated in the system specs and still isn't. DU has run just fine up to the 0.24 PTS. NQ has been (or at least should have been) well aware that they have a good number of subscribers and backers using Shadow There is no reason for DU to not work on Shadow as the system specs are well above the suggested hardware specifications The logs from the crash consistently show a Windows stopcode frequently seen with applications with memory issues such as leaks or incorrect allocation of memory.  
Just to remind NQ; here are the DU system specifications which Shadow meets and exceeds:
 
Recommended:
CPU (Processor)
Intel Core i7 7700 (3.6 GHz) / AMD Ryzen 7 1700 (3.00 GHZ) (Shadow well exceeds this)
To run Dual Universe, you will need a CPU with AVX instructions.   More information here. Memory (Ram)
16 GB (While base Shadow has 'only' 12 GB memory, the issue is the same across all Shadow configurations. Minimum spec for DU is 8GB)
GPU (Graphics Card)
AMD RX 580 (8 GB) / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (8 GB) (Shadow well exceeds this) Operating System
Windows 10 (Shadow meets this)
 
SOURCE

That is the dumbest thing in this thread I have read so far. May as well just remove PVP altogether, and then shut the game down fully.
 
If you can't take a bloody nose, stay in the safezone.

Why do you say so much and matter so little...?

Problem is, the way you describe it, it would just turn PVP into nonstop suicide runs.

That is the dumbest thing in this thread I have read so far. May as well just remove PVP altogether, and then shut the game down fully.
 
If you can't take a bloody nose, stay in the safezone.

Dear NQ,
 

 
You see this little thing? It's always there, taking up UI space. I'd love it if you guys added some way to hide this. It could be an option in the settings menu or moved into the context menu when you right click a construct (like with right-clicking to see player names).
 
In addition, the information it shows you while looking at a planet I feel is redundant and unnecessary:
 

 
The planet name and whether the territory is claimed can be observed through the map. As for the voxel material, there's already a key for that: H! While it's quicker to view it this way, I think it simply doesn't need to be, considering the value of the information you're actually gathering.
 
Just a small QoL thing that, for me personally, I'd love immensely. Never liked this label since the day it was added.

Way off the mark on the idea here. Your suggestion would literally be the end of the game / final nail in the coffin.
 
A suggestion would be rather than trying to come up with a hard barrier to pvp, think of ways NQ could add some more cat and mouse gameplay in too it. How can people who want to avoid combat in contested territory keep themselves undetected from putting in effort to do so? 

Yeah. Because No risk with all the reward ist what everyone wants.....

then stay in the safezone, that's what DU always advertised and that was the plan all along, since the kickstarter.
 
 
all i hear here is "mimimimimimi they changed DU from being PVE/building/whatever centric to pvp centric"....which, you know, is fake news

Legion's pilots are not so skilled pilots. Our asteroid detector gun-less ship was able to escape pursuing of 3 battle Legion ships simultaneously 2 times out of 2 meetings. 100% success rate.
 
Again, 3 (!!) Legion battle ships were not possible to do any harm to the single gun-less mining hauler! And that is not about diving in the nearest safe zone, all was done 100% in PvP zone, dozens su away from Safe zone.
 
 
Another issue was at today's night. CVA miners successfully completely depleted fresh not scanned T2 asteroid, and successfully captured 100% of ore from it. That was 2nd time our mining hauler successfully escaped the pursuit by 3 Legion ships. So, Legion pilots do not know how to fly???
 
Legion, GO HOME!

Negotiating with them from the position of weakness and division will only cost you your sovereignty, integrity, and independence, as you will be negotiating with the lack of bargaining power. Neutral organizations/people should exercise neutral foreign policy to remain neutral, otherwise you give in to their soft power in which you fall under their influence via diplomacy. How should you manage your diplomacy with Legion? By engaging them multilaterally, or forming a union and engaging them bilaterally, maintaining the balance of power, and investing in military for deterrence, so you will be able to project your power more in international relations. 
 
The point of hard power is to influence someone. The use of soft power is to the same end. I would rather that you shoot me than to give in to soft power! I came from a culture where honor is more important!
 
Why should you go to war? To act in resistance! Diplomatic solution only works when there is a term that everyone agrees with, or you are surrendering and therefore agreeing to the unfavorable term! 

I read all of it.  I had to read some of it a few times because the ideas weren't very well organized.  You are arguing against the "cube meta" .  We get it.  Meta means "most effective tactic available".   Would you prefer a cylinder meta?  Perhaps a spherical meta?   Your post here basically says "if things were different we could do different things".   Then you made some poorly argued descriptions of what "different" would be, but you never really land on anything you are trying to endorse.  You simply don't like the cube meta and think everyone around you is stupid because "they just don't get it"...  cylinders, cones, rings..  all shapes could be meta if conditions were different.  Well, if "if" was a fifth we would all be drinking.  If dont mean shit.   Maybe in another universe those can happen, but in this universe we are worried about 3 planes.  X, Y, Z.  It JUST so happens that a cube is perfect for min/maxing a ships ability to maneuver efficiently in these directions.  You don't like cubes.  So you made some drawings to prove what we all know:  cubes are meta.  Then you made some long winded reasons about why people used and exploit and then you made an attempt to rationalize being able to keep the exploit based on some hypothetical metrics that could exist in the game but don't.  Them you closed it with "did I ramble?" Which indicates you are unsure of your own ideas and you realize they are poorly presented.  Then you came and threatened to report people who disagree with you, then you claim no one read your post.  And now we are here.  Thus ends my book report on your post.  I'll look forward to reading the next one.  Have a great day. 

People are allowed to reply to your post with whatever comments they wish.
 
This boils down to there is no reason for "Potential Methods of Alleviation" as you put it.  That just means keeping OP ships in the sky.

I think the challenge of designing around the limitations is part of ship building.  I think your description of the existing systems as limited only speaks to the limits of the builder's creativity.  A true craftsman can make excellent work with only simple tools.  It is the novice who needs a special tool, or an exception to every rule, to make a quality product.  This is why the ship creators are popular, because they used the existing tools to make great ships.  At a time,  jancko elements was one of the tools that was used.   To argue that a ship can not be built to the same quality without that tool is a reasonable position to take, but it's both subjective and irrelevant since the tool has been removed.   Many of my favorite ships in the game have zero "unbalanced" elements (see also, janko/clipped) and those ships perform outstanding and look terrific.  I think we should challenge ourselves with the tools we have. 
 
The game is young and this will definitely not be the final form of ship building.  Maybe NQ finds a way to combine elements in a more sophisticated way?  Perhaps linking engines or stacking brakes as multi-element kits that are more aesthetically pleasing.  There are lots of cool things that could happen, but to say that you can't make good ships without this particular tool is untrue.  To play a physics based game and insist on physics breaking tools is just counter intuitive.  Of course there are form factors that are the most efficient.  Of course there are physical limitations to the different sized cores.  The things you say are obstructing creation are many of the same things that are fueling innovation.  

The forums are for everyone. 

*Elements Stacking is a bug, there’s no way around it. As a bug, especially one generating a lot of gameplay imbalance, it has to disappear at some point. *
NQ Dev announcement, 20 Sept 2021

So we should allow people to keep an unfair advantage because you like the way it looks.  Copy that. 

Take a deep breath sir. 

Not implying. Its a clear application of the law to break a monopoly. 
 
And there are precedents. 
EU forced MS to open up office document standards to allow for other office programs to open them. 
 
How far away is to require binaries to also be portable? 
 
MS abuses its monopoly positions in many fronts. One of them is the binary ecosystem. 
 

Steam supporting and pushing developers to support multiple platforms is not a bad example. 
 
Ubuntu has a share of 0.2%.
I would say that if the work needed to put it running on Ubuntu is lower than 0.2% then its worth it.
 
As for testing, low budget games often say that the game "should work" on linux. 
And knowing the linux share, linux users accept this. 
 
But that is different from: "lets use visual studio proprietary libs and F you linux" 
 
Windows has a monopoly in PC gaming.
That wont end until developers do something about it. 
 
Most triple A engines already support linux. Its just up to the end developer to opt not to include BS visual studio crap. 

Yet it appears that steam does not have any "too many distros" problems.
 
"Valve officially released Steam for Linux on February 14, 2013. As of June 2020 the number of Linux-compatible games on Steam exceeds 6,500."

Current games are already at 40GB size. And use 8GB+ ram
Why should you even bother with depending on distro related libs? To save 1% disk space? Or 1% ram? Just pack your own libs with the game...
All you need from the distro are a few libs that connect to the kernel and the graphics card. And those are common in all distros.

If the engine (the part that really needs to use distro libs) supports linux. And that's a BIG IF.
Then the game not working on Linux is a result of bad programming.