Pleione

Knee jerk every time I read this.  Backers didn't "play for free", they played based on a one-time fee.  Think I was in it for $175 (ish) - the most I've ever invested in a game that wasn't playable at the time.  Now, I admit, I'll get DACs for that - maybe.  Perhaps will find out tomorrow - but they were silent around DACs.  And I did get to play alpha and beta for a lot longer than anyone (except perhaps Blazemonger) predicted.  But it sure didn't feel like "free".

Want a funny read, go back to the original 2016 kickstarter post:
 
  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg
 

I particularly liked the 1M talent points they dangled if you activated 2 factor authentication.  Those are worth nothing now.

i stopped playing in 2021 and i am not coming back.
 
reason:
 
the speed change for ships alone is enough for me to not come back. what a horrible change.

Trust me, I feel your pain and disappointment.
 
I feel the lack of a player driven economy, of which player driven markets are a huge piece, is my 2nd biggest disappointment in the evolution of DU.  1st being the lack of delivery of "Galaxy" with the implications its was well beyond 2 or 3 solar systems - I wanted in pre-alpha to work towards a Stargate Universe class exploration and gate seeding ship.  That dream died a rather slow death, with feature after feature required to do it slowly being removed and replaced with more and more dependance on central markets.  That dream died its last death with the introduction of schematics.

Trust me, I feel your pain and disappointment.
 
I feel the lack of a player driven economy, of which player driven markets are a huge piece, is my 2nd biggest disappointment in the evolution of DU.  1st being the lack of delivery of "Galaxy" with the implications its was well beyond 2 or 3 solar systems - I wanted in pre-alpha to work towards a Stargate Universe class exploration and gate seeding ship.  That dream died a rather slow death, with feature after feature required to do it slowly being removed and replaced with more and more dependance on central markets.  That dream died its last death with the introduction of schematics.

I would expect the answer to be "no".  It appears they are rewarding people who have, via kickstarter/backer/subscription, contributed money to their effort.

As a funny youtuber always says every time something politically stupid happens irl, 'imagine my shock'.
 
I've always been pro wipe, but the inclusion of talent points to be wiped has me really miffed. As it is, I have almost 100M points currently. The pioneer packs to get me back up to 60M over 6 months is nice, but I really feel like that should be an addition to what we've already accumulated.
 
Short of blueprints, avatar and organization names, NQ program rewards, and the knowledge and experience we've gained, not including talent points. I'm grimacing and coping really hard. I'd always imagined the talent points as the only tangible in-game item that took time to build that would be really useful after launch, well I guess that's dashed. Real disappointed.
 
 
As an aside, I feel like the disbursement of the pioneer pack rewards is somewhat unfair:
If you've been a subscribing member for at least 1 to 3 months of beta up till NOW, not release: Advanced If you've been a subscribing member for at least 4 to 12 months of beta, or are a KS iron, bronze, silver founder, or are a post-KS contributor backer up till NOW, not release: Rare If you've been a subscribing member for at least 13+ months of beta, or are a KS gold or above founder, or are a post-KS sponsor or patron backer up till NOW, not release: Exotic Not having a cutoff of the announcement date cheapens these packs since anyone can get them, or at least until the release date. I envision a ton of 'rare' packs going out.
 
Like the difference between testing and playing, or founders and backers, the verbiage is so important.
 
 
How many times do I have to say it? NQ should have never gone with a 'soft launch' and kept the spirit of the beta test, strictly a test. Hopefully, after this wipe, they'll have figured out that it is not a good idea to let the effects of a bug (1% schematic fire sale for the best example) ripple out. Stop the game, fix the bug, roll back the server, and press play.
 
That's what "beta testing" is for, the effects of this would be negligible, and newer beta players could get a taste of the scheduled pre-/alpha experience. I don't know how this will translate once the game is released, nor the reaction that these small reversions will do to the whole idea of a 'persistent universe', but the seeds could have been planted back in beta, hell, back in alpha once we started going full time.
 
 
I'm hesitant and reserved about the future going forward based on my general beta experience. Alpha 3 had me hopeful, but that hope dissolved as beta progressed. It doesn't appear that DU will make its 1.0 feeling feature complete and truly playable. There's still lots more I think that should be added, old stuff needing further refinement and adjustments, and the whole game a more polished and launch-ready feel. 
 
You only get one chance to make a good first impression... If we're releasing in the sixteen months, I'm anxious. No one will laugh at you for going to a charlie 'test phase', but I doubt that will happen. At this point, I'm just hoping for the best.

Again, DACs (which they didn't mention in this announcement, so we have to speculate on) might be considered a large portion of that reward.  But I agree in principle, since I'm been active for 4.5ish year now?  (wow)  Allowing someone to buy their way in and be equivalent in rewards day 1 seems wrong - although a great way to raise cash.

One difference:  I'm presuming kickstarter and patron types will get their promised DACs.

No longer a "discussion" (if it ever was), now its the law of the land.

Two questions:
 
Are you going to test this out a month or three on the PTS first?  I sure hope so.  Bluntly, releases have historically had a lot of bugs - it would be nice for your to clean new ones (ok, and all known old ones) up before launch.  But to make such a change without public testing seems very risky.
 
I presume DACs remain based on backer level.  They were not mentioned.

Why would they say this......... FFS.   He should be fired for saying such a stupid thing.  And the other two should be fired for not questioning what he said before the video was released. And anyone that does not realise how bad of a statement is should not be in a position of policy making. 

So firstly thanks for the news finally for wipe/reset.
 
We do need to know content for launch as we really want DU to work and survive.  Currently DU is lacking a lot so we want it to have the best chance.  Can you release energy/Territory Warfare and Org refreshes too in time?  Convince us to invest in your game please!
 
Secondly why not Org names too wiped?  So many good names taken up by redundant dead players so if I considered to change my org I cannot as people hold the titles.  It should be active people only keep their org names tbh!
 
Thirdly are you removing Safezones?  Prime opportunity to reduce them to bring that Civ Building, Conflict game as originally planned?  Currently way too much is 'safe' so if starting afresh isnt that a good idea to keep Safe zones to a minimum?  We now have mechanics to protect stations if you choose to build them out in space.
 
Thanks
 
Honvik

I would expect the answer to be "no".  It appears they are rewarding people who have, via kickstarter/backer/subscription, contributed money to their effort.

Two questions:
 
Are you going to test this out a month or three on the PTS first?  I sure hope so.  Bluntly, releases have historically had a lot of bugs - it would be nice for your to clean new ones (ok, and all known old ones) up before launch.  But to make such a change without public testing seems very risky.
 
I presume DACs remain based on backer level.  They were not mentioned.

---ENG
While i understand you frustration, you are not entitled to any monetary compensations what so ever. You joined a kickstarter game which is always a gamble, only do that if you are ready to lose.
 
As time went on NQ has become more and more untrustworthy so if you have paid for subscriptions that is also entirely on you, no one has forced you to thrown money at NQ.
 
Personally i bought the KS lie, but have no intention to sub in any form as DU today is not what was promised in the KS, not even close.
 
--- FR
Bien que je comprenne votre frustration, vous n'avez droit à aucune compensation monétaire. Vous avez rejoint un jeu kickstarter qui est toujours un pari, ne le faites que si vous êtes prêt à perdre.
 
Au fil du temps, NQ est devenu de plus en plus méfiant, donc si vous avez payé des abonnements qui vous incombent entièrement, personne ne vous a forcé à jeter de l'argent sur NQ.
 
Personnellement, j'ai acheté le mensonge du KS, mais je n'ai aucune intention de me substituer sous quelque forme que ce soit car DU aujourd'hui n'est pas ce qui a été promis dans le KS, même pas proche.

There is no reason to remove cross section. In encourages engineering tradeoffs. Keep in mind that hit chance scales with the square root of the cross section, but CCS/HP scales with the volume of the ship. That means as you scale up, you gain more EHP in ccs/hp than you lose from increased hit chance.
 
Changing the lock ranges would not be good for the game as it removes options like upsized radars, and makes smaller ships essentially unkillable.

That is because NQ just makes up these numbers without applying any logic or reason @Kurosawa ..
They are changing things for the sake of changing things and making up reasons afterwards.
 
This is why much of what NQ does is kind of a good idea in principle but the execution lacks. If you apply a reason after you "design" the change, that is what happens.
 
It's textbook cart before horse

Early talk (~2018) was about a procedurally generated universe - that people would be able to head off in any direction and find new star systems to exploit.  The programmers amongst us wondered how they would handle all that data - being able to do so would have truly been a programming feat.  We saw the death of that once they started hand tweaking the planets "for quality" purposes.

Yeah..  I was really looking forward to that. It was a bummer that JC announced the changes did not make it to beta nut still hopeful when he said that they'd bring it in during (with a wipe). The hammer fell when he announced that it would not happen after all but that we'd get a whole new solar system instead to compensate plus everything else and all that within a year (source). 
 
That kind of told me he was really just full of BS and had been stringing us along. It was where I more or less went to the side of "NQ is not going to deliver the game they promised/set out to make" and it pretty much played out that way...
 
JC's vision was great but his execution of said vision and management of the company was about as bad as it gets. Which is also why he found himself kicked out.


It would be amazing if NQ manages to get the new planet tech in and gives us "a whole new world" to play with for release. I'd love to be able to get behind NQ pulling a massive rabbit out of the hat for release, but I think that is at best a very slim possibility and it's more likely we get what we have now instead.

There is no point in this conversation.  NQ is going to do what they want, when they want, under the delusion that they, and they alone, know what is best for the game.
 
So sit back, wait awhile longer (its been almost 4 years for me), and lets see what happens.

Lets not forgot that the existing code is hardly stable - seems like they are currently requiring "maintenance" several times a week.  Not the stability most would find acceptable for late beta code (yeah, I know it feels like alpha code, with this number of restarts expected for that level of code, but its not what they claim).

Looking at the problem statement: "Too many people building everything without involving others", why does NQ (and a lot of players) equate that with a problem with industry that needs fixing (one way or another).

Focus on making it easier for people to buy instead of making things harder to build. My suggestions are:
Make all markets on a planet have the same buy and sell orders (e.g. place Market 6 terminals in every marketplace on Alioth and get rid of the local terminals).  Distribute markets around planets so every territory is close to a market. I like how Haven was set up (may have added a few more markets though). Change the nano-crafter so any item it can make can alternatively be instantly bought from the planetary market (if being sold by a player) and placed in your inventory (same as if it had been crafted). Remember, its consumer spending that drives economies not manufacturing. 

NQ-Entropy:
"When we released schematics in 0.23, it was to address a problem that had the potential to adversely affect Dual Universe as an MMO. Players were able to be fully self-sufficient with ‘build-it-all’ factories, reducing interaction between players in the game’s economy."
 
I would like to point out three items that were both in the original, and the December 2019 Roadmap (the last one published I believe):
 

 

 
and
 

 
The first implies I should be able to craft everything I need for my bases and ships.  e.g.  If I wanted to invest the time, I should be able to build a factory that can create everything I need for my bases and ships - or perhaps, like I did pre-0.23, create multiple large core space stations that combined did what I needed.  I spent 1000s of hours doing that, often 12-14 hours a day.
 
The second:  note the "or even" - use of elements was primarily intended for me and my friends, with the market an option - not a requirement.
 
The third:  Oh, wait, that is now "post release" with NQ systems substituted.
 
If the problem was lack of interaction, then perhaps the focus should have been on eliminating the NQ markets and bots and evolve towards player run ones.  Not, as other have posted, "Go re-establish civilization - we have set up dozens of fully stocked marketplaces for you throughout the solar system and established a taxation system to ensure your loyalty dependance on us."
 
The current system does not meet any of the 3 stated game goals, nor match the lore that was advertised.  Go offline, re-design to meet the goals, and relaunch in a year or two.  Your current path is a death spiral.  Maybe spend some time monitoring other games, like Fractured Veil, and see how real customer interaction works. 
 
It wouldn't hurt to force all designers to read  Tynan Sylvester's "Designing Games" book and commit to the principles it contains.