Supermega

And with it, NQ killed off some really cool and emergent ways of playing, like hauling containers for customers by maneuvering them on your ship and off again at the destination. All because they do not want to put effort into actually dealing with exploits. Once more those who abuse mechanics win and everyone else loses.

Because NQ still thinks they need to deliberate and come up with solutions before speaking up. they could have declared an exploit weeks ago and then start working on a solution. These things should not take this long.

The point of this thread is that NQ is not actually going after exploiters but instead pretty much punishes everyone by nerfing mechanics to the point where the exploit no longer exists.

In the situation where there is no safe zone, you can just shoot a construct left unattended on an unclaimed tile. There is nothing wrong with that.
 
Having the option to maneuver a construct in/on another is a viable and useful mechanic, using it to bypass the safezone by bringing the construct into PVP space to destroy and claim it is an exploit. NQ just killed the another useful mechanic and removing the players freedom and choices in general to prevent some using this as an the exploit while leaving the perpetrators to go free which is putting the cart before the horse. And it's not the first time they have done this (not having hopes it will be the last time either)
 

NQ seems to be still in a mindset where they think they can discuss everything extensively internally before taking action and take way to much time doing so. They need to be much quicker with declaring something an exploit and attaching repercussions to continuing to use these from that moment. After that point they can then work out a solution to remove the exploit.
 
Also, NQ has not really removed any exploits, they have nerfed the game for everyone in order for the trigger for the exploit to be removed. In other words they are taking the easy way out  by pretty much punishing everyone else and not even trying to address the actual exploiters who walk away with no consequence for their actions. This happened when they brought in the "TU required to place a static core" restriction and now by removing the "use maneuver tool to dock a construct" mechanic
 
It seems that this has now entirely removed the possibility to dock one construct to another using maneuver tool, even if you own both, which seems to me to be another case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

About the situation:
The organization Desolation (https://community.dualthegame.com/organization/4124/) has used a bug very actively to move ships from the Safe Zones (even planets) to the pvp zone to destroy and therefore steal them. Around 300 players have lost there ships and a lot of new players with that everthing they had resulting in a big quit wave. We know, that Desolation even allows their members explicitly in their rules to use any kind of bug and exploit, which is clearly against the rules of Novaquark.
 
NQ now officially confirmed, that this organization doesn't get any punishment. So basicly this whole rules here
 are complete bullshit, because you can do whatever you want, Novaquark will not punish you.
 
If that is the way NQ wants to go, this game will die pretty quickly because all new players, that don't have the power or organizations behind them yet will quit the game very quickly.
 
In my opinion, this is a very poor and weak behavior of Novaquark and a punsh in the face for every honest player in this community.

NQ basically nerfed their game instead of taking a firm position on this. They have a habit of working around issues, impacting everyone, instead of fixing them and this was a fine example of that.
 

There is nothing PVP about this, it is straight up and textbook griefing

While I hear what you are saying, the problem here goes way deeper and is created by NQ's inability to handle support tickets. It's one thing to ask people to create tickets but when these then go unanswered and not actioned for three or more weeks there is really no point. NQ really needs to start acting like a developer with a released game (which they are) and _quickly_ improve their support system.
 
And yes, they need to stop discussing and debating internally and start taking action as there is a number of serious issues around the game which will quickly become a problem as already the sense in some circles is that this is just another ARK/ATLAS grief fest.

There are a lot of practical benefits when it comes to ship aesthetics. Well...sort of practical. 
 
Your fleet ought to be recognizable. Everyone knows a Federation ship when they see it -- if you attack it, you'd best be ready for war with the entire faction. 
 
They design ships to look pretty and consistent -- sure, they could pump out a bunch of war ships, but the design is a reflection of their values as an organization.
 
If a Federation ship shows up to answer your distress call, you probably trust them more than a stranger. Even if you aren't familiar with their org, they don't look like warships. You wouldn't invest in pretty ships if your only concern is piracy/war. 
 
Cohesive ship design helps build the organization's reputation across the galaxy -- and this reputation helps each individual ship stay safer...or be more feared, or whatever values you want to reflect.  
 
For those of us that want to play a civilization sandbox, these sorts of things will hopefully be important. 
 
My hope is that generic cube ships (if they remain in meta) get treated as "pirates" on sight by more organized fleets -- e.g. if your ship looks like it is a generic cube built only for combat that doesn't belong to any faction...maybe you get treated like the dirty space rat you are by more civilization-focused orgs.  

Slightly confused why you think that someone who like aesthetic design is a 'kid', we tend to find that it is peoples love for good looking ships that increases the quantity and value of the ships that we sell.  I also like to 'min/max' the amount of quanta in my wallet.  Having one of the best designers in the game building ships for my org certainly does that.  Having nice buildings also bring recognition to my org and our activities.  You would be surprised how many leaders I have spoken to through the quality of our asset design.

I am all for quality design, and also for the devs doing everything they can to remove any benefits from having borg cubes / 'exploits to circumvent restrictions'

I am in this game to build, period. So how the safe-zone ecosystem turns out, is going to be a deciding factor if I stay or not.
 
As to why. For a builder type the process of creating is just as fun as the process of destroying for PvP'ers. The challenge then is that destroying usually is much faster and easier then creating, resulting in builder types being pushed out of the game.

Have to ask everyone's opinion here (since this is entirely subjective), about why or what do you think is any point to spending the hours and days in designing a neat looking ship, when this game is headed toward more and more open-world PVP? Mentions and murmurs are that safe zones are going to be tuned back as much as they can, with no plans in adding more safe zones because the devs are more interested in galaxy wide warfare, than sustainable well-designed building activities.
 
For the discussion: Try not to attack others opinions on the matter. Try to keep it a healthy discussion, no pvp  
 
So, few points (from my perspective):
 
A "death cube" is generally what wins out there. Has maximum blob surface for armor. Game allows it no problem. Requires the least investment in time to get going. A "designed ship" tells all the death cubes 'here is an easy target', because: Someone who spends time designing and building neat ships, generally is not a heavy pvp'r. So they lack the combat skills. A designed ship is never going to be as strong and potent as a blob of voxels with elements and weapons slapped on the side. There are no repercussions to openly attacking others. Its a free for all out there, no rules. No NPC police to enforce anything. No accountability in actions because "its just a game, get over it". The moment you exit safe zones, you are basically committed to losing what you have. So why spend hours/days designing something cool, just to have it thrown away in a minute. Just slap together a death cube, and join the fray and have fun.  
This leads me to a conclusion that:
 
If a player is a "Builder" type, this game is a complete dead end for them. There is no point to designing anything remotely cool looking, because it will not be effective in combat, and combat is all this game is about. They would be forced to live in a tiny corner, unable to create because of the lack of dwindling finite resources, almost like a leper colony... where the vast majority of players mock them and pick them off if they even try to head out of a safe zone.
 
As a side thought; why would the devs spend any real amount of work making building tools easier, or adding more building customizations and styles... there is no point to using them when the current tools let you slap a blob down and toss elements on it and be on your way.
 
 
In contrast to other games with open pvp (like ED, SC, EVE, general shooters etc):
 
Players are not 'building ships' from scratch (or their character, in a general shooter), having to design them piece by piece with mined resources crafted into items. Everyone has access to the same pre-designed in-game ships that the developers provided. They are already 'pre balanced' by design, and they obviously look cool while still being lethal. The only "build" options are to tweak loadouts. No one loses anything because when they die, they still have those pre-designed ships to head back out in. The only real loss there, is some credits. Not hours of work mining up resources and designing a ship block by block (when a designed ship is always weaker than a deathcube).
 
 
Your thoughts?

Hey folks,
 
first of all: don't tell others their statement is "bullshit" or that their assumption is "stupid" - this doesn't help anyone. Keep it nice and let the other party know that you disagree with them in a polite way. Thanks!
 
Now on topic
All I can tell you so far is that a formal policy will follow soon.
 
I don't speak for NQ now, but I want to help evaluate the situation for the time being. It's a bit of a long read, but there will be a short version at the end - don't jump there if you don't want any spoilers 
 
As I see it there is a very basic concept to consider. First of all there's the question of what we do know and what we don't. Next how to make an educated guess about things we do not know for sure just yet. Since @NQ-Naerais gave a very clear statement about the "zero tolerance policy towards cheating and exploiting" in that previously linked announcement, I think it would be a good idea to start with the definition of exploits, because I don't see this provided by NQ yet. In case I just missed it, please point me towards it - thanks in advance.
 
In order to make an educated guess about what might or might not be considered an exploit I'll just use the first reference that comes to mind: Wikipedia article "Video game exploit"
And I quote the first sentence:
I don't know if NQ shares this exact definition, but I think it's good enough for this evaluation.
Now that we got this covered it leads us to the next question: What is the intent of the game's designer here?
 
Having read this thread I think everyone agrees that the intent of the maneuver permission on own tiles is to enable landowners to move all constructs out of the way that are parked on their tile. So far so easy.
 
Where people seem to disagree is on the question if this permission is intended to allow docking such constructs in order to take them away far outside the boundaries of the maneuver tool and the owned tile(s) on or for which the permission has been granted in the first place.
 
But there's a problem - I can't find a Wikipedia article about NQ's intent regarding this. So if we want to proceed to evaluate the situation before that formal policy is released we have to find a different approach.
 
Again, having read this thread I took note about your opinions and while some aren't exactly clear, I found that 4 people are in favor of this being intended/allowed, while 11 people oppose that assessment/opinion. Further I found 1 "probably in favor" and 3 "probably against" as well as 2 more people against it who added some constraints like "stealing in general would be cool, but not like this" or "against it but don't think it's an exploit". Don't confuse these numbers with a vote tho - it's just an observation and I don't even guarantee that I got everything right  
 
So this is just a very rough approximation, but to sum it up:
5 people think it's more or less ok
16 people think it's not ok
 
Now I could try to make an educated guess based on this and say that the landowner's maneuver permission is probably not intended to be used for docking. That right to maneuver is probably just intended to be used to maneuver constructs off the landowners claimed tile in order to solve another issue and nothing else. So just based on your comments here the probability for this being an exploit is rather high.
 
Granted, it's always hard to guess someone's intent and to base this on the opinions of players instead of Novaquark employees further dilutes the accuracy of this speculation. But if we include the possibility that NQ might take players' feedback into their considerations, it counteracts this dilution a bit.
 
I can't tell you what is going to happen or what that formal policy is going to say, but personally I'd like to strongly advise against using this mechanic to dock and abduct for the time being. At the very best I think it's dangerous to do it - especially since there is a certain level of awareness that there's a good chance it will actually be considered an exploit and it may be hard to claim "But I didn't know!" - pure speculation on my part tho and just meant to convey why I think it's a dangerous path to follow.
 
If you remember the aforementioned "zero tolerance policy" regarding exploits, at least I wouldn't want to take that chance even if I rounded the numbers down to "only" 3 to 1 against me. Or if I move the "3 probably against" from the original numbers towards the "in favor" side it still results in 13 to 8 against and I wouldn't bet my access on odds like these. But it's your account and your own risk to take if you decide to go for it anyways - after all, as moderator, as said repeatedly, I don't speak for NQ regarding game-related things.
 
 
So much for the evaluation. My guess is as good as yours, but if I may further add my own opinion/guess: since construct owners have to deliberately grant the "maneuver construct" permission using the RDMS, it's clear that it's not meant to be granted to enemies. I see the fact that this permission is being granted to landowners as an exception that's solely meant to solve an actual issue and for nothing else. I think it's meant to enable landowners to help them keep their land usable and this permission should not transpire outside the owner's land in any form. That should exclude the option to use it to dock constructs to your own if not granted explicitly through the RDMS by the owner of the parked construct.
 
You remember the "EVE doesn't give you a warning" sentiment on this thread, which was countered by "this isn't EVE"? Just consider that DU gives everyone a distance indication as soon as they approach or leave the PVP Zone. Players flying towards a planet get a notification that reads something along the lines of "You have entered the Safe Zone". Again, not speaking for NQ, but I think planet surfaces so far are "intended to become unsafe" once territorial warfare gets introduced - not before.
 
I think attacking from non-pvp space into pvp space is clearly not ok, but the only thing I actually know is that a formal policy will follow soon. Again, until then I just recommend to think twice about how sure you are regarding the developer's intend.
 
When you confirmed the existence of a "possible exploit" and there's any doubt if this is intended, the safest route to take is: make a report and get permission first before you use it. In that case you will always have the report on your side for the first time you did it, if it remains the only time you did it. This is just in case if it will actually be considered an exploit that you just discovered. I think exploits don't need to be specifically listed in order to be punished, because you can't list anything that has not been discovered yet  
 
Here's the promised short version. The whole essay above boils down to:
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

Except it is, the action of taking someone else's property _is_ PVP. It is an exploit and needs to be called out as such, so that these actions can have repercussions and then the loophole fixed.

I wonder why you seem to feel a need to resort to petty insults and personal attacks.

NQ's marketing could be much, much better. 
 
Many players will see text like this:
Most people won't go digging through forums or interviews to try to understand some guy's vision (they don't know or care who JC is) -- they'll watch the one trailer and read marketing text like this (if their attention span is that long), then get angry when they realize that DU isn't the vision they expected. 
 
The fact that many new players seem to be mad about PVP is really telling about what players are expecting and how those expectations aren't being set.
 
If you set an expectation and fail to meet it, people tend to get pissy and bomb you on review channels. No one comes into Rust expecting a peaceful builder game. That's because they are upfront about what to expect: Naked + Rocks + Violence.
 
Yes, JC has made it very clear many times that the game will have FFA PVP, but is that really reflected in the 30 seconds of adverts someone will watch before opening their wallet? Blame whoever you want for idiots with no attention span, that's just how consumerism is today. 
 
No matter what vision is communicated publicly, JC has investors and employees.
 
So...my worry is that NQ's marketing will attract a lot of people expecting a sandbox builder. Then they get mad for not having immortal pixels. Then they bomb the game. Then NQ's investors get antsy and demand that NQ do what it can to build its "mainstream" appeal. 

Andurance Ventures and Azom Partners do not really care about JC's vision...they didn't pipe in well over $11 million to create a niche product with 100,000 subs. 
 

With current mechanics it will be very difficult for "unsponsored" players to do much.   Including both new players and returning players.
 
it’s a big ask to get a new player into the equivalent of a 0.0 Corp in the month or two it takes them to empty their sanctuary claim, or a returning player in a day or two to return to a 0.0 equivalent Corp since their sanctuary claim is already emptied out.
 
The game also lacks the permeable boarder that EVE has with a large green/yellow/red boarder, and Wormhole systems that increase those number of systems in both mass (number of exits)/randomness.

I still hope they will do something like albion tiered approach with safe zones with basic materials (would be tier 1 and 2 for us) and everything outside progressively less "safe" with highest tier resources in completely free for all zone. 
But my hopes are diminishing with every new information

The PVP combat in this game is pretty much the worst I have ever experienced. I hope at some point soon there is a major redo on the mechanics because at present its insanely basic and boring. 

In an interview posted yesterday. JC said that the wipe will only be a graphical update, everything else will stay the same. No resource regeneration.
 
They don't plan to change anything unless there is a game breaking bug. All new resources will be put into a new star system.
 
 
 

Few weeks ago, there were ppl camping the outer planet's pvp border.
It was meta, but it was kind of fair. Because they could not see inside the border. So they could be baited out and killed.
 
But the blue circle safezone allows radar... 
Now pirates camp 10 su inside the pvp border. 
They match velocity and lock radar. 
If the target has weapons, they disengage before exiting to the pvp zone. 
If the target does not have weapons, they match perfect velocity and when the PVP zone comes, they blast the target. 
 
NQ needs disable radar inside the safezone, like they do on planets. 
Knowing what the target is in the safety of the safezone is too op. 
 
And i know freighters have ways to avoid this but thats not the point. The point is, they cant ever be hunted if they can see all the target's weapons well inside safety. 

It is only boring to people without imagination. Stepping up to what? Destroying weeks of my life for your cheap 30 second thrill? You guys have horribly twisted minds.

What turns me off from the community is people like this...
 
In the same breath that they call someone "dog shit" for having "bias or feelings about how a game should be played"...they express their personal feelings for how a game should be played. Strongly.
 
Calm. Down.
 
This isn't your personal game. You can't possibly speak for the devs.
 
This whole post drips in hypocrisy. "How dare you demand the game suits your needs...it should suit people like ME" is just...it sounds like a tantrum, frankly. 
 
NQ's poor communication is a big reason people are so unreasonably angry.
 
They haven't really communicated a clear vision for PVP -- probably because they don't even know yet because the game is still in beta. There's many, many factors that will determine how PVP plays out from investors to server costs. It has jack to do with you. 
 
If you're going to argue about something that is truly unknowable, at least do it with a shred of dignity. 
 
If you aren't going to provide something useful to the forums, you're the one that should "please fuck off". It isn't helpful. It's just aimless rage. 

The funny thing here is that your are in fact making the exact statement and hold the same opinion as the people you accuse.
 
Why would PVP players leave when they can't "get to" people who do not want to PVP? Why are you, by your own admission here, defining the success of PVP by the ability to prey and attack those who do not have the ability to defend or do not wan to be attacked? Why are you not able to find and fight others who are interested and engage in PVP? Is there something about the risk of actually being killed by a better or smarter PVP player that holds you back?
 
Fact is that if PVP were to be removed form the game today, it would mostly continue as it is, far more people are interested in building and designing. Now, I would be the first person to admit PVP brings an element to the game that makes it better but the notion the game would fail if PVP were not there is only true from the perspective of the PVP oriented player and it is their personal truth, not the absolute one.
 
It's just amazing how some of you PVP  "players" are really just looking for the risk averse kills and will no doubt start crying foul as soon as NQ bring in mechanics that will allow non combattant players a better chance of not getting killed while not actively engaging such as jammers, stealth tech and other counter measures besides putting weapons on ships. The one crying here is you, not the PVE players actually.


DU is not a PVP centric game, PVP is part of the the game loop, it's not at the center of it. 

You are trying to fight on the wrong front. PvP in its current state is a disgrace, and future PvP works is at the bottom of the road map, maybe 12 months from now if they can get everything else ready. I have said this, again, 2526 times on the other threads that you could have posted on, PvP’ers are in for a huge surprise if they get the entire game to open up to PvP minus one moon. There isn’t enough PvP’ers to support this game financially and PvP is not the game, it’s 1/4 of the game, why do you think all the PvP updates are at the bottom of the list..........
 
Now,  let’s indulge your fantasy for a minute. They open everything to PvP and you confine everyone else to one moon. The lag will be phenomenal, to the point that they will start bleeding subs. They have to provide a place that people can use to build if they choose, fly and test their ships if they choose, without been destroyed the second they enter space.
 
If you can counter what I have said with a solution on how the 7 of you plan to support the game financially for the years to come, I will never post on this forums again, otherwise, I’m not interested in your destroy everything mentality.