Wyndle

Looking around more, @Shredder was the only one to mention having seen a planet listed on the patch announcement and later the same day came the 'when will we hear about planets' complaints I recalled seeing. The context for removing a portion of an official announcement that we now know for fact was a part of the patch is of the utmost importance here. Just seeing Shredder's post with no direct response could create the impression that the planet was held back or not actually in the post. Two plus weeks of prep time versus two days is an uncontestable head start with a myriad of additional ways to ensure coming out on top. Even a solo player with two weeks of insider prep time could buy up and build MUs and TUs while mission running to cover TU placement costs and blanket the planet in fast claimed tiles. @NQ-Wanderer @NQ-Nyota @NQ-Deckard - This incident has pushed the boundary past plausible deniability. I can see the occasional slip or blunder leading to poor results but every patch having essentially the same effect of benefiting a few? It is either malfeasance or ineptitude on a level that ensures the eventual collapse of the game and the fact the servers haven't already croaked takes credence away from the latter.

As much time as I spend here on these forums I would have noticed that being publicized. The first mention I saw was during the stream. We got a big heads up that the patch was coming and lots of complaints followed, including people directly addressing planet release phases not getting mention. Discord is fine for real time conversation but no mention in the announcements there either. The discussion channel is the only place I can think of that I have not monitored actively. I found out about the T1 space fuel in that channel during the forum maintenance but would not have known (before patch announcements) had I not been there live, i.e. not a channel for announcements. Far too many coincidences in light of prior impropriety to assume in NQ's favor here. Edit: So yeah, it was technically announced but immediately removed without comment, context, or clarification.

Reference: https://dictionary.apa.org/gaslight https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agent provocateur (more polite than 'patsy') Prior evidence of insider knowledge resulting in blatant imbalances. I came to the table in good faith and offered input, suggestions, and value for the game and community. Telling us how to jump through hoops with enough flame but not too much when we're not heaping praise upon you is a MAJOR RED FLAG. Every step along the way since launch that has been "mishandled" has been called out yet we get short notice for a single planet being released? NQ has shaved the doubts balanced on Occam's Razer so thin that we're left with two equally horrible possible explanations; malfeasance or catastrophic incompetence. Each patch has just enough "good enough" to temporarily pull attention away from consistent, repeated abuse of your community. There seems to be tons of smoke billowing around every patch. It couldn't possibly be someone's pants ablaze? Nah, nothing to see here...

Yeah, I saw an off-hand comment about new planet and thought "oh cool, progress." Then I found out it was just one planet and immediately went into "either NQ doesn't care that many in the community have outright claimed cheating/favoritism or they are so horribly inept." The end result is the same either way and will only harm the (remaining) community at large.

The "f* it" moment seems to have occurred early in alpha IMO. Most of what is pointed out here should have been roughly balanced in the planning stage between proof of concept and alpha client.

DU, the game meant to be coded by hundreds but budgeted for dozens.

I could see a detached camera being very helpful when digging deep underground (assuming can clip) to act as a periscope above ground. Content creation could also be game within the game tools so we can make death traps, puzzles, and hopefully some coop/compete tools that make building much more than a tour stop.

As you pointed out, there are some quirks with PvP stats. Best defense is still to not be there when bandits show up. Range and damage are not the only factors to consider. Tracking is going to cut your odds of hitting ships of sizes smaller than the weapon. To the best of my knowledge the meta is still small core ships, so a large rail may be at a serious disadvantage. There's at least one Google doc guide but I don't have the link handy ATM.

Woot! Its good to see communication from a dev, bonus for sharing.

How else can one balance a space pvp game than arbitrary stats? We don't need no stinkin' maths to pew.

/give 0.02h Toll for the troll.

So the players who don't [know, care, bother, etc.] to despawn abandoned cores from player constructs don't do that for generated ships either? What a shock. @NQ: Suggested fix, reduce despawn timer once the construct has been visited. One hour after build mode is entered the first time may be a tad too short due to travel time. Six hours from first player interaction seems reasonable.

@NQ - This would be an excellent case to add a right click menu to "Report Desynch" on the Constructs in the Map. You will get better and more consistent data, closer to real time. Edit: Your current ticket system is far from user friendly which impedes your above stated purpose.

Does this mean that transponder range has been fixed? Or does the range only affect LUA? In other words, will this be reliable enough to prevent friendly fire consistently? I understand the logic and intention, but this opens a whole new can of worms for all the issues we've seen with transponders. Is the transponder now a required ship part for upcoming flotilla changes?

Calling check two moves early? Are they going for the pawn or the bishop next?

I sincerely hope that all future planet releases are in pairs at a minimum. The imbalance potential only grows exponentially releasing one planet at a time. That said, I want lava.

You are correct that the roadmap is not the actual issue, it is a symptom. There is only so much we as the community can do working in the dark. I heard a comment on the stream that just about turned me three shades of livid; asking for suggestions to counterbalance negative comments. I'm fairly sure that the VAST MAJORITY of comments about communication between the devs and the community were for that EXACT PURPOSE. The topics are too complex to hash out in a meaningful way one-sided. Anything other than a discussion with two way communication is a demand in one form or another. NQ made it this far not listening to us and slaps us across the proverbial face when we get frustrated trying to get their attention in a less than destructive way. If we have to spell it out all upfront then we may as well make the game ourselves and cut out that form of frustration, albeit likely replaced with a different frustration or three. Suggestion to fix (unchanged over years): Communicate with us.

Let's make a prediction: No matter how any tiles of ore are on this or future planets, if released one at a time will be monopolized from this point forward. Once atmospheric combat comes you can forget about the outer planets being viable for anyone not in or aligned to the biggest orgs. The current roadmap looks totally balanced and not about to end up in a Spiffing Brit video.

With regard to the current roadmap and our current condition in relation there needs to be open communication. Failure to communicate at this point only ensures further negative sentiment, if any. I personally have difficulty handling negative feedback; I get it. The game industry is a tough beast to saddle and ride with the MMO being the bucking bull of the metaphor. If one can't deal with negative feedback then WTF is the thought behind developing a PvP anything? Any project with any amount of niche or potential will hold sway over a small segment of dedicated players but will never rise to the level of MMO Community without communication. Final call: step up or quietly accept failure. This is meant as a tough love message to NQ. You've already alienated major segments of your dedicated player base. You've already blown your shot at attracting a big wave of new players via Steam. You've already started the slide down the slope towards game death. If you have any fuel left in the tanks it's better to dump your current DeltaV into escaping the gravity well of certain failure than to try to slow the process of crashing on an unforgiving hostile planet with no hope of escape.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/question159.htm If one were to apply a tiny amount of real world knowledge to the game concepts this could be fun and educational at the same time. You may need a few grams of silver for each engine but the fuel would be fairly simple to mass produce with T1 equipment and no input materials. But there's no way that combination could fit in this micromanaged economy.

. I don't know if you realized, but you are actually proving the point you claim is incorrect. The individual behind the screen who seeks out PvP in this game does so purely for a dopamine hit that an unwilling participant doesn't get. We're all junkies and NQ is standing at the gate between the sandbox and the rest of the playground selling guns and smack (talk). Every few weeks they cut the chain on a swing to watch kids cry.

In other words, DU is fundamentally flawed at the core of that part of the design. It didn't take a detailed plan to get ahead of 80% of the players, just an understanding of which tools were needed in what order and then putting in the grind. The persistent nature of the design was always going to advantage the early adopters over new comers. The FTUE implicitly puts new players on a path of gameplay that has been nerfed out of viability since launch which is WAY worse than just older accounts having more advantages. I've tried mentally pulling this game apart from every direction and viewpoint to find solutions to suggest that would have positive impact but nearly every time the problems extend into and beyond the core of the design. The little imperfections in creativity are what makes art, but serious flaws at the base layer can ruin the entire body of work. The worst part of the exercise of trying to find ways to save DU is to discover a direct financial conflict of interest between the cost of the server and the sandbox nature of the game itself. The more the game succeeds the more it fails and vice versa to a degree. This conflict between the core gameplay features and the cost of operations is baked into the recipe and no amount of layering new features over time can remove this inherent flaw. So dear, sweet Virginia; yes there is a Santa Clause but even he and his elves can't save DU from itself.

There's a long list of 'if' statements that would all have to align for me to even give it consideration. In other news the sun will rise in the West and set in the East, and the mountains will blow like leaves in the wind.

There is no plan for ship PvE content in this game unless you count refueling or delivery missions. It has never been part of the plan. I'm sure many have hoped that being a sandbox with LUA scripting that some players may find a way to inject PvE into the game somehow but I don't think that is worth holding one's breath over. DU is supposed to be a clone of Eve Online's PvP gameplay with voxel building and LUA scripting.

Then you likely have not become uncomfortably familiar with the concept of government sponsored black (as in shadow/secret) projects. Congrats on making it this far in life without that knowledge or first-hand experience. Seriously, why does the US DoD have a cyber defense team that just happened to start at the same time online hate and spam ramped up ten fold? Gotta be a coincidence because the US Military wouldn't inflict psychological warfare on citizens or the world in general... right? 1) The CEO is literally at a state sponsored metaverse event discussing topics that, IMO, are extremely dystopic. 2) The design was flawed from the start. We can speculate on what parts of the design were at fault but without a comprehensive list of VC investments it would be nigh impossible to get an accurate picture of motivation behind the first (or subsequent) round(s) of funding. Because those things are expected of a game in development and at release. It would raise too many questions or alert too many would-be "customers" if those things were completely absent. In other words, it is a cost of doing business in this field no matter what the motivation of the funders may be. Ever hear of Stuxnet? It was developed and spread for many years before it found the target computers in Iran. This is extremely difficult to answer for several reasons; chief among them being if this is a state sponsored psy-op then a correct guess could literally mean a death sentence. TL;DR - Your guess is as good as mine but I've been around the rodeo for a while.