CptLoRes

Just illustrates how pointless and naive it is for NQ to try and police game play "one construct at a time", not even having the actual in-game rules or features necessary for what they want.

I haven't played the new patch yet, but this sound like yet another "eye candy more important then usability" feature from NQ.

Considering how little traffic there is on the forums, I would say that is mostly the case already..

NQ are you listening? This is a great point. No need to go around using human resources to manually delete exploit constructs etc. Instead make it so that elements that have more then some percentage overlap (that will only trigger exploit stacking, and not normal build overlaps) become completely non-functional. Meaning that instead of loosing the construct, players will have to rebuild them instead. This is important to minimize the punishment of innocent buyers, and push the blame on the exploit builders/sellers instead. And in most cases that rebuild will be easy since you just have to remove elements in the stacks until there is only one left, and hope the construct is still usable afterwards. And if not then tough luck, but at least you don't lose the resources to build something else.

Whoosh.. Talk about missing the point of this discussion. Nobody, I repeat nobody here is against punishing same position multi element exploit stacking. The discussion is about: - what happens to players who bought constructs in good faith - what exactly is considered stacking The last part is crucial, considering all the non exploit tricks possible in normal single player building to get better placement using surface angles and offsets of other elements and voxels etc. And considering NQ's long history of messing up, it would not surprise me at all if NQ let lose some automated script that wrongly detected and deleted like 90% of all constructs in the game. Most of them only having minor overlapping of elements as permitted by normal placements in the build system. After all, it is very clear from past decisions that NQ's is not actually playing the game they are making.

This is why we need clarifications. There is no exploit involved in this, just vanilla placements allowed by the build system. And because of this you will find elements partially overlapping on most builds, because frankly elements like the adjusters etc. are ugly as **** when placed on the outside.

We are not talking about obvious exploit stacking with many elements at the same position with 100% overlapping. The problem is the many, many ways you can get elements to partially overlap at the edges ect. just by placing then normally on voxels etc. I.e. normal building where you are just trying to place elements as close as possible for cosmetic reasons. And so we need to know exactly what NQ considers stacking to be. And if they mean any kind of slight overlap at all. The fallout is going to be huge, since that would mean pretty much all constructs ever built in the game.

I agree, we need some more clarifications on what is considered stacking, since there are currently many fringe cases where you get elements slightly overlapping just by placing them normally without trying to exploit the system. One solution for old builds could be a notification in build mode, telling you if there are elements that is considered stacked. But going forward with new builds it should be simple. NQ say they have fixed the issue meaning whatever you are allowed to while building, that is not obviously a bug is fine.. Right? My point being that if stacking is prohibited but still allowed by the build system, your result will be insecurity and confusion among players. Another problem is the opposite, where the build system will place elements so that they are not touching and there is visible space between them. And... While on the topic it would be nice if you could freely place and intentionally overlap non-functional elements like for example plants for cosmetic reasons. And this is something we actually could to in early builds.

Enclosing another players core would obviously fall under the "greifing" category. But currently there are very few in game mechanics to prevent such trolling/misuse, and NQ has to deal with this on a per case basis.

There is no point talking about wipes, until NQ has fixed the underlying issues and lack of complete game loops and financial systems. Then and only then, would it make sense to start a discussion about soft vs. hard wipe etc.

NQ's solution to most problems is adding more time gating and grind loops.

[removed image to free up space]

There is really only two reasons to not have a free trail for a subscription game. 1. The game is in such high regard that it will sell well regardless 2. The developers don't feel confident enough about the game to let people try it for free. And for NQ/DU it is also a matter of not having enough server resources to handle a free trail, which is in itself a serious problem for a MMO.

I think it is more that there is no real incentive for urbanization in the game, and it is not a natural thing for humans to want without the incentive. Just look at district 6, it is only when there is something to gain that people start fighting for space in some limited area. So if we for example had player driven markets, then people would have a reason to centralize and rent some limited area in one of the popular ones.

Because NQ likes cheap eye candy effects more then practicality. And the result has many unwanted consequences like making it a real headache doing any serious building, like who thought it was a good idea to have the build tool glow effect cover half the screen in the same color as the already hard to see visual indicator hints!?

That and more are things that would be enabled by having popular player driven markets. But as with many other promised features in this game, there is no telling when we will get them. And the moment you give someone opportunity for placing shops on the district markets, it will just slowly get worse and worse and then you will be back to the current situation.

Great video, but it has the exact same problem as the older "This is Dual Universe" video. Meaning it does not represent actual game play. And anyone getting a subscription based on the video will be in for a rude awakening.

It would not surprise me if they silently reduced the light throw distance in a patch, since this would be a simple way to increase game performance.

As said use proper lights. Just avoid the "Long" lights since they have ironically a much shorter throw then vertical and square lights. Headlights are also good, and as a bonus has a proper industrial look to them.

It was always going to be tab-targeting based, and even then it is going to struggle with performance. https://dualuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Combat And confirmation that NQ has placed AvA low on the priority list. https://dualuniverse.featureupvote.com/suggestions/123801/avatar-vs-avatar-pvp

Completely agree. Having a 'secret' playbook that players just have to know about is not how games should work, and will only confuse players and lead to all sorts of weirdness like the 'Non-Consensual Boarding' thing. And from past experience with NQ I have a feeling that the new market policy wont be regularly policed (for the same reason they won't make actual code to fix it). So naturally they will slowly get more and more spamy, and only when things get really bad will they be cleaned up again in a rinse and repeat pattern..

Sorry, not my intention to offend. It was just that the wording in your original post made it sound like something else then what it was. So just place your ship on an actual landing pad and you will be fine. Or since it sounds like it is a mostly unused ship, you could place it on the ground under or close to the market as to not take up prime landing space for active ships.

The new rules are pretty clear. Only (flying) ship constructs on the platforms (outside the green line). And one container construct below the platforms. So if you are planning on just moving something outside the green line, I am afraid that won't do.

I feel conflicted about this. Make no mistake, it is really, really, really great that market spam is finally getting the attention it needs. But at the same time I cannot help thinking about how this has been mostly ignored by NQ for years (plural) despite probably being the number one most requested thing, and how much damage this has caused for the game during this time. NQ really are their own worst enemy at times.

That sounds like a bug. As long as your internal inventory is active (instead of some linked container) and you have selected the <Deploy construct> tool, you should be able to place it. Only caveat would be if you have maxed out your core count on something else, but that doesn't sound likely considering you have just started playing.