Jump to content

vertex

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    vertex reacted to NQ-Nudbrokk in Erstes deutsches Community-Treffen   
    Schwingt euch in euer schönstes Schiff und kommt zum deutschen Community-Treffen nach Sanctuary! Ihr habt nur einen der Speeder aus dem Tutorial? Kein Problem. Kommt trotzdem vorbei und habt einfach Spaß!
     
    Beim ersten deutschen Community-Treffen geht es vor allem darum neue Mitspieler kennenzulernen und vielleicht neue Freundschaften zu schließen, oder einfach nur die Schiffe eurer Mitspieler zu bestaunen, das bleibt euch überlassen.
     
    Stattfinden wird das Treffen auf dem Sanctuary-Mond, bei dem Marktplatz Sanctuary 03. Wenn ihr nicht wisst wo dieser Markt ist, könnt ihr die Karte von Sanctuary öffnen und auf der linken Seite dann die “Points of Interest” öffnen. Wenn ihr Sanctuary 03 gefunden habt, macht ihr einen Rechtsklick darauf und drückt “Als Ziel festlegen”. Nun müsst ihr nur noch zur Markierung fliegen.
     
    Geplant ist der 27.10.2020 um 16:00 Uhr! Das Ende ist quasi offen. Solange sich noch Leute dort unterhalten wollen, möchte ich euch auch nicht davon abhalten.
    Ihr könnt gerne den Discord-Channel #duscussion-de und/oder den Chat im Spiel nutzen, um miteinander zu kommunizieren.
  2. Like
    vertex reacted to NQ-Nomad in Beta 1 Release Notes. Last updated on June, 18th   
    Hi Noveans, 
     
    A new update is available today. It brings bug fixes and should also allow some performance improvements. Dual Universe is now in r0.22.9 version. The changelog is available below: 
     
    Bug Fixes
    [Market] Fixed the "sell to this buyer" / "buy from this seller" context menu and improved the label’s description. [Market] Fixed Market quantity notifications. [Market] Fixed Market seller/buyer source information for normal and updated orders to show more relevant information about transactions. [Market] Fixed reminder notification for Market purchases. It will now only notify players after completing a local instant buy. [Barter] Quanta symbol in quanta input no longer overlaps the value in the quanta input in barter. [Barter] Fixed a bug in which Quanta wasn’t displayed to both participants. [Barter] Fixed a bug in which players could not move items from their basket to empty slots in their inventory. Fixed issues between Linked Containers and Container Hubs. Please note that a possible delay of 10 seconds may occur before the Linked Container right/distance is updated. Build Helper now performs a full element update even in piloting mode. [SFX] Fixed harvest tool sound effects.
    Gameplay/Changes/Improvements
    All Institute buildings have been removed from the Alioth and Sanctuary District Areas to improve performance. A new district has been created near the Arkship that is not a starting district but has the Institutes. Each District in the Alioth starting area has a dedicated teleporter in the “District Center” construct (previously District Market) to visit the new Institute District. 10 new markets have been added near each District in the starting area on Alioth. All market functions have been removed from the Districts themselves, and existing market orders have moved to these new nearby standalone markets.  This change is intended to reduce the number of ships parked in the starting Districts, which was causing framerate issues for starting players. Anyone returning to the starting area (Pioneer zone) to use the markets should instead go to the standalone Markets nearby.    Removed "Share Publicly for all" as some players accidentally misuse it. Using the maneuver tool now prevents damage. [GUI] Various interface sound effect changes. An error now displays when players try to convert organization constructs to personal ones when max construct limits have been reached. [PVP] Alerts are no longer displayed in safe zones. [FTUE] Updated First Time User Experience according to the District refactor (Institutes and Markets). [FTUE] Robustification of tutorials has been reintroduced. Players can no longer close windows or click when important actions are taking place.  
    Known Issues
    Windows certificate is not up to date. This may prompt a warning message for new players during the first install. It can safely be ignored. The starting FTUE tutorial notes the location of tutorial teleporters as being in the District Center  (previously District Marketplace) where the market pods used to be. As a workaround, these tutorials can now be found in the new Institute District. Uninstalling the game directly from Windows will leave the game files on the disk. Please use the game dedicated unins000.exe uninstaller located in the game directory for that. Numerous French and German localization issues have already been spotted. In some situations, you may not be able to place a Static Core Unit on your claimed Sanctuary Territory. An error message saying that it's too close to another construct is displayed. This may occur due to being too close to a District. Trying again from a further distance should solve this issue for now. A random rendering crash may occur under some conditions due to low GPU/driver resources. Voxel crashes may occur due to low disk/memory. [SFX] Only blue fireworks currently function. [Industries] Talents that impact ingredients of recipe products are not displayed client-side, but the recipe updates with the server recipe when starting.
      Cheers, 
    Nomad
  3. Like
    vertex reacted to NQ-Naerais in Marketplace Performance Improvements   
    Hello Noveans,
     
    We realize that the districts currently represent a performance bottleneck, as they are a choke point between markets, institutes and the starting zone for new players. Even though we have identified performance improvements that should help solve these issues, we have decided to make some immediate changes to prevent these issues from affecting the performance for new players, until we are able to roll out these improvements.
     
    So we are making some temporary changes such as relocating many of the services you have come to know and expect in the districts: 
    New Stand Alone Markets will be moved approx. 2km from the associated district.  All pending orders will be transferred to the new market building.  All institutes will be removed from districts on Alioth and Sanctuary.  A new single Institute will be created near the Arkship.  Transport stations will be placed at all Districts to be able to get to the Institutes.   
    The institutes appear to be a heavy driver of performance issues, by removing them from higher traffic areas we hope to provide a better market experience for players overall. 
     
    Players who log out on one of the affected construct buildings may find themselves in a new location when returning post maintenance. We recommend bookmarking important places and construct locations. 
     
    As always, we appreciate your patience while we work, and welcome your feedback on the changes and performance improvements once complete.  We expect these changes will occur over the next few update cycles during October. 
     
    Sincerely,

    The Novaquark Team
     
  4. Like
    vertex got a reaction from CptLoRes in Refund update   
    While these are opposing statements I just couldn't agree more with BOTH of them
     
    At first it took me what felt like forever waiting for the vertex editor and I didn't touch much of voxelmancy, even tho I knew the mechanics and could manipulate stuff to get the expected results. My nick ain't a coincidence after all, but it took me a very long time to experience moments in which I actually had fun manipulating voxels and see the pro-voxelmancy side of things. Still these remained rare occasions and I always reverted to rather simple shapes on large scale because doing what I wanted was just too tedious and felt like doing the pontius-pilatus-run (English "pillar to post"?) for every single line, row and column in the 512x512x512 grid. Choice was like either do a flat roof and be done in 1 minute or make a nice curve, add details and invest days just for the looks of it while also knowing it would result in a worse frontal cross-section.
     
    While usually being just a happy builder on the "style over quality" side, the lack of advanced tools like vertex editor pushed me to the opposite side of this spectrum in DU, which in fact has been my greatest disappointment so far and the reason I just can't resist joining this off-topic discussion right now 
     
    Seeing this being on 1st place right after the pinned votes was the best news ever to me:
    https://upvote.dualuniverse.game/suggestions/122830/voxel-vertices-editor
     
    If you didn't already: vote for it rite meow. Wheee! \o/
     
     
    Feeling guilty now. On topic: well, to my knowledge NQ has been rather courteous (what's a good word for "kulant" in English?) regarding refunds. So good luck on your support ticket and sorry it didn't work out for you. Anyways, on the level of moral intuition I feel like the right thing to do with a pledge that didn't turn out as expected is just seeing it like one took a chance and lost some money gambling. When I pledged back in the days I already knew this could turn out as something like EVE and possibly drive me away, or it might even fail completely as many other Kickstarter campaigns failed in the past. So I took the highest stake I ever did in my gaming history (several hundreds of €), because I've never seen any concept/chance that came even close to this project - but I accepted the risk of losing all that money even before I spent it. Thing is I knew my finances back then and knew that if it turned out well, I'd have spent that money and could live without it - when it doesn't work out tho and I don't get the money back, it's still the same on my financial side and I couldn't claim that I'm in trouble without that amount, because that would be the case even if it worked out too. Just mentioning this because I've seen others who made it seem as if it was a lot of money that impacts their life significantly and... well... I failed to relate on why spend it in the first place if pockets are too tight. Might not apply here tho, so sorry in that case - didn't mean to offend or suggest anything, just sharing experience/thoughts.
  5. Like
    vertex reacted to CptData in Schiffs(bau)prinzipien für Konstrukteure und Piloten   
    So. Schiffchen fliegt nun auch zwischen den Monden. Der Trick war, ein M-Triebwerk als Hauptantrieb draufzuschnallen und zwei zusätzliche S-Flügelpaare als Auftriebsunterstützung (M-Flügel sind die Hauptträger). Hab die Strecke zwischen Sanctuary und Alioth geschafft ohne Crash & Sterbefälle. Also Raumjäger ist einsatztauglich. Aber muss man erstmal drauf kommen - Space Flight ist NIX für Anfänger in dem Spiel. Hat man die Herausforderung erstmal geschafft, ist das ein echtes Achievement, ein echter Meilenstein.

    Da kann man schonmal stolz drauf sein :D

    Das mit dem LUA Parametern habe ich nicht ganz begriffen. Wo und wie? Mit manuellem Bremsen und dem Wissen, wie sich der Flieger auf dem Boden verhält, ist es inzwischen relativ einfach für mich.
  6. Like
    vertex got a reaction from CptData in Schiffs(bau)prinzipien für Konstrukteure und Piloten   
    "Vorwort"
    Drüben im andern Thread sind wir massiv ins Off-Topic abgedriftet und als ich dann gemerkt hab, wieviel man zu diesen Fragen schreiben kann, hab ich beschlossen lieber einen neuen Thread dafür zu eröffnen  
     
    Die folgenden Fragen beziehen sich auf den Wiedereintritt in die Atmosphäre, das Bremsen im freien Fall und Flugeigenschaften im Allgemeinen. Wird etwas länger, aber am Ende gibt's Kekse.
     
    Begriffe die ich hier ein wenig durcheinanderwürfel:
    Gieren = rechts/links = Drehung um die Hochachse
    Nicken = hoch/runter = Drehung um die Querachse
    Rollen = ... = Drehung um die Längsachse
    Stabilisatoren = Stabilizers = Stabis = Seitenleitwerke
    Ailerons = Querruder oder Höhenleitwerke
     
    Jo. Stabis, Leitwerke (Ailerons) oder Tragflächen (Wings) - alles die selbe Soße mit verschiedenen Gewürzen. Die Stabis haben mehr Masse und eine geringere Gleitzahl (lift/drag ratio - je höher desto besser), haben dafür aber einen größeren Stall-Winkel (der mögliche Winkel bis zum Strömungsabriss).
     
    Davon, ob deine Triebwerke mehr Bumms haben als deine Tragflächen Auftrieb - und davon, ob du gewillt bist unnötig Treibstoff zu verblasen, falls es auch anders geht. (Da jetzt der Kontext etwas fehlt: Hier geht es um die Frage, ob man besser um 180° dreht und Schub gibt um den freien Fall zu bremsen, oder doch lieber die Nase in Flugrichtung lässt um den Auftrieb der Tragflächen zu nutzen.)
     
    Kann man. In den Eigenschaften (RMB -> inspect element, oder via Market raussuchen falls man das Element nicht besitzt) sieht man immer eine Angabe in Newton. Bei Tragflächen ist das der Auftrieb, bei Triebwerken der Schub. Wenn du jetzt wesentlich mehr Schub hast als Auftrieb, dann kann dir "Arsch in Fahrtrichtung und Vollgas" den selbigen retten  
     
    Den Schub-/Auftriebswert der Elemente in Newton kann man übrigens grob durch 10 teilen um das Ergebnis mit der Schiffsmasse in kg zu vergleichen. Bezieht sich dann darauf eine bestimmte Masse bei 1g in der Schwebe zu halten. 10 Newton können (bei 1g) rund 1kg in der Schwebe halten - respektive 10 000 N entsprechen ungefähr einer Tonne (1t = 1000kg) - ist besonders bei Hover Engines und V-Boostern interessant. Die mittlere Erdbeschleunigung auf Meereshöhe beträgt 9,81m/s², also rund 10 - daher dieser ungefähre "geteilt durch 10" Part.
     
    Bei einer 180° Drehung mit Heck in Flugrichtung (oder Fallrichtung) funktioniert der lineare Schub der Triebwerke als Bremse, während im Vorwärtsflug die Tragflächen vertikalen Auftrieb erzeugen und dich in einer Kurve nach oben ziehen. Stellst du dein Schiff 90° zur Flugrichtung, dann sind die Tragflächen im Strömungsabriss (90° ist größer als die 55° bei M-Flügeln oder 70° bei M-Stabis) und ziemlich wirkungslos - dafür haben aber die meisten Schiffe eine größere "vertical cross section" (Atmospheric Flight Engineer) als "frontal cross section" und somit selbst im Strömungsabriss zumindest mehr Luftwiderstand. D.h. im senkrechten Fall waagerecht fliegen kann ebenfalls gut funktionieren, wenn man dabei vollen Schub gibt und so genug Vorwärtsgeschwindigkeit generiert, dass der Fall von 90° auf <55° bzw <70° abgelenkt wird und die Tragflächen wieder Auftrieb erzeugen. Nase dabei nach hoch und man wirkt dem Fall noch etwas entgegen, kommt aber auch später aus dem Strömungsabriss raus. Wenn man 2 mal X drückt (um die Vektorpfeile für Flugrichtung und Kräfte der verbauten Elemente anzuzeigen) und dann die Einfügen-Taste (um in die 3rd Person zu wechseln (Alt halten zum Umschauen)), dann kann man genau sehen, wo man hinfliegt (grüner Pfeil) und welches Element gerade wieviel Kraft ausübt (rote Pfeile).
     
    Welcher Flugstil für welche Schiffskonfiguration am besten ist lässt sich eigentlich nur grob abschätzen und dann mit Erfahrungen untermauern. Konstrukte können auch ganz ohne Tragflächen auskommen - bspw vertikal starten und dann immer etwas mit dem Heck runterhängen, um oben zu bleiben (sieht halt bescheuert aus beim Atmosphärenflug). Ebenso kommt man mit sehr schwachen Triebwerken aus, wenn man durch die Tragflächen so viel Auftrieb erzeugt, dass man quasi bei minimaler Geschwindigkeit schon segeln kann
     
    Höhenauftrieb ist vermutlich "high altitude lift" - der Wert bezieht sich auf deine Tragflächen.
    "Low altitude lift" bezieht sich auf Hover Engines und Vertical Booster (in Bodennähe).
    "Brake force" wird ebenfalls in g angegeben - bezieht sich alles auf die 1g von Alioth.
     
    Ein Schiff sollte mindestens 2g in allen Kategorien haben, da 1g praktisch null ist und höchstens das Halten der Höhe ermöglicht, aber nicht das Steigen. Zu beachten ist, dass die Ladung diese Werte senkt - baut man also einen Transporter, dann sollte man unbeladen mindestens 4g erreichen und auf die Masse der Ladung achten. Ist ganz simpel linear zu verstehen: Hat man die Schiffsmasse noch mal 1:1 als Ladung an Bord (Schiff ist jetzt doppelt so schwer), dann halbiert sich der Wert. Leer auf 4g heisst dann beladen 2g, was noch relativ sicher sein sollte - mehr ist natürlich immer besser.
     
    Praktisch zu berücksichtigen ist auch die Gravitation des Zielplaneten. Wenn man bspw auf Jago landen will, der nur 0.5g hat, braucht man auch nur die Hälfte an Auftrieb oder Schub. Sollte man sich aber nicht beim ersten Anflug bei jedem Planeten drauf verlassen, denn manche haben eine dünnere Atmosphäre und die Effizienz nimmt ab oder man hat einfach weniger Strecke bis zum Boden.
     
    Zu vermeiden wäre also dies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhfbHZvaw1A  
     
    Beim Zahnrad (Tab im Baumodus, Icons oben) kann man übrigens auf km/h umstellen und die Anzeige des Massezentrums aktivieren (wird als hellere Linien für die 3 Rotationsachsen dargestellt). Ladung verändert das Massezentrum - Sprit zählt auch als Ladung - benutzt man einen Container Hub (Verteiler?), dann gilt dieser als Massezentrum der verlinkten Container. Wenn man bspw den Effekt hat, dass das Schiff beim Gieren anfängt zu rollen, dann hat man die Adjustors oberhalb oder unterhalb des Massezentrums platziert. Selbiges gilt beim Nicken oder Rollen etc.
     
    Adjustors applizieren Drehmoment (Torque) und haben sozusagen eine Hebelwirkung um das Massezentrum herum. Je weiter sie also vom Massezentrum entfernt sind, desto größer ist die Hebelwirkung. Je dichter die dynamischen Massen (Ladung, Sprit) am Massezentrum platziert sind, desto weniger verschiebt sich dieses bei Zuladung. Je kompakter die Masse im Zentrum gesammelt ist, desto weniger Masseträgheit bei der Rotation.
     
    Platziert man jetzt beispielsweise die Container weit entfernt vom Massezentrum, dann dreht das Schiff noch recht agil solange es leer ist, hat man aber Ladung an Bord wird es sehr träge. Das kann aber auch ein gewünschter Effekt sein, um dem Piloten ein Gefühl für die Masse der Ladung zu vermitteln.
     
    Triebwerke (auch Hover und V-Booster) und Tragflächen generieren kein Drehmoment. Es ist also völlig egal, ob man alle Flügel auf eine und die Triebwerke auf die andere Seite packt. Intuitiv würde man denken, dass man dann einen Brummkreisel gebaut hat... fliegt aber voll normal. Auch Hover Engines und V-Booster können sich wo-auch-immer befinden, solange sie nach unten zeigen und nicht blockiert sind. Wobei "unten".. naja, wenn ihr sie auf's Dach und die Seiten packt, dann könnt ihr halt im Schwebemodus rollen und fallt nicht wie ein Butterbrot auf's eigene Dach.
     
    Letzer Punkt für jetzt: V-Leitwerke/-Tragflächen
    Alle Tragflächen erzeugen Auftrieb senkrecht zu ihrer Fläche und immer entgegen der der Beschleunigung. Stabilisatoren sind ja eigentlich Seitenleitwerke und sollen das Driften beim Gieren kompensieren (sofern sie Vertikal verbaut wurden). Da diesbezüglich alle Tragflächen gleich funktionieren, können wir Höhen- als Seitenleitwerke benutzen, Seitenleitwerke als Tragflächen und Tragflächen als Seitenleitwerk - der Effekt ist immer der selbe.
     
    Kommt aber noch besser, denn alle Tragflächen können auch diagonal verbaut werden. Horizontal verbaut = nur gut für's Nicken; um eine Kurve zu fliegen muss man in die Kurve Rollen. Oder noch vertikale Seitenleitwerke (Stabilisatoren) verbauen - dann hätten wir linke Tragfläche zu Seitenleitwerk = 90° und Seitenleitwerk zu rechter Tragfläche wieder 90°. Wenn wir die Seitenleitwerke weglassen und unsere Tragflächen einfach 90° zueinander verbauen, dann haben wir ein V-Leitwerk und jede Tragfläche dient zur einen Hälfte als Flügel und zur anderen Hälfte als Seitenleitwerk. Die Effizienz nimmt ab, aber manchmal reicht der Auftrieb trotzdem. Man muss auch nicht 90° machen - jede Konfiguration, wo die Spitze der Tragflächen höher oder niedriger ist als das gegenüberliegende Ende, dient je nach Winkel mehr oder weniger der Seitenstabilisation und man muss weniger bis gar nicht rollen um eine Kurve zu fliegen.
     
    Hoffe die Wall of Text war nicht zu schlimm. Prost! 🍻  und hier noch ein paar Kekse  🍪 🍪 🍪
  7. Like
    vertex got a reaction from smuellermielitz in Das Spiel ist jetzt schon viel zu komplex!   
    Gern. Wie wär's mit Häusle bauen?  
     
    Oder gib Lua ne Chance und bastel ein vernünftiges HUD oder Puzzle oder Layrinth oder Voxelmanipulation ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
     
    Ansonsten: mit Leuten kurzschließen. Macht mehr Laune.
  8. Like
    vertex got a reaction from Heidenherz in Mistakes made in the Code of Conduct   
    A convenience store is about to open and the guy installing the self-checkout did what he always does, but the management software of the terminal experiences an exception and didn't finish installing the routine that would trigger the alarm when someone takes stuff through the rfid scan field. Some of the workers notice this and start to take stuff out of the store. Some of these guys return and say "Look, I just took this and went out without issue - something wrong here?" while others take a hike and sell the stuff on eBay. The workers that returned, reported and helped the store owner to fix the issue were fine and continued to work the next day, while the guys who left without notice were fired.
     
    In conclusion? There's no conclusion. This is all completely beside the point of this thread. There is room for improvement on the EULA and on the in-game rule set - that's it. Pretty pretty pleeeeaaase... don't hijack this thread to continue that fruitless M15 topic 
  9. Like
    vertex reacted to Atmosph3rik in Mistakes made in the Code of Conduct   
    Let's say you owned a convenience store.   And someone walked in and bought a pack of gum, and then proceeded to stand there telling every customer who came in how they think your store sucks, and the selection sucks, and the floors are dirty, and the staff is lazy.
     
    Do you think you might ask them to leave?
     
    Maybe put up one of those signs you see in literally every store that says, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time".
     
    Why would NQ want to continue to provide a service to someone who is actively trying to harm their company?
     
    If you think they're doing something wrong, let them know.  I do it all the time.  But if you can't do it constructively then do you really expect them to let you hang out in their store, while you try to tare it down from the inside? 
  10. Like
    vertex reacted to LouHodo in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    No.. 
     
    Punishing players with a permanent for breaking the EULA.
  11. Like
    vertex reacted to Samlow in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    I for one am happy they stuck with their decision. 

    Accept it and keep playing, or move along as you all proclaimed. But it's time to stop throwing a tantrum all over the community because you didn't get it your way.
    Its done, over. The amount of attention drawing is just really bad for any normal discussion. Heck, even Duscussion is back to normal and having good conversations again.
  12. Like
    vertex reacted to LouHodo in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    This is what myself and dozens of others have said.  
     
    Time to lock this down and say good riddance to trash.
  13. Like
    vertex reacted to le_souriceau in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Then you have some problems, if such simple thing is diffucult to understand.
  14. Like
    vertex reacted to NQ-Naerais in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Hello Noveans, 
     
    At this stage it’s hard to ignore that the “Market Heist” has definitely caused a stir of dialogue and reactions both in our community and on the internet.
     
    We have taken some time to look at the situation in more detail: the actions of these players are not ok, not condoned, and will not be tolerated. We stand by our decision, and we’d like to better explain it. 
     
    Most of what Novaquark builds within the game world, such as markets, institutes or the Arkship is not a player-owned construct. It is a part of the game play designed to serve all players. There are exceptions, like shipwrecks, which are designed for salvaging, and clearly communicated as such. 
     
    We did, indeed, state to players that if RDMS is not properly set on a construct, and it results in theft, it’s part of the game and we won’t act upon it. This is to acknowledge that treason can happen in an organization, for instance, and is part of the emergent gameplay we’re trying to promote. 
     
    Now, this does obviously not apply to NQ-built constructs, which are designed to serve a specific purpose in the game. It is obvious that these constructs, owned by NQ accounts or Aphelia, are not meant to be interacted with in the same manner as player constructs. Besides, they may contain some highly overpowered and unbalanced elements which were never meant to fall in the hands of players. So the situation with the market is clearly covered by section 5.2 of the EULA: “You must refrain from engaging in any behaviour that could harm NOVAQUARK’s image and/or reputation, that could harm one or more other Users or have a negative impact on their gaming experience, or that is detrimental to the proper functioning of the Game.”
     
    Finally, and for the record, the issue with the market did not result in a wrongly-set RDMS, but rather in a duplication bug. Part of what we use is the same tools as players to build constructs. We create one district, then duplicate it. Something went wrong in the duplication process of one of the markets, which resulted in players being able to edit it.
     
    Were we harsh? Yes. But we had previously communicated that we would no longer tolerate abuses of bugs and issues. We do realize that perhaps this started innocently enough in that someone pressed “B” while standing on a market. But it went beyond this, and that shows intention. The players involved indicated that they reported the issue, and after further investigation, one did, though not by following the proper feedback channel: they pinged a staff account on Discord in the middle of the night. We’ve clearly stated that staff do not respond to pings on Discord, and that the reporting method for exploits and bugs of this nature is either via our ticket system, or via a community manager on the forums. 
     
    Even a proper attempt to inform us about an exploit doesn’t mean that it’s OK to go on and abuse it. Communicating an exploit to the NQ staff doesn’t serve as a way to absolve the players, it’s only meant to ensure that we fix the issue - it’s not a free pass to use an exploit. The banned players destroyed a player market by dismantling it, and the fact that they communicated with us via Reddit with a request not to be banned shows that they knew what they were doing was wrong. They posted on Reddit, proud of their ‘achievement’ and of the destruction. 
     
    In the end, repairing the damage cost us hours of manpower across multiple departments, which could have been invested into further progressing the game. 
     
    That is why we take this seriously. 
     
    Here are a couple of things that we’d like to reiterate:
    We are in beta.  Things aren’t always going to work as intended. But we have a persistent, single-shard universe, and altering its foundations impacts all players. Bug Fixes aren’t instant. They take manpower time to find, investigate, fix, test and roll out. We try to make sure that fixing a bug doesn’t introduce a dozen more. As beta players, we count on you to help us and report bugs, not abuse them. We believe that this is fairly standard for most games.   We genuinely hope this brings some clarity to the situation, and ask you all to remember this is a communal effort. We’re in this together.
     
    Sincerely,
    The Novaquark Team
     
     
  15. Like
    vertex got a reaction from Cal Rouvenor in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Is there any confirmation that this was possible due to RDMS misconfiguration? I haven't seen any.
     
    Even if so, to all you people who compare this to previous RDMS theft, there's a significant difference that can't just be tagged with "hypocrisy" and be called done: this "heist" didn't just target NQ - above all it was an attack against all of us and I have a hard time reading your postings defending that.
     
    The most important difference between a construct owned by a player versus Aphelia is not a question of customer versus provider. The difference is in the number of players that rely on it and would be affected negatively. As said above, this was an attack against all of us - not just because "some of us" lost market orders, but because "all of us" now can expect a delay on the next update and other issues because NQ needs to tend to this issue now. In addition it impacts trust and cooperation between the player base and the provider.
     
    Even if you are right and this theft is technically the same as other RDMS theft, it's still a vastly different thing to sabotage "our game and NQ's development" versus "a player's construct" - to me that's not hypocrisy but apples versus oranges. On the note of real world examples: this is like going to a building site and steal the copper pipes because there was no door. Just that this is the building we all want to live in, not just the shed of some hermit.
     
     
    Many people, including me, think NQ should be more transparent and communicate openly - but by solely reading this thread I almost wouldn't want to talk to you anymore in their stead... but that doesn't take into account that I also think we're in this situation because they didn't communicate properly in the first place. Now people are jumping to conclusions again, calling them out based on made-up hypotheses alone, not really knowing anything? First paragraph of this answer: RDMS misconfiguration? Give me the link to that NQ confirmation first, on which your bad "reaction" vibes are based please - otherwise you're not reacting but just acting based on an imagined reality. I'm sorry if I just missed that piece of information about RDMS misconfiguration if there was anything official - even tho it still wouldn't change my general opinion.
     
     
    The critics regarding "Why is Aphelia's market build and stored dynamically?" is easy to answer: player markets are planned. So setting up hard coded markets and then create another system with redundant functionality would be a waste of time. Aphelia owned markets are ground work for player owned markets and lets all of us test and harden it before we put our own terminals down. Once that happens markets will be spilled all over the game world and it would be a lot harder to maintain/fix/develop the system with an ever changing number of markets and different market configurations than working with a fixed set of Aphelia owned markets now.
     
    Btw: it's been said here that Aphelia "is a player" - but that's not true. At best it's an NPC character that doesn't even have an avatar standing around in game. Aphelia doesn't set up RDMS policies either - again just presuming that it was "owners fault".
     
     
    Ok, it may look like "Done to you? Haha! Done to us? Nono!" but to me that's way too simple and feels like a reaction of someone holding a grudge because of his personal situation or hurt feelings regarding prior injustice (for which we don't know why what decision made on which grounds). Some thought NQ only posted those announcements because "people whined" and refused to listen before their very special exploit was directly listed, even tho NQ clearly stated it as general rules - well, now at least you know, eh?  
     
    To those who say it's not clearly stated in the rules that you can't dismantle a market if it's in jeopardy because of "RDMS misconfiguration" (unconfirmed afaict) and the issue therefore should be treated exactly like any other player base RDMS scam, here's an excerpt from the EULA that Naerais referred to in the original post:
    Source https://www.dualuniverse.game/legal/eula
     
    ^ If destroying a market ain't "detrimental to the proper functioning" I don't know what else could be. Permanent ban? Correct decision. This wasn't an accident - this was a deliberate act. And Naerais said explicitly that there was no report made by the people in question. Hence they put their lust for publicity and their ego above the well-being of everyone else in this community and even above the spirit of the beta, where we're supposed to help test and report issues to aid development. It's a 180° deviation from this ship's course and if they failed to see that they should not be part of this.
     
    Even tho yesterday I told some friends I think "if NQ got balls" they could remove the stolen elements that players normally don't have access to and otherwise just say "gg" - meaning I would've be fine with that too - but when I said that I didn't know the magnitude or that players' orders would be affected.
     
    To those who say that they don't want to test anymore because they don't know if that test could lead to them being banned: I agree, if you can't tell the difference between a) testing if you can remove unimportant elements from a market that you know you shouldn't have access to and then report and refrain from doing more harm, versus b) ripping a market apart, utterly destroying it... then yes, I agree that you should stop testing. But I'm pretty sure that distinction should be rather easy for everyone, so I'd suggest and prefer if you'd just rethink that over exaggerating stance  
     
    tl;dr
    Seeing them finally taking action is highly welcome. I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" - but this case is without any doubt. I hope future decisions will be just as strict when there's sufficient evidence to act without risk of hitting the wrong target. And I hope that they'll soon be up to date with reports again and act faster - right now we don't even know if the past exploit thefts (not RDMS mistakes) will remain without action or if they're still investigating. Tracing an issue and distinguishing it from normal/legit behaviour can be pretty difficult and take time. Just because we haven't seen action for that yet doesn't mean it's not gonna come at some point - even if they could act quickly on the "market heist" issue, which just means that the facts were clear and it was easy to trace and act.
  16. Like
    vertex reacted to ONIXXX in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    RDMS settings are stored inside the structure, if someone reconfigured it using hacking or illegal methods, then the B button will be available to everyone, not only to the one who committed the hack, this is not an excuse, you should not be completely sure that this is 100% not the correct RDMS setting, most likely an exploit was applied that changed the rights, after which the B button became available to everyone
  17. Like
    vertex reacted to ONIXXX in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Why do you have such confidence? after all, you can reconfigure RDMS using illegal methods, and get the B button by criminal means, is this possible? Yes, are you sure that the B button was received by an incorrect RDMS setting? no
  18. Like
    vertex reacted to NQ-Naerais in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Hello Noveans, 
     
    By now, some of you may be aware that unlucky number Market 15 has been stripped bare and left to create ugly memes for generations to come. We’re trying to look at this in good humour as, from the front, it appears to be an issue that was created when we moved the markets, making it editable by players. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (though we know there are a few of you out there) to understand that the markets are not a community construction, and as such not intended to be handled by players on this level. The destruction of the build isn’t a quick fix, and was clearly done knowing it shouldn't be. 
     
    An important aspect we are considering in all cases and investigations is intention. The intention behind this destruction is very clear to us. The players involved did not report this bug to us, but instead simply filled their pockets. Had this stopped with a single voxel removed it would be a different story.  This is, at its core, a violation of the EULA and against the intentions of beta. We have been as understanding as we can until this point, but there must be a line.
     
    Let us be clear, we will not tolerate this kind of behaviour during any phase of the development of Dual Universe.
     
    The players responsible for the destruction of the market have been permanently banned from Dual Universe, and all salvaged materials and assets gained will be removed without compensation.
     
    Sincerely,
    The Novaquark Team
     
    Follow up statement: 
     
  19. Like
    vertex got a reaction from Adraenor in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Is there any confirmation that this was possible due to RDMS misconfiguration? I haven't seen any.
     
    Even if so, to all you people who compare this to previous RDMS theft, there's a significant difference that can't just be tagged with "hypocrisy" and be called done: this "heist" didn't just target NQ - above all it was an attack against all of us and I have a hard time reading your postings defending that.
     
    The most important difference between a construct owned by a player versus Aphelia is not a question of customer versus provider. The difference is in the number of players that rely on it and would be affected negatively. As said above, this was an attack against all of us - not just because "some of us" lost market orders, but because "all of us" now can expect a delay on the next update and other issues because NQ needs to tend to this issue now. In addition it impacts trust and cooperation between the player base and the provider.
     
    Even if you are right and this theft is technically the same as other RDMS theft, it's still a vastly different thing to sabotage "our game and NQ's development" versus "a player's construct" - to me that's not hypocrisy but apples versus oranges. On the note of real world examples: this is like going to a building site and steal the copper pipes because there was no door. Just that this is the building we all want to live in, not just the shed of some hermit.
     
     
    Many people, including me, think NQ should be more transparent and communicate openly - but by solely reading this thread I almost wouldn't want to talk to you anymore in their stead... but that doesn't take into account that I also think we're in this situation because they didn't communicate properly in the first place. Now people are jumping to conclusions again, calling them out based on made-up hypotheses alone, not really knowing anything? First paragraph of this answer: RDMS misconfiguration? Give me the link to that NQ confirmation first, on which your bad "reaction" vibes are based please - otherwise you're not reacting but just acting based on an imagined reality. I'm sorry if I just missed that piece of information about RDMS misconfiguration if there was anything official - even tho it still wouldn't change my general opinion.
     
     
    The critics regarding "Why is Aphelia's market build and stored dynamically?" is easy to answer: player markets are planned. So setting up hard coded markets and then create another system with redundant functionality would be a waste of time. Aphelia owned markets are ground work for player owned markets and lets all of us test and harden it before we put our own terminals down. Once that happens markets will be spilled all over the game world and it would be a lot harder to maintain/fix/develop the system with an ever changing number of markets and different market configurations than working with a fixed set of Aphelia owned markets now.
     
    Btw: it's been said here that Aphelia "is a player" - but that's not true. At best it's an NPC character that doesn't even have an avatar standing around in game. Aphelia doesn't set up RDMS policies either - again just presuming that it was "owners fault".
     
     
    Ok, it may look like "Done to you? Haha! Done to us? Nono!" but to me that's way too simple and feels like a reaction of someone holding a grudge because of his personal situation or hurt feelings regarding prior injustice (for which we don't know why what decision made on which grounds). Some thought NQ only posted those announcements because "people whined" and refused to listen before their very special exploit was directly listed, even tho NQ clearly stated it as general rules - well, now at least you know, eh?  
     
    To those who say it's not clearly stated in the rules that you can't dismantle a market if it's in jeopardy because of "RDMS misconfiguration" (unconfirmed afaict) and the issue therefore should be treated exactly like any other player base RDMS scam, here's an excerpt from the EULA that Naerais referred to in the original post:
    Source https://www.dualuniverse.game/legal/eula
     
    ^ If destroying a market ain't "detrimental to the proper functioning" I don't know what else could be. Permanent ban? Correct decision. This wasn't an accident - this was a deliberate act. And Naerais said explicitly that there was no report made by the people in question. Hence they put their lust for publicity and their ego above the well-being of everyone else in this community and even above the spirit of the beta, where we're supposed to help test and report issues to aid development. It's a 180° deviation from this ship's course and if they failed to see that they should not be part of this.
     
    Even tho yesterday I told some friends I think "if NQ got balls" they could remove the stolen elements that players normally don't have access to and otherwise just say "gg" - meaning I would've be fine with that too - but when I said that I didn't know the magnitude or that players' orders would be affected.
     
    To those who say that they don't want to test anymore because they don't know if that test could lead to them being banned: I agree, if you can't tell the difference between a) testing if you can remove unimportant elements from a market that you know you shouldn't have access to and then report and refrain from doing more harm, versus b) ripping a market apart, utterly destroying it... then yes, I agree that you should stop testing. But I'm pretty sure that distinction should be rather easy for everyone, so I'd suggest and prefer if you'd just rethink that over exaggerating stance  
     
    tl;dr
    Seeing them finally taking action is highly welcome. I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" - but this case is without any doubt. I hope future decisions will be just as strict when there's sufficient evidence to act without risk of hitting the wrong target. And I hope that they'll soon be up to date with reports again and act faster - right now we don't even know if the past exploit thefts (not RDMS mistakes) will remain without action or if they're still investigating. Tracing an issue and distinguishing it from normal/legit behaviour can be pretty difficult and take time. Just because we haven't seen action for that yet doesn't mean it's not gonna come at some point - even if they could act quickly on the "market heist" issue, which just means that the facts were clear and it was easy to trace and act.
  20. Like
    vertex got a reaction from MadmanMac in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Is there any confirmation that this was possible due to RDMS misconfiguration? I haven't seen any.
     
    Even if so, to all you people who compare this to previous RDMS theft, there's a significant difference that can't just be tagged with "hypocrisy" and be called done: this "heist" didn't just target NQ - above all it was an attack against all of us and I have a hard time reading your postings defending that.
     
    The most important difference between a construct owned by a player versus Aphelia is not a question of customer versus provider. The difference is in the number of players that rely on it and would be affected negatively. As said above, this was an attack against all of us - not just because "some of us" lost market orders, but because "all of us" now can expect a delay on the next update and other issues because NQ needs to tend to this issue now. In addition it impacts trust and cooperation between the player base and the provider.
     
    Even if you are right and this theft is technically the same as other RDMS theft, it's still a vastly different thing to sabotage "our game and NQ's development" versus "a player's construct" - to me that's not hypocrisy but apples versus oranges. On the note of real world examples: this is like going to a building site and steal the copper pipes because there was no door. Just that this is the building we all want to live in, not just the shed of some hermit.
     
     
    Many people, including me, think NQ should be more transparent and communicate openly - but by solely reading this thread I almost wouldn't want to talk to you anymore in their stead... but that doesn't take into account that I also think we're in this situation because they didn't communicate properly in the first place. Now people are jumping to conclusions again, calling them out based on made-up hypotheses alone, not really knowing anything? First paragraph of this answer: RDMS misconfiguration? Give me the link to that NQ confirmation first, on which your bad "reaction" vibes are based please - otherwise you're not reacting but just acting based on an imagined reality. I'm sorry if I just missed that piece of information about RDMS misconfiguration if there was anything official - even tho it still wouldn't change my general opinion.
     
     
    The critics regarding "Why is Aphelia's market build and stored dynamically?" is easy to answer: player markets are planned. So setting up hard coded markets and then create another system with redundant functionality would be a waste of time. Aphelia owned markets are ground work for player owned markets and lets all of us test and harden it before we put our own terminals down. Once that happens markets will be spilled all over the game world and it would be a lot harder to maintain/fix/develop the system with an ever changing number of markets and different market configurations than working with a fixed set of Aphelia owned markets now.
     
    Btw: it's been said here that Aphelia "is a player" - but that's not true. At best it's an NPC character that doesn't even have an avatar standing around in game. Aphelia doesn't set up RDMS policies either - again just presuming that it was "owners fault".
     
     
    Ok, it may look like "Done to you? Haha! Done to us? Nono!" but to me that's way too simple and feels like a reaction of someone holding a grudge because of his personal situation or hurt feelings regarding prior injustice (for which we don't know why what decision made on which grounds). Some thought NQ only posted those announcements because "people whined" and refused to listen before their very special exploit was directly listed, even tho NQ clearly stated it as general rules - well, now at least you know, eh?  
     
    To those who say it's not clearly stated in the rules that you can't dismantle a market if it's in jeopardy because of "RDMS misconfiguration" (unconfirmed afaict) and the issue therefore should be treated exactly like any other player base RDMS scam, here's an excerpt from the EULA that Naerais referred to in the original post:
    Source https://www.dualuniverse.game/legal/eula
     
    ^ If destroying a market ain't "detrimental to the proper functioning" I don't know what else could be. Permanent ban? Correct decision. This wasn't an accident - this was a deliberate act. And Naerais said explicitly that there was no report made by the people in question. Hence they put their lust for publicity and their ego above the well-being of everyone else in this community and even above the spirit of the beta, where we're supposed to help test and report issues to aid development. It's a 180° deviation from this ship's course and if they failed to see that they should not be part of this.
     
    Even tho yesterday I told some friends I think "if NQ got balls" they could remove the stolen elements that players normally don't have access to and otherwise just say "gg" - meaning I would've be fine with that too - but when I said that I didn't know the magnitude or that players' orders would be affected.
     
    To those who say that they don't want to test anymore because they don't know if that test could lead to them being banned: I agree, if you can't tell the difference between a) testing if you can remove unimportant elements from a market that you know you shouldn't have access to and then report and refrain from doing more harm, versus b) ripping a market apart, utterly destroying it... then yes, I agree that you should stop testing. But I'm pretty sure that distinction should be rather easy for everyone, so I'd suggest and prefer if you'd just rethink that over exaggerating stance  
     
    tl;dr
    Seeing them finally taking action is highly welcome. I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" - but this case is without any doubt. I hope future decisions will be just as strict when there's sufficient evidence to act without risk of hitting the wrong target. And I hope that they'll soon be up to date with reports again and act faster - right now we don't even know if the past exploit thefts (not RDMS mistakes) will remain without action or if they're still investigating. Tracing an issue and distinguishing it from normal/legit behaviour can be pretty difficult and take time. Just because we haven't seen action for that yet doesn't mean it's not gonna come at some point - even if they could act quickly on the "market heist" issue, which just means that the facts were clear and it was easy to trace and act.
  21. Like
    vertex reacted to LouHodo in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Wow this has escalated quickly.
     
    Not knowing the complete picture it can easily appear to be a bit excessive for the actions displayed.  But again not knowing the complete picture.
     
    The RDMS abuse issues is a long standing issue in DU.  It is something they are most likely working on.  And the damage to the market should stay as a stark reminder of the damage done by this.   It adds history.
  22. Like
    vertex got a reaction from Atmosph3rik in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Is there any confirmation that this was possible due to RDMS misconfiguration? I haven't seen any.
     
    Even if so, to all you people who compare this to previous RDMS theft, there's a significant difference that can't just be tagged with "hypocrisy" and be called done: this "heist" didn't just target NQ - above all it was an attack against all of us and I have a hard time reading your postings defending that.
     
    The most important difference between a construct owned by a player versus Aphelia is not a question of customer versus provider. The difference is in the number of players that rely on it and would be affected negatively. As said above, this was an attack against all of us - not just because "some of us" lost market orders, but because "all of us" now can expect a delay on the next update and other issues because NQ needs to tend to this issue now. In addition it impacts trust and cooperation between the player base and the provider.
     
    Even if you are right and this theft is technically the same as other RDMS theft, it's still a vastly different thing to sabotage "our game and NQ's development" versus "a player's construct" - to me that's not hypocrisy but apples versus oranges. On the note of real world examples: this is like going to a building site and steal the copper pipes because there was no door. Just that this is the building we all want to live in, not just the shed of some hermit.
     
     
    Many people, including me, think NQ should be more transparent and communicate openly - but by solely reading this thread I almost wouldn't want to talk to you anymore in their stead... but that doesn't take into account that I also think we're in this situation because they didn't communicate properly in the first place. Now people are jumping to conclusions again, calling them out based on made-up hypotheses alone, not really knowing anything? First paragraph of this answer: RDMS misconfiguration? Give me the link to that NQ confirmation first, on which your bad "reaction" vibes are based please - otherwise you're not reacting but just acting based on an imagined reality. I'm sorry if I just missed that piece of information about RDMS misconfiguration if there was anything official - even tho it still wouldn't change my general opinion.
     
     
    The critics regarding "Why is Aphelia's market build and stored dynamically?" is easy to answer: player markets are planned. So setting up hard coded markets and then create another system with redundant functionality would be a waste of time. Aphelia owned markets are ground work for player owned markets and lets all of us test and harden it before we put our own terminals down. Once that happens markets will be spilled all over the game world and it would be a lot harder to maintain/fix/develop the system with an ever changing number of markets and different market configurations than working with a fixed set of Aphelia owned markets now.
     
    Btw: it's been said here that Aphelia "is a player" - but that's not true. At best it's an NPC character that doesn't even have an avatar standing around in game. Aphelia doesn't set up RDMS policies either - again just presuming that it was "owners fault".
     
     
    Ok, it may look like "Done to you? Haha! Done to us? Nono!" but to me that's way too simple and feels like a reaction of someone holding a grudge because of his personal situation or hurt feelings regarding prior injustice (for which we don't know why what decision made on which grounds). Some thought NQ only posted those announcements because "people whined" and refused to listen before their very special exploit was directly listed, even tho NQ clearly stated it as general rules - well, now at least you know, eh?  
     
    To those who say it's not clearly stated in the rules that you can't dismantle a market if it's in jeopardy because of "RDMS misconfiguration" (unconfirmed afaict) and the issue therefore should be treated exactly like any other player base RDMS scam, here's an excerpt from the EULA that Naerais referred to in the original post:
    Source https://www.dualuniverse.game/legal/eula
     
    ^ If destroying a market ain't "detrimental to the proper functioning" I don't know what else could be. Permanent ban? Correct decision. This wasn't an accident - this was a deliberate act. And Naerais said explicitly that there was no report made by the people in question. Hence they put their lust for publicity and their ego above the well-being of everyone else in this community and even above the spirit of the beta, where we're supposed to help test and report issues to aid development. It's a 180° deviation from this ship's course and if they failed to see that they should not be part of this.
     
    Even tho yesterday I told some friends I think "if NQ got balls" they could remove the stolen elements that players normally don't have access to and otherwise just say "gg" - meaning I would've be fine with that too - but when I said that I didn't know the magnitude or that players' orders would be affected.
     
    To those who say that they don't want to test anymore because they don't know if that test could lead to them being banned: I agree, if you can't tell the difference between a) testing if you can remove unimportant elements from a market that you know you shouldn't have access to and then report and refrain from doing more harm, versus b) ripping a market apart, utterly destroying it... then yes, I agree that you should stop testing. But I'm pretty sure that distinction should be rather easy for everyone, so I'd suggest and prefer if you'd just rethink that over exaggerating stance  
     
    tl;dr
    Seeing them finally taking action is highly welcome. I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" - but this case is without any doubt. I hope future decisions will be just as strict when there's sufficient evidence to act without risk of hitting the wrong target. And I hope that they'll soon be up to date with reports again and act faster - right now we don't even know if the past exploit thefts (not RDMS mistakes) will remain without action or if they're still investigating. Tracing an issue and distinguishing it from normal/legit behaviour can be pretty difficult and take time. Just because we haven't seen action for that yet doesn't mean it's not gonna come at some point - even if they could act quickly on the "market heist" issue, which just means that the facts were clear and it was easy to trace and act.
  23. Like
    vertex got a reaction from Andyjp in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Is there any confirmation that this was possible due to RDMS misconfiguration? I haven't seen any.
     
    Even if so, to all you people who compare this to previous RDMS theft, there's a significant difference that can't just be tagged with "hypocrisy" and be called done: this "heist" didn't just target NQ - above all it was an attack against all of us and I have a hard time reading your postings defending that.
     
    The most important difference between a construct owned by a player versus Aphelia is not a question of customer versus provider. The difference is in the number of players that rely on it and would be affected negatively. As said above, this was an attack against all of us - not just because "some of us" lost market orders, but because "all of us" now can expect a delay on the next update and other issues because NQ needs to tend to this issue now. In addition it impacts trust and cooperation between the player base and the provider.
     
    Even if you are right and this theft is technically the same as other RDMS theft, it's still a vastly different thing to sabotage "our game and NQ's development" versus "a player's construct" - to me that's not hypocrisy but apples versus oranges. On the note of real world examples: this is like going to a building site and steal the copper pipes because there was no door. Just that this is the building we all want to live in, not just the shed of some hermit.
     
     
    Many people, including me, think NQ should be more transparent and communicate openly - but by solely reading this thread I almost wouldn't want to talk to you anymore in their stead... but that doesn't take into account that I also think we're in this situation because they didn't communicate properly in the first place. Now people are jumping to conclusions again, calling them out based on made-up hypotheses alone, not really knowing anything? First paragraph of this answer: RDMS misconfiguration? Give me the link to that NQ confirmation first, on which your bad "reaction" vibes are based please - otherwise you're not reacting but just acting based on an imagined reality. I'm sorry if I just missed that piece of information about RDMS misconfiguration if there was anything official - even tho it still wouldn't change my general opinion.
     
     
    The critics regarding "Why is Aphelia's market build and stored dynamically?" is easy to answer: player markets are planned. So setting up hard coded markets and then create another system with redundant functionality would be a waste of time. Aphelia owned markets are ground work for player owned markets and lets all of us test and harden it before we put our own terminals down. Once that happens markets will be spilled all over the game world and it would be a lot harder to maintain/fix/develop the system with an ever changing number of markets and different market configurations than working with a fixed set of Aphelia owned markets now.
     
    Btw: it's been said here that Aphelia "is a player" - but that's not true. At best it's an NPC character that doesn't even have an avatar standing around in game. Aphelia doesn't set up RDMS policies either - again just presuming that it was "owners fault".
     
     
    Ok, it may look like "Done to you? Haha! Done to us? Nono!" but to me that's way too simple and feels like a reaction of someone holding a grudge because of his personal situation or hurt feelings regarding prior injustice (for which we don't know why what decision made on which grounds). Some thought NQ only posted those announcements because "people whined" and refused to listen before their very special exploit was directly listed, even tho NQ clearly stated it as general rules - well, now at least you know, eh?  
     
    To those who say it's not clearly stated in the rules that you can't dismantle a market if it's in jeopardy because of "RDMS misconfiguration" (unconfirmed afaict) and the issue therefore should be treated exactly like any other player base RDMS scam, here's an excerpt from the EULA that Naerais referred to in the original post:
    Source https://www.dualuniverse.game/legal/eula
     
    ^ If destroying a market ain't "detrimental to the proper functioning" I don't know what else could be. Permanent ban? Correct decision. This wasn't an accident - this was a deliberate act. And Naerais said explicitly that there was no report made by the people in question. Hence they put their lust for publicity and their ego above the well-being of everyone else in this community and even above the spirit of the beta, where we're supposed to help test and report issues to aid development. It's a 180° deviation from this ship's course and if they failed to see that they should not be part of this.
     
    Even tho yesterday I told some friends I think "if NQ got balls" they could remove the stolen elements that players normally don't have access to and otherwise just say "gg" - meaning I would've be fine with that too - but when I said that I didn't know the magnitude or that players' orders would be affected.
     
    To those who say that they don't want to test anymore because they don't know if that test could lead to them being banned: I agree, if you can't tell the difference between a) testing if you can remove unimportant elements from a market that you know you shouldn't have access to and then report and refrain from doing more harm, versus b) ripping a market apart, utterly destroying it... then yes, I agree that you should stop testing. But I'm pretty sure that distinction should be rather easy for everyone, so I'd suggest and prefer if you'd just rethink that over exaggerating stance  
     
    tl;dr
    Seeing them finally taking action is highly welcome. I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" - but this case is without any doubt. I hope future decisions will be just as strict when there's sufficient evidence to act without risk of hitting the wrong target. And I hope that they'll soon be up to date with reports again and act faster - right now we don't even know if the past exploit thefts (not RDMS mistakes) will remain without action or if they're still investigating. Tracing an issue and distinguishing it from normal/legit behaviour can be pretty difficult and take time. Just because we haven't seen action for that yet doesn't mean it's not gonna come at some point - even if they could act quickly on the "market heist" issue, which just means that the facts were clear and it was easy to trace and act.
  24. Like
    vertex reacted to joaocordeiro in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    We dont know the full context. 
     
    In how many previous explois have those same players participated? 
     
    Have all of them been banned? If not, what was the criteria? 
     
    All we have seen was NQ saying they have seen 100% intention againt rules and reacted, and some ppl saying "poor me, im banned" 
    But does that count as context? 
  25. Like
    vertex reacted to joaocordeiro in “Marketplace Heist” Response   
    Here are my 2 cents:
     
    We can all find excuses and exceptions to try to justify this, but at the end, the abusers knew they were destroying an important admin construct. They knew.
     
    We have seen ppl testing the limits of NQ for months now. We have seen NQ giving a final warning to those ppl testing the limits. 
     
    Should it be a perma ban? Maybe not. But someone had to be the example for players to understand that this is beta. Bugs and exploits are still common and beta testers need to know the boundaries of what they can and should be doing. 
     
     
    Want to be on the safe side? Dont overexploit a bug.... 
    Capture a recording of a small use of the exploit, upload it to YouTube, set it as "not listed" and open a support ticket with it. 
×
×
  • Create New...