Jump to content


Community Manager
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NQ-Nyzaltar

  1. Hi everyone! Thanks for bringing that issue. We transmitted this to the developers and hope to have an answer for you very soon on that topic. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  2. @Leppard @Hazaatan Alright guys. We understand the "Wipe" topic is an heated one and everyone has the right to have his own opinion. Being passionate about it doesn't prevent to remain respectful towards each other. Please cool off a bit. Thank you for your understanding.
  3. For all "Wipe/Reset" related discussions, please stick to the already existing forum threads, "Shedding Light On a Novaquark Discussion" and "Ongoing Discussions". To avoid multiple threads on the same topic, this thread will now be closed. Thank you for your understanding Best Regards, NQ-Nyzaltar.
  4. - Was the wipe decided months ago? No. There are still some scenarios without a wipe and some scenarios with a wipe being discussed. Some may have a personal belief on the topic. That doesn't mean their belief is the reality. - Are you making any progress? Yes. - Are any of the wipe details confirmed yet? As the final decision hasn't been made yet, it's difficult to share any relevant detail. - Which things can you say are certain? For the reason explained above, we can't say anything at the moment. - Is there a proposed launch date yet? No, we don't have any info to share on the topic at the moment. We (the whole Novaquark team) do know that not being able to give you any information of the topic yet is less than ideal and we do understand your frustration. Once we will have all the information on the topic, we will share it with you as soon as possible. In the meantime, please stick to the already existing forum threads, "Shedding Light On a Novaquark Discussion" and "Ongoing Discussions". Opening new threads on the topic won't make the answer come faster and will just be closed the same way as the previous ones. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  5. Hi @CDEEKS, In the case you are in conflict with a specific GM or a Customer Support agent, you can ask for escalation in a ticket and it will be reviewed to the person supervising the GM or agent for second opinion. Your ticket has currently been flagged for escalation, by default. If you don't have a reply after a few days, you can also reach out to one of the current Community Managers (NQ-Nyota, NQ-Rubicon or NQ-Nyzaltar) to check the ticket status and contact the supervisor the ticket was supposed to reach if any issue happened with the ticket. However, we ask you to use this option as a last resort, and only for urgent/important topics. @Distinct Mint That's the worst possible advice to give: The forum rules stipulate clearly private discussions with a Novaquark employee shouldn't be posted on the forum (or any public space) for several reasons: 1. Because it needs first the agreement of both parties to do so legitimately. 2. Because it can quickly generate unecessary community trouble and/or controversy, especially if only a part of the situation has been explained to the Community. 3. Because it could be a way to "weaponize" and manipulate public opinion in one direction or another if the situation has been only partially explained. 4. Because it can end up in public shaming (which is another forbidden thing on the forum, whether it's against another community member or a Novaquark employee) and that generally doesn't help much solving conflicts. Best Regards, NQ-Nyzaltar.
  6. Hi everyone! As this post was also posted in the dedicated thread about the wipe (which was the right move to do), this current thread is going to be locked, to avoid duplicating the discussions. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  7. Hi everyone, Please don't open multiple threads on the same topic. It makes the global discussion harder to follow, and for this reason, this forum thread will be locked. You have already a reply about the wipe topic here and we ask you to continue the discussion on this topic in this recent forum thread, with already more replies in it. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  8. Hi everyone, You have already a reply about the wipe topic here and we ask you to continue the discussion in this forum thread (please do not open new threads or necropost old ones. This will not make the discussion easier to follow, quite the contrary in fact). We know you want more details on the topic and we're working on giving you more information in the near future. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  9. Hi everyone, Please don't necropost a (very) old forum thread for a specific topic, especially when there are recent ones already existing. For this reason, this topic will be locked. You have already a reply about the wipe topic here and we ask you to continue the discussion on this topic in this recent forum thread, with already more replies in it. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  10. Hi everyone, Please don't open multiple threads on the same topic. It makes the global discussion harder to follow, and for this reason, this forum thread will be locked. You have already a reply about the wipe topic here and we ask you to continue the discussion on this topic in this recent forum thread, with already more replies in it. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  11. Hi Noveans, First thank you everyone for your feedback about the Athena PTS Announcement. We saw a lot of questions and concerns raised, and we will try to adress them as much as possible in the coming days. We want to bring some clarification already to some of the topics mentioned in this forum thread: @fridaywitch @Thunderblaze @PotatoMart You caught onto the word “wipe” that was in the announcement. Please know that: As of today, there has not been a decision made about a server reset also known as a wipe. It is something that we are aware of that has been causing very heated player discussions and when we have more information about this topic, it will definitely be passed along to everyone as soon as we can. Nothing more has been said than what has been already mentioned on Discord earlier this year - that we were discussing the topic internally - so this is just a follow-up of what has been already said (and makes the thing more official), with the addition that the team will come to a conclusion soon. At some point, we need to address the Elephant in the room. We are also aware that it has been a recurring question since Beta Launch, and though we weren't able to give a proper answer on that topic for a very long time, the wait is going to come to an end. A lot of options have been discussed. The final decision will not be made on a whim, the team will be taking into consideration and pondering carefully all factors and sides to the topic. More info on that in the coming weeks to enter into the details. If we don't give details right now, it's because the discussions are still in progress and it's a bit too soon to confirm anything. We understand that some of you may feel as if we were not caring or being direspectful towards you, our players. However, if we do communicate on this sensible topic ahead of the official release, it's precisely because we do care about the Community and your feedback. What could have been disrespectful would be to announce the decisions one or two weeks before Official Release, giving no time for you to express your feedback. In our opinion, you deserve to know what are the ongoing topics currently discussed internally at Novaquark (even though we can't share the details yet). At least, you know which topics are coming on the table soon (or which ones are already on the table). Some of you may also feel that we're not communicating enough, or maintaining a "deafening silence". Please keep in mind we promised to have better communication and better transparency with the Community. We are currently communicating what we can communicate right now. Not answering on the spot, right after the announcement, is not a sign of ignoring the Community. It may require gathering feedback first, discussing it with the team, before being able to give a proper answer. Replying in the 24/48 hours is usually a common time window. We also completely understand that it may seem frustrating right now to not have more details and we ask you for just a bit more patience. Please keep also in mind that we do value your support and the time you invested in Dual Universe so far, and no matter which decision the team will make in the future, we take this part seriously into account in the decision making process, so you won't start from zero even in the most drastic scenarios considered. @CptLoRes @blundertwink About “this is all we get for the final game”: Please understand that if Athena is the last major update before Official Release, it doesn’t mean it’s the last update before Official Release, we may have one or more smaller updates before official release, having less content, but content that could really improve the game and/or the user experience a lot. Official Release doesn’t mean “the final game” at all. The roadmap will continue after the official release and many more updates are planned. We hope this clarifies a bit the Novaquark team's stance on those topics. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  12. @xoxWildcardxox Public shaming is forbidden by the forum rules. If some player have done some reprehensible things to you and breach some basic rules, you have to contact the Customer Support by writing a ticket or reach out a Community Manager in private, just like @Msoul said. We can understand the frustration of such situation. However it's not because another has broken some rules and did some wrong that you're now allowed to break some yourself in return. @SMooreace Refering to a group of players as "pathetic basement dwellers" or similar expressions is not okay, just as it is not okay to call a group of players as "filthy carebears" or similar expressions. Both PvP and Non-PvP players are supposed to respect this simple rule of remaining polite on the forum. If it's beyond your strength, don't participate at all in this kind of topics. Also before accusing NQ of banning people in a partial way, here's also a reminder of how things work here: - If a player uses a bug exploit, don't do the same, just report him/her to Customer Support or a Community Manager. That's the only way to respond appropriately. - If you start using the same bug exploit to make justice yourself, then you are as guilty as the first offender and should accept the risk that you might be banned. And yes, sometimes, it may happen that the first offender may not have been caught either because he hasn't been reported properly, or because insufficient info have been brought to our attention. This situation may happen, despite the Novaquark team trying his best to assign sanctions in an impartial way. That's why the only solution to be on the safe side is the first approach mentioned above, and not fall in the mindset "xxxxx did something wrong, so it's fair I will do the same in return, without being sanctioned". That's not how things work and will never be. As this topic has no constructive purpose, and only inciting to personal attacks, it will now be closed. Thank you for your understanding. Best Regards, Nyzaltar
  13. Hi everyone, As this topic has been the opposite of a constructive thread, it will now be locked. @Daphne Jones@Lethys This kind of behavior to antagonize a part of the Community is not acceptable, here's a new warning. Using words like "gtfo", "carebear", "butthurt" is only meant to provoke/flame and escalate conflict and you (very well) know it. You're not new here. EDIT: warning added to @VandelayIndustries, for sharing the same "spirit" as the two mentioned above. Nyzaltar.
  14. Hi everyone! You probably heard that NQ-Pann has left Novaquark a few weeks ago. Today, we are happy to announce that a new Community Manager is joining the team: NQ-Nyota ! ? Please give her a warm welcome! P.S: on a side note, NQ-Naerais is still unavailable but should be back in a couple of months. Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  15. Hey Noveans! If you want to react on the Developer team reply to the Core Slots limitation Community feedback, please discuss it below! Best regards, Nyzaltar.
  16. Dear Noveans, We took the time to look at all the feedback you gave us during this weekend and the past few days. We understand there are still concerns and that the second version is not the perfect solution to all potential problems. That doesn’t mean we are just going to deploy this version and be done with it. As mentioned previously, our goal has never been to punish players and we don’t want you to feel pressured to destroy/abandon/remove some of your current constructs. Therefore, while monitoring how things will evolve (reminder: we are still in Beta, and things are bound to change or to be tweaked. Nothing is set in stone yet), we are going to act on two aspects when we will deploy the core units limitation with the Panacea release: Extending the time period during which the automatic abandonment feature for core units in excess will remain inactive (1 month was previously announced but we now aim at 2-3 months at least). This is to make sure everyone has enough time to reach the amount of core slots needed through queued talent training focused on specifically construct slots. In rare cases where it wouldn’t be enough, the Novaquark team is willing to help players who have large community projects, assuming they don’t gain any particular profit from them, and they’ve been in the limit of “one player personal cores + organization cores limit of one organization (which is 275 pre-Panacea)” and for whom the limit of 200 cores per player is not enough. We know those cases will be quite rare as there are currently less than 40 organizations going beyond the 200 Core limitation. If you are a player in charge of an organization with more than 200 constructs and you have a genuine issue about keeping all your Constructs, please reach out to NQ-Deckard or NQ-Nyzaltar on Discord or on the forum by private message and we will see how we can assist. Again, the goal is not to frustrate you, our players, nor put you in panic mode to reduce the amount of core units you may currently have in your organization(s). We are not applying limitations with a light heart, without caring for players. We do know that these measures are frustrating for many of you, but at some point, we have to think also about the long-term sustainability of the game. All the restrictive measures already deployed, going to be deployed or activated in the coming months, have been all decided with this main goal in mind. We do acknowledge the first version of the core units limitation was way too low and too much based on metrics that weren't detailed enough, not taking into account many edge cases. To show our good will, we decided to approach the problem from another angle: what could be the highest limitation of core units we could give to the players without endangering long-term sustainability? The answer is what has been suggested in the second version. Even if we wanted to go further, it would be unreasonable. What would be the point of keeping the "no limit" policy if we find ourselves unable to sustain the model one year after its release? Dual Universe is meant to become a MMORPG and as such we have to do our best to design it for the long term. You might ask: Why didn't you set the limitations sooner? Why is it just now you talk about long term sustainability? Those are legitimate questions and here is the explanation: We had, of course, from the beginning, some rough estimation regarding long term sustainability. But as you can imagine, estimation on paper (or even simulations with a massive amount of bots) can vary quite significantly from actual metrics we get from running a live server with a massive amount of real players. To have accurate numbers, we needed to have two things: having all the main gameplay mechanics implemented in game, and enough metrics about player habits once all the main gameplay mechanics have been implemented. Those are things we didn't have yet before Beta launch and we could only guess before for some of them. Player habits are, for example, a parameter no one can predict perfectly in advance. Even after reaching the Beta stage, it required quite a few months to accumulate enough data to have an accurate idea of what could be the real cost per player. So yes, ideally, we should have set the limitations much earlier, to prevent players from going wild in creativity beyond what was technically reasonable and sustainable. However, this would have been a decision with just "gut feeling" (which is always very risky) and not based on relevant metrics. Now to reply to the many suggestions and concerns you’ve mentioned in past few days: Isn't there a risk of seeing the organization slots weaponized by opponents infiltrated in the organization through Alts? Weaponizing organization slots - if someone ever does that - will have a very limited impact. There will be no way of catching by surprise the legates of an organization: - Legates of the organization are all notified when a construct check has failed for the first time (opening the two-week period before random abandonment), in order to check what happened, take immediate action and handle the situation before the next check. - Once lent, construct slots cannot be taken back for 30 days, which limits the possibilities for immediate negative actions and allows for anticipation. - Organization legates can know from the list of active slots whether a donator is part of the organization or not (and how many slots are lent), therefore caution should be taken not to rely too much on 'external' slots to deploy new constructs, especially to the point where it becomes critical to pass the construct checks. - Deploying a construct is restricted to legates and via RDMS, so people actually using the slots are assumed to be trustworthy. - The log keeps track of every movement in the slot count (who gave/took back slots, how many and when, what happens to the amount lent by this player, what happens to the total amount for the organization) Will you give us more control ( show the values ) of : - how many cores do you have free? - how many org slots cores do you have free? - what is YOUR org potential limit? The org related numbers are visible in the new UI elements, we will look into creating better insight into your personal construct counts however this will not be available in the initial release of Panacea. Why chosing core units abandonment randomly? We understand it might seem a strange decision at first glance, but we think it's a necessary measure to prevent some players to abuse the system (like inflating temporarily the number of core unit slots before a war and fill them with junk or "can afford to lose" ships). We did consider ways of selecting which type of constructs should be abandoned first, but in the end we found none exempt from loophole. Why not go with “constructs are not abandoned when the limit is not high enough? You just can't place new ones (otherwise many constructs will be abandoned long before the players will have leveled the skills for that) This would in fact result in a situation where an organization could get players to temporarily increase their slots, deploy a very large amount of constructs, and then remove the slots to leave the constructs in place. This in fact does not meet our requirements. Suggestion: assigning automatically 10 organization core slots to each organization the player is joining? If he joins the organization, he must participate in the group effort. While we definitely agree on the idea (each member of an organization should participate a minimum to help an organization to achieve its goal(s)), there are a lot of edge cases if we enforce a hardcoded assignment. What happens if the member doesn’t have 10 organization core slots available? Can he still join the organization? What happens to those who are already in organizations and don’t have the required slots? Moreover, if someone really doesn’t want to share some organization slots, he might just quit an organization if we try to force to assign organization slots to a player. In every case, whether it’s enforced or not, it’s up to an organization leader to convince their members to assign some organization slots to the said organization. Last but not least, enforcing an organization core slot assignment shouldn’t be a prerequisite: not all organizations have a purpose of sharing constructs, and we want to let the organization system be flexible in this regard. Suggestion: putting a maximum amount of organization core slots being assigned per member to one specifically organization? (beyond the 10 automatically assigned, like 25 max) Limiting organization slots assigned per organization will just have the same effect as the suggestion above: if a player wants to keep organization slots for personal use, they will still find a way to do so by creating several organizations for personal use. Beside, as some of you may be wary of potential opponents infiltrating an org, letting the option of having the maximum amount of organization core slots assigned to one organization should be useful to make sure that even in big organizations, you might have a significant amount of organization core slots with just a small team of trusted people. Will we have a way to disassemble or deactivate easily and quickly a Construct to avoid taking hours to just remove the Constructs in excess of the Core slot limitation? (for example, an ability to compactify a larger variety of constructs in a way that retains their mass and volume, so you can basically box away ships - or even buildings - not currently in use to avoid the core count cost) This kind of feature is on the roadmap. While we’ll try our best, we cannot guarantee it will be delivered before the activation of the automatic abandonment feature for core units in excess owned by an organization. Will there be in-game assistance from GMs in deleting or dismantling the constructs? As we plan to extend beyond 1 month for the inactivity of the automatic abandonment feature as mentioned above, we aim at developing a tool to make it easier to disassemble or deactivate Constructs using the Core Units in excess. We’ll keep you informed on the topic once we’ll have more information about it. What do you think about limiting to each player to be a member of 5 orgs maximum? That could be an idea, but being aware of how frustration is accumulating after many limitations, we don’t want to push more limitations than the ones really needed. How long would it take to train all the talents to max them and reach the maximum limitation? Currently we estimate to maximise all the talents from nothing, will take approximately 6 to 7 months. However there is a curve, the last few talents take the longest: - In 30 days, you should be able to reach around 60 slots total. - In 60 days, you should be able to reach around 90 slots total. - In 90 days, you should be able to reach around 130 slots total. - In 120 days, you should be able to reach around 170 slots total. The remaining slots will take considerable time. Remember you will also have a partial refund of talent points, which should speed up quite significantly your training in the new talents. If cores were tokenized will they count towards the cap? So if I was to tokenize 90% of a HUGE station? that might save it? Technically they wouldn't be my core right? Might be a legit way to save larger projects. Then hand out tokens to people who buy / already own... These tokens expire after 3 months or something. Tokens are always inactive, so server wise not as much load? Boom, in game tradable property token market aka NFT's (without being able to buy these with USD but they would be considered as "Non-Fungible Tokens"). While tokenized, constructs still count towards the organization they belong to until the token is claimed. And transferred ownership is to another owner. That's all for now, but if you have additional feedback on the upcoming changes, let us know in this discussion thread! The Novaquark team.
  17. Hi everyone! Just to let you know: The reply to your feedback posted during the weekend and the past two days is taking a bit longer than expected (we're trying to reply to as many suggestions you made as possible), and should be released tomorrow or Thursday, February 3rd. Best Regards, Nyzaltar. @Warlander You've clearly crossed a line with this kind of statement here. The fact that you may be frustrated about the current situation is understandable, but that doesn't excuse everything. There are forum rules, and you're clearly ignoring some of them. Inciting to devs harassment and/or see them fired? Not the kind of behavior accepted on this forum. Your forum posting rights are now revoked. You may appeal to this decision by reaching out to community@novaquark.com or the Customer Support, but unless you change drastically your mindset, don't expect any positive answer. @LeeRoyINC ... Except there isn't currently any financial issue in the company. The budget is tight but Novaquark is in no danger at the moment. The current limitations that are going to be implemented in game are meant for long term sustainability of the game (more info on that in the next reply from the dev team). Due to the agressive tone, the intent to spread misleading information and blatant lies, and the lack of the most elementary respect for Novaquark staff, your forum posting rights are revoked. You may appeal to this decision by reaching out to community@novaquark.com or the Customer Support, but unless you change drastically your mindset, don't expect any positive answer. The fact that you may be frustrated about the current situation is understandable, but that doesn't excuse everything.
  18. Hi everyone. Thanks a lot for all your feedback on the topic. We understand the slot limitation described in the devblog is quite frustrating and we're transmitting all your feedback to the Game Design team. We'll try to come back ASAP with a reply from the team. Please be patient. Edit: "current slot limitation" changed by "slot limitation described in the devblog". Best Regards, Nyzaltar.
  19. @Namcigam Reply from the Game Design team: "We'll keep this feedback in mind. Thank you sincerely. We also use more metrics to adjust playing time and cover more use cases. Some players want to spend their life in the game, some others just have one-hour sessions, a few times a week. The mining units are a step in the direction of being less time consuming, since they operate while you are offline. I guess you cannot see the benefit yet, but as we balance this feature, you will have more possibilities to play at your own rhythm. Also, the max speed will be improved soon."
  20. @Sostraphaios Reply from the Game Design team: "There is no tax rate (upkeep) planned in space. There is no plan to have “space territories'' working in the same way as planet territories. We used the word "territories" in a wrong way, at least not in the same way we do on the surface. They will be more like "spots" to own. More information is coming soon. You won’t have to race to claim the “space territory” your space cores are in. At first space markets will be Aphelia-operated. Then we will discuss the topic of player-operated space markets. As for players influencing/benefit from market taxes in space, several possibilities are studied. But in the idea of a player-market, the player (or most probably the organization) must have an incentive to operate it fairly. So yes, the original design involves player-defined catalog and taxes. But keep in mind that: - player markets are not on the launch pad for now - we will learn a lot from space markets to adjust the design, that is not frozen yet. And yes, Space TW will only apply to space territories outside of the safe zone."
  21. @FatRillos Reply from the Game Design team: "Finding wrecks buried in the planet underground is supposed to be a challenge. As they are in general extremely valuable, they shouldn’t be found with a snap of fingers. If you want “easy to find” wrecks, you have the space wrecks. You might think it’s poorly implemented, but our intent is to keep some difficulty to this kind of exceptional reward."
  22. @CptLoRes Reply from the Game Design team: "This is a nice idea. However, the way we deal with space in DU makes it very complicated, if not impossible, to have moving planets/asteroids. It is a fundamental choice we made years ago, long before alpha. Our single shard nature makes it very difficult to deal with constructs that would be in the way of a moving asteroid, or player reconnecting inside of it."
  23. @Zarcata Reply from the Game Design team: "We are not sure to understand what you mean by that. Asteroids are (re)generated on Saturday, 00:01 at Australian time, which means it should be roughly 2:00 am on North America western coast, 4:00 am on North America easter coast, and 10:00 am Paris time… which means you don’t have to wait much for asteroids, even if you are in Europe."
  24. @Zarcata Reply from the Game Design team: "Space wrecks are sitting still in space (making them in motion would create too much problem to catch them). It’s true that you have a - very - small risk to be on a trajectory on a space wreck or an asteroid when you fly in space, but the probability is incredibly low. Moreover, all space wrecks (unlike wrecks buried on planets) are displayed on radars. So you would need to be incredibly unlucky AND not check your radar once in a while to have a chance to bump into it and take some heavy damage / destroy your ship. Comparatively, you have more risk to use a “pipe” (a travel trajectory used by many players) and collide with another player ship sitting still in space because the player has disconnected. Even this case is very rare."
  • Create New...