-
Posts
630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
vertex reacted to salagrae in “Marketplace Heist” Response
To be fair, the original complaints never proved that the players in question had no RDMS. There were screenshots of players but no way to prove what they were really doing or whether they had permissions. On the other hand... at the market there was no doubt the players were out of line as at no time would they have been given the authority to do what they did.
-
vertex reacted to Aranol in “Marketplace Heist” Response
This doesn't sound like a supposition but like a fact
I mean, if (for exemple) they came with cargo, put the voxel/elements inside, and come back to there base, and repeat 20 times the operations... it's far far away from, they get ban because they have press B
-
vertex reacted to Mornington in “Marketplace Heist” Response
Yeah, you'd think so.
I mean, it clearly stated in anti-cheat policy weeks ago that finding a bug and not reporting it was forbidden, exploiting it was also forbidden.
But where were the bans for Desolation for their ship heists?
Oh....?
"Oh, sorry Mr Dev, we thought you intended for us to exploit a bug in the safe zone to drag ships into pvp so we could shoot and claim them."
That is absurd.
-
vertex reacted to Palad1n in “Marketplace Heist” Response
1. I would actually apply common sense and know that having edit powers at any market was likely a bug and report it.
2. I would then not use said edit powers and continue on as normal.
If folks are unable to apply common sense in these type of games, then the community is better off without them, as these type of players are the ones that create more issues and want to fight, kick, have a tantrum and use the time worn excuses of "but the game let me do it", "the coding sucks! redirect blame to devs!", "my definition of what a bug and exploit is different from the majority of common sense folks, but that doesn't matter!", "where was my warning!! QQ"
Devs gave a very clear warning weeks ago regarding using unintended gameplay and the use of bugs / exploits, even if the devs had not yet acknowledged it, yet some folks feel their lack of common sense and playing the ignorance card should absolve them from punishment. We don't need these folks in this game.
-
vertex reacted to Piratetrader in “Marketplace Heist” Response
We don't need them in the first place if all they want to do is ruin a game I have backed since day 6 of Kick Starter. There is game play, and then there is malicious intent. Which one do you think this is? I think it was malicious intent to do the game harm. It only matters what NQ things and I and thousand of others full hardily support this ban.
Good day and pls go away.
-
vertex reacted to Piratetrader in “Marketplace Heist” Response
The fact that they Wrote Pls NO Ban, just shows that they knew that they would be banned. This is a Beta game still in development and part of being in the beta is your testing and reporting bugs. Which you should have reported it and left the building alone. This was just a blatant bad response that you knew would affect many things in the Beta, but you choose to do it anyway.
You knew you would be banned and you still did it. So you deserver what you knew was going to happen in the first place.
-
vertex reacted to Ater Omen in “Marketplace Heist” Response
@Elrood So what should NQ do? continue to not punish players for current exploits because they did nothing for past cases? I'm sure it's not what you want. Should they make a soft transition for their rules enforcement to not shock players?
We complain when they do nothing, we complain when they act, all of this while we don't even know what happen behind the scenes, what's their powers and what they can really act on. I wish they could act on everything like omnicient gods, but I don't think it's the case. The salt comes from the permaban which, as I said, is too much imo especially in the context you mentionned.
-
vertex reacted to Haunty in “Marketplace Heist” Response
The devs are not players, their mistakes are just bugs. There was fair and broad warning before this:
-
vertex reacted to JohnnyTazer in “Marketplace Heist” Response
Who knows, certainly no one here in these forums knows, regardless of what they say. But NQ needs to start somewhere, and hopefully this is a wakeup call. BANS need to happen, as people will always test the line. The line should be clearly defined.... Find bug? Use and it dont report? Subject to BAN if found out. Seems like a good place to start.
-
vertex reacted to JohnnyTazer in “Marketplace Heist” Response
They should ban them too. If but just because they haven't been banned yet, doesn't mean THESE people should get off. At some point NQ needs to start enforcing rules and handing out BANS. This is a step in the right direction regardless of their failures before this. If someone steals using an EXPLOIT in RDMS, and epsecially doesn't report. Perma ban. If someone sets a perm or gives someone access, then thats intended gameplay. I would be very frustrated if I lost my base to an exploit, especially if the people involved didn't get banned and there was evidence. This is still a good thing. NQ needs to grow a backbone. Hopefully more bans will be coming in the future.
-
vertex reacted to ONIXXX in “Marketplace Heist” Response
and I will support the developers, since my database worth 500,000,000 was disassembled and stolen in the same way, here is a link to the topic, I created a ticket, but there is no feedback yet, I ask you to sort it out soon and compensate me for the lost time, at least in the amount of what I lost, here is a link to the topic
Ticket #35558
-
vertex reacted to JohnnyTazer in “Marketplace Heist” Response
Grow up. All they had to do was report the bug. If you use bugs for gain without reporting I have no sympathy for those banned. Good riddance.
-
vertex reacted to Samlow in “Marketplace Heist” Response
Man guys, be real. They didnt expose a bug. They broke down a market including its link to the market system which was never intended to be deleted. They never reported, they only intended to break and remove.
Hilarious would've been leave it intact but add something funny to it like a meme.
-
vertex reacted to DurzoEnderas in “Marketplace Heist” Response
Counterpoint: Dismantling an NPC Market hub most definitely is an exploit and at no point during the heist should these players have thought this was anything but a bug that they were exploiting. Any claim otherwise is just guilty children using the ignorance excuse to gain sympathy so that their parents won't punish them. The permaban is unfortunate but necessary to prevent this kind of behavior in the future. The offenders may even get the chance to play again after Beta if they are lucky.
-
vertex reacted to smuellermielitz in Das Spiel ist jetzt schon viel zu komplex!
So nach zwei mal Neueinstieg bin ich jetzt draussen in der freien Welt. Vielen Dank für Eure und Deine @vertex Hilfe. Ich überleg gerade, was für mich der Sinn und Zweck im Spiel werden kann. Im Handeln bin ich nicht der Held, ein Schiff und den obligatorischen Ritt ins All habe ich vor 2? Jahren geschafft. Ich würde ja Minen aber nur einfach so? Mal sehen, was mir noch so einfällt, um einfach nur abends Entspannung zu haben...
-
vertex reacted to CptData in Schiffs(bau)prinzipien für Konstrukteure und Piloten
Sooo. Also. Danke für die tollen Tipps, das hilft einem gestandenen Space Engineer (1000+ Stunden) / From-The-Depths-Gamer (+500 Stunden) und RL-Techniker gut weiter. Ich bastel gern und will auch den Erfolg sehen Von daher möchte ich natürlich, dass mein Erstling auch irgendwann fliegt & vieleicht sogar Blueprint-Material wird. Immerhin bauen wir ja alle gemeinsam ein Universum auf
Zur Tank-Konfig: hab jetzt 2x M Space Fuel und 1x M Atmospheric + 4x S Atmospheric drauf. Das sollte eine Weile reichen. Sollte je das Thema "Langstrecke" aufkommen, lässt mein Design aber auch den Einbau zusätzlicher Tanks im Rumpf zu. Zwischen Interior und Exterior ist gut Platz.
Thx für den Cam-Tip, den probiere ich aus. Das Design ist kein Hovercraft, sondern ein Raumschiff - und fliegt aktuell mit dreiecksförmig angebrachten Vertical Boostern M. Aber dort muss irgendwo ein Ungleichgewicht sein bzw. bei leichter Neigung kippt das Schiff und driftet. Vielleicht brauch ich ja die ECU zur Kompensation? Ich hab demnächst Zeit und schraub wieder rum.
Auf jeden Fall danke für die ganzen Tipps. Das wird schon!
-
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 ? ? ?
-
vertex got a reaction from Heidenherz in Why does NQ-Sophon own 37 Tiles on Alioth?
I've got four considerations to add:
1. Someone who is changing the course of his whole life from robotic science stuff towards making a game and launches a kickstarter campaign to look for people to back his idea, then creates a company, hires people, sets up hardware and offices on a global scale, already invested 4 years building the product while dealing with a whole planet's internet crowd of which a good part didn't even believe it's possible to do... I don't think that someone like that would do anything that puts his dream in jeopardy by "banning people on a whim" or "kicking players out of their territory just for fun". Especially since just recently I heard this person on an interview saying that the Alioth revamp probably isn't gonna happen after all, because many players already put so much effort into it which they don't want to touch. (Sorry, bit off topic: I don't agree with the last part, because: what about players like me, who based their decision to not yet get a tile on Alioth because of the expected wipe and changes in terrain? Now I'm kinda late to the party. I was really looking forward to the revamped Alioth, but it's ok.. just a minor disappointment. And completely beside the point here, sorry again.)
I trust NQ and especially JC (NQ-Sophon, the person that the above paragraph is about) the same way as a customer buying a car trusts that the inventor of that vehicle wouldn't implement anything that will steer it into a wall once it reaches 200kmh. If that inventor drives his own car too, to me that just adds more trust - even if he removes the constraints from the engine's ECU that would void my own warranty if I did it. I know this is not the perfect analogy, but still.
2. Since as far as I can remember back JC was talking about "Ready Player One" and the huge impact it had on the vision. Even in that interview Lacobus and DU secrets are mentioned at 33:25 and it takes JC like 58 seconds to jump to "that was straight out of Ready Player One", so I presume it's still big on his mind, being a repetitive pattern. If you haven't read the book or seen the movie, I suggest to do that to get an idea of what he's talking about. Minor spoiler alert: Ready Player One is about a virtual world where the creator hid eastereggs all around and players hunt for them to reach some ultimate goal - during this hunt the creator appears like a godlike figure with ultimate wisdom or something (sorry I'm probably not very precise here). So if I'd have to guess what kind of in-game stuff JC does with his power, my bets are on: a) looking around what people do in this sandbox, hoping to find things he didn't expect to come out from his seed of basic tools and elements and b) create that hidden treasure hunt for us to figure out. B only actually matters to those "few" who pursue solving the riddle, while a huge portion of the playerbase couldn't care less and just enjoy DU the way they DU.
Btw: I think that castle shown in that interview might be located on these 37 tiles you care about. So if you listen to that you might get an impression about what he uses it for - but that's just some wild guess by me
3. I've played other games where GMs and special people received or built something out of the ordinary. Some kickstarter pledges contained the priviledge to help develop a DU secret - and IIRC one of them even let the backer design his very own secret. There's lore in DU as well and Aphelia owns huge portions of land and structures that just popped into appearance and contain elements that we don't have access to. That's exactly the same "godlike influence" way out of the scope of any player as the thing complained about here. The only difference is the name on the door - Aphelia is not an active character running around, but if you're scared that the name "NQ-Sophon" might influence the game world, you should just as well be concerned about JC (who is the same guy as NQ-Sophon) inventing a story where Aphelia starts to expand and yank people off their territory. The name on the door doesn't change the fact that this will always be in their power - as devs they could even decide to blow up the whole Alioth system if they think they want to get rid of old tech in 2027. I assume you trust they won't use Aphelia for that - an AI going rogue, eliminating a whole system? So why would the same people act vicious or untrustworthy when they're even more exposed by running around with their name above their head
DU is more than a sandbox. It is not limited to only emergent gameplay where everything in existence is build and owned by players and only players. Arkship, Markets, Shuttles, Arkshops, Artifacts, Market-Bots and GMs are evidence for that. I'm saying this because I'm under the impression that you try to nail DU down to the floor of being exclusively player driven, but this is not the case, has never been the case and probably will never be the case, because NQ needs to make adjustments and continue development so we can all enjoy this game for years to come. As said above I've played games where GMs and even "special players" owned things nobody else could dream to achieve or had access to locations that nobody else had. Examples include Ultima Online, where GMs build really nice things in their spare time using their enhanced abilities. I considered those always a nice place to visit and draw inspiration from or just chill out. Or Elite Dangerous which I believe to have systems that are exclusive to some founders, if I remember this correct?
I've been teleported to GM places and seen what they do in other games. When they compensate a player's losses - aren't they using their power to influence the game world and it's balance? Maybe one could say "Yes, but only if there has been a bug!", but then we'd argue about those who experienced the same bug and just sucked it up, not getting compensated, so helping only some players creates an imbalance and we should abolish all in-game support...? Naaaah I'm just fooling around.
4. As has been said here already: the "NQ-" prefix in front of the character's name makes it clear that this is (at least) a GM account and not a normal player, so I think your whole argument about "playing as a player with more power" falls to pieces. It only hinges on the opinion about the question if a GM should be allowed to build or own anything in the game or not. If you think it's an issue they claim territory and reduce the available space for the "actual players" - just consider that they have the power to add more territory just as well.
In my opinion the rules that apply to GMs (that are employees of the service provider) can be more refined than just by 1 and 0. If owning a tile and building a support shop on it helps them to do their job helping players, then that's fine by me and would not automatically exclude other rules that forbid them to influence in-game politics etc. If we can agree on this basic concept we could further argue about the question if these tiles should be on some kind of "GM-Planet". Pro: that would be outside the regular player driven world and have no impact whatsoever. Contra: apart from devs having to develop this first it would mean regular players can't visit those places for sight-seeing (something I enjoyed doing in UO as said above).
So we can continue to argue about how we feel about it, but I think it's pretty clear that many people in this thread either don't care at all, or trust NQ enough to agree to whatever they like to do without fear of being at a disadvantage, influenced too much or even opressed. So sure, I always like to see NQ giving an official statement and if they decide to do it on this topic, I'll be happy to read their thoughts - but I don't really need them to. Still I'm fine with you waiting for an answer here. Tho it looks like a minority request and in your stead I wouldn't get my hopes up too much, but try to get familiar with the idea that this part of the game might not be 100% exactly as you understood or want it to be.
As for me: I actually love that JC owns those tiles. It adds a bit of excitement and anticipation and represents a place that I wanted to visit ever since I heard it exists. I encountered NQ-Blacksun in game when he helped me out and it was an awesome experience. I like having GMs close by and in touch with the players - feeling like real people, wandering the world, visiting us and looking at what we made. Once a GM was around by chance and out of the blue commented on my ship sitting there - something like "that looks like an efficient little thing" - one of the best moments in my time playing this game. Not just because of the compliment, but it made the GM look human and connected with us. Not just a number on some random service center employee that follows a basic script causing me a headache because my problem doesn't fit into their pre-made scenario where it takes me 10 minutes to listen to unrelated answers and explain the issue until they realize they don't have a script for this and forward me to the next service level to which I have to explain everything all over again etcpp. As a player I love the idea of GMs having their homes in our system, where they're tinkering with stuff, reproducing issues, trying to solve some gameplay related issue a player might have asked about once, or just chilling on the porch, watching the sun set after work.
Conclusion: Even if what you're concerned about is true, it's still the way I prefer it and I would vote against suggestions that drive the staff away from the community. I want them to work with us, not on us or even against us. To clarify how the "against" is meant: when I read stuff like "totally player created" with an implicated "exclusion of anything else" or even stuff like "abusing power" (of which I'm certain they don't) it feels like taking opposition to the ones who make this all happen and I don't want a "them against us" scenario