Wyndle

That is based upon your ideal of what PvP should be, not the rules of the game you agreed to the ToS for. Your opinion is still valid, but it does not force any game maker to change anything. Time for a less weak analogy: Walk into a war zone and yell at the guys with guns that you don't want to fight them. If you walk back out then you may want to consider buying lottery tickets too. I'm on the fence here. Its either a horrible break in communications or an elaborate trolling. I am invested in helping the former and kicking myself for the latter.

We get it, someone blew you up. Claims that the entire game is totally wrong for "sick ideology" is selfish at best. If you do not like the game as is then leave. There's only a few million other games to pick from. There are many reasons other than PvP that caused people to leave. You made your opinion clear and several people have attempted to communicate about the situation. Even if DU took PvP out of the game this very instant it wouldn't attract 40 new AND old players combined at this point but there would be hundreds (dozens?) of people who want PvP that would rage quit. This game is already on life support. Even the people I know who will keep playing until the servers are shut down recognize that DU is on borrowed time.

I understood. I agree with you that PvP should be handled different from how it is. Your and my opinions are not going to change the Dev team's approach a year after launch if the thousands of Alpha and Beta posts you never saw didn't sway them while those features where being developed. As of right now there does not appear to be any further development planned or happening. Some people left because of bad PvP experience(s) but the vast majority left because there isn't really a game here, only the vague outline of one. Don't worry, I won't pester you anymore after this post. Have a blessed day.

Yes, the analogy is weak. Would you prefer I try to draw parallels to WoW PvPers vs Raiders vs Casual players? Not worth the effort IMO.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt. You're making some of the same arguments that I and many others have been making for years. "This approach will destroy this game" - Too late. "Since he wants to have access..." - Part of the game is PvP and was part of the plan from the start. Want access to all the game then don't complain about PvP unless you're providing specific examples and potential improvements (that will mostly be ignored by NQ in my experience). "Since I'm putting in my real money..." - Buyer beware. That money is gone and you stepped into a restrictive ToS in the process. "The current state... ...they stop playing" - Again, too late. Don't believe me? Ask any of the dozens of Alpha players that rage quit or the hundreds of Beta players that silently quit... oh, too late yet again. "Only a change to the current rules..." - We're light years beyond rule changes alone being able to salvage things. "Any reference to the original assumptions of the game..." - Isn't that the definition of starting with a flawed plan? If you disagree with the initial premise of the game and you disagree with the current rules of the game how can you expect forum conversations to fix either/both? I'm sorry to be the one to break it down for you this way. There's a ton of history that your comments demonstrate you are not aware of.

To rephrase your first two sentences: Obvious treadmills are not fun or interesting (even less so when the goal posts get moved). While I concur with your observation that unwanted PvP is detrimental, it is optional; based on where you choose to go. If you stumble into an active paintball field don't be surprised if you walk out with paint on you. If you cannot stomach PvP then only fly the safe zone missions. PvP players got more attention but they were not the only ones who had complaints or suggestions addressed/adopted in the game. As for ship speed limits, there are technical and gameplay limitations working against DU that are not based on physics. If you want realistic physics you may want to try Kerbal Space Program with some of the realism mods installed. DU started as hype (arguably, that hasn't changed). It felt really fun in Alpha, kinda fun in Beta, and barely "fun" by Launch. There are plenty of missed opportunities and derided changes beyond the flaws you mention that have dragged DU down. For a small crowdfunded Dev team to launch an MMO is very impressive but the actual play in the game is and never was present. At the end of the day DU is a MMO building game with great flight physics, horrible combat, and tons of obvious treadmills to keep players too deep in busy work to notice that almost everything outside of building and flight is essentially a 2 or 3 star mobile clicker game.

I don't recall the pair of articles that I read but you're probably right. I do recall having the impression that DU may face compatibility issues down the road. What is the potential of AVX commands being interfaced with a translation layer to use RT or other hardware?

That is also leaving out industry changes regarding which AVX command sets will be on future hardware. It wouldn't kill DU but it could introduce even more complexity.

I've been thinking back to the recent events and dev activity in and out of the game. I could only name about half a dozen visible so I concur with your estimate of roughly a dozen max bodies working on the sleep mode version we seem to have. I've already decided that I can't justify spending more on the game now that my annual subs & DACs are dwindling to an end. If we had 1) a roadmap, and 2) visible signs of NQ trying to save DU financially AND technically I may change my mind. Even a "free to play, micro-transaction cosmetics, and sub for premium" announcement would be a welcome improvement at this point. I recall seeing a positive response from NQ when I got vocal about not having a cosmetic shop, but no sign of it since. Even the king-daddy of MMOs, WoW, brought in a cosmetic shop while they were still growing but NQ/DU shows no outward sign of it even when it looks this dire. (edit: If the hold-up with cosmetics is durability/recycle then just give a pile of in-game cosmetic points equal to the element's purchase value upon recycle) The fact that Web3 is/was a focus (even JC went on to other Web3 stuff) is troubling. There are plenty of obvious scams out there but the warning signs I'm seeing with DU smell just as funky and off-putting. This isn't the first time I have brought it up, yet we have only gotten vague assurances that we're not being duped or trolled.

Smoke and mirrors with a random damage function perhaps?

For that to work there would need to be a list of available Aphelia ships instead of player owned. Otherwise you are asking for a major overhaul of combat systems.

The current meta is land ownership, taxes, and tending to auto-miners. When you fully tend your miner it digs up huge ore chunks up to surface mine. If you do the FTUE it takes you through the process and gives you some gear. If you want to find natural surface ore you have to get off of Haven and head toward a moon.

To expand upon Seawing's observations; it is vital that we be able to bind active gameplay functions. The controller and joystick support, while long overdue yet appreciated, still falls short of what this game needs to be playable due to click-only widgets. Fixing that one aspect will enable a more immersive experience as well as taking a massive step toward becoming PCVR compatible (ex. Virtual Desktop emulating supported controllers). A potential solution for the Res node issue would be to display a list of available nodes upon death instead of instantly spawning. IMO, the rest is a matter of balance. The way PvE functions at present gives a massive advantage for cannons and discourages moving at all. The lore may explain why they pop in so close but it sounds like a larger variety of enemy builds (i.e. optimal distance preference) would resolve this balance issue with the least amount of dev work required in theory. It would also help immersion greatly to have a unique enemy type show up at end of time and force you to warp out instead of dying. In the spirit of feedback: Thanks to LLM AIs I have a bit of hope for the skeleton crew at NQ. I've been watching the forums since I acted like a diva and stormed out. There hasn't been a ton of communication but it has been exactly what was needed and in a timely manner. Perhaps we can get a vague roadmap of what NQ hopes they can eek out next, even if there isn't a timeline or hard expectations? /smh Yeah, I'm back... for now.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the game had more features, fun, and stability in the first half of Beta than any point from launch or beyond (so far).

Patch notes appear to be unavailable at this time.

There is a huge distinction between fudging the science for the sake of art (B movie breaking of science was typically a plot device for cheap popcorn flicks and/or lazy writers) and calling attention to the science for something but being inconsistent everywhere else that would apply. There isn't enough consistency in what little lore there is to call it Science. At best DU could be considered a post apocalyptical simulation with science-sounding elements. For a 'humanity's new start' with 'no rules,' there sure are a lot of central planning rules followed by chaotic reprisal for trying to distance from or overcome the repressive system.

Thank you for making this known to everyone. In eight lines you proved me wrong and showed just how flawed the design is without name calling or hurt feelings. Bravo.

Does this risk creating an espionage scoreboard?

I have given this question way more time than it is worth. In my mind it boils down to the lore being overly generic to the point it barely qualifies as a garnish on a side of mash potatoes instead of the steak of a good RPG. Dying world, random company name sends cryostasis colony ship(s), FTUE, grind, grind, grind. There is such a small amount of lore that once you watch the cinematic you've covered all the lore. Generic end of world, generic you are here now and.... go.

By increasing the distance between the two surfaces that gives more time to process collision with the second surface layer. My guess, anyway.

At one point in the past the Unigen website featured DU/NQ. After my copium from the launch hype wore off I went to the Unigen site and couldn't find any meaningful mention or assets from DU/NQ. I don't know the story but that didn't help my confidence in NQ to be pulled from the engine's site.

So Windows 10 will no longer run on a 7th generation core i3? What is this sorcery?

If tile is owned assume digging is intended. If tile is not owned/abandoned AND distance under 1000m terrain data not requested by client(s) for 60 days, revert to seed. Not perfect, but not hard to work on edge cases from that point. The fact that I keep seeing patch notes that are very similar to off-hand and under thought suggestions I made leads me to agree. Do we have to hold NQ's hand and lead them in minor quick fixes? At least give credit for suggestions that led to a related patch.

The game performed better with hardware at and slightly below minimum specifications during beta than now with any hardware. If this is a client issue then it is code related, not hardware.

All of that plus: The original vision as stated was a group of disparate features that had not been tried in this combination before. Some of the intended features are in conflict with other features. It isn't impossible to get them balanced but that balance should have been achieved in the pre-alpha and alpha or the project scrapped then. To push into later stages without addressing the conflicting systems within the design was a recipe for disaster. It is also telling that there is so much finger pointing and blaming of groups. United we stand, divided we fall. There was a spectrum of players who wanted everything, but more were at one end or the other; squeezing out players all the while. All of that to say: Why should we build the game for a company that ignores and blames us? That's just a lose-lose scenario.