GraXXoR

yep. that is exactly correct. But within a few posts it has been GOATSE-grade stretched to include LUA client payloads and LUA circumvention of NQ imposed RMDS... followed by instantaneous and overblown OUTRAAAAGE RAAAWWWWW!!!!

Imma jus' gonna stop you there fella'... OP said nothing about embedding code in a player... And where the actual f... did you get the idea that someone took out MP15 "with this type of code" That's some serious imagination you got there... Unbridled extrapolation and crowbarring irrelevant shit like NQ's RDMS error on MP15 into an argument about data gathering is how groups like QAnon get their first toehold... Shit may have got real but your arguments are anything but. And... BOOM... now we have the expected ignorant, kneejerk personally-offended redneck responses... Just like Newsmax. This needs to be nipped in the bud. The game does NOT allow you to "Plant" LUA on someone. A sensor can be used to detect the presence of a player or construct. This is usually for automation, such as a sliding door, activating a screen or switching on lights. However, it can also store a timestamp and the ID of a player. THAT IS ALL... It can't tell what you're doing. It can't read the contents of your Nanopack. The MP15 was disassembled by players. No LUA was used. However, as with everything NQ, they turned a minor and somewhat amusing mistake (In a game labelled BETA that is still actually ALPHA) into a catastrophy of biblical proportions as only JC can manage. Why? NQ amusingly banned paying customers for disassembling MP15 due to applying poor RDMS permissions, to much fanfare and handwaving. No LUA was used. This would have been pretty much kosher were it not for the even more amusing fact that NQ had just days before EXPLICITLY stated that RDMS settings are 100% the responsibility of the owner and that they, NQ, would point blank refuse to assist players who had had their shit stolen by other players playing the game since it was basically their own stupid fault for not learning how to use the RDMS. Yet when NQ made a mistake, they treated as a personal attack and went into super-defensive mode with "surgical precision" in punishing the miscreants. Banning them from the game. Much like their response to the people that bought schematics mistakenly sold for a 99% discount... oh wait.

You're actually (and I quote) "sh*t posting" (with an asterisk instead of the i in shit because maybe people won't be offended when you replace the i in the word shit with an asterisk) by complaining about people having opinions you don't... You didn't even have to read this thread. It's not like it was in a digest that was forced down your throat by JC as a condition for playing the game. This is a *thread based* forum. Grow up and learn to choose what to read and what to ignore, ffs... LOL

That makes absolutely no sense... I don't care if you feel they deserve it or not, but let's for argument say you wanted to punish them, then how, pray tell, would you go about punishing an anonymous person who purchased billions worth of 99% discount schematics? I'll wait here...

I love the fact that constructs in Starbase Alpha suffer stress-load from gravity and acceleration (yeah, I know, gravity IS acceleration) and you have to build your constructs to be able to absorb the stresses due to mass and thrust. Very cool! Would put an end to those 1km tall single voxel towers on Alioth

Remember when they had the bug abuse "amnesty" and asked players to turn themselves in or be banned.... and then nobody got banned... I said then that I believed NQ did not have the ability to identify - with 100% certainty - those who had or had not abused bugs in the game and were using their weird self-immolation beckoning "amnesty" as a ruse. This latest unwillingness (or likely inability) to remove the affected schematics from the game makes me believe that I was indeed correct and that NQ have not (yet?) implemented any audit trails within the mater database. Every database I have built for my clients includes a table or tables containing detail transactional histories of anything important and usually with enough data to automate reversal or rollback Sure, the scale of my customers' databases is laughably small, but then I wasn't paid 20,000,000 dollars to develop it. This does not bode well for release.

I'm curious how many think it's super cool that those who noticed (probably)/were in the know(conspiracy mode) and took full advantage of NQ's unplanned mistake (probably) /favour for insider-pals (conspiracy mode) and used, say, 2 billion ℏ to purchase schematics now have 200 billion ℏ worth of assets and have put themselves so far ahead as to be forever beyond reach of any other aspiring players or even groups.... ?

I'm sorry, could you write that a bit bigger please, I'm having trouble making it out...

Looks like this is going to be another one of those.... 'Say what now? No idea what you're talking about,' NQ "Senior" moments.

I'm here because I'm a stubborn, stupid optimist... Just like I am with Star Citizen, which is finally (finally, thank the gods) starting to shape up into something epic with -and this is key- *visibly accelerating* momentum... At the beginning of Star Citizen's development in 2012, the scope was small and tame, but in 2014 (IIRC) with $25m or 10x the original planned budget of $2.5m already in the bag, Chris Roberts sent out a request to vote on the forums for the following: 1) Continue and complete Star Citizen as originally planned and start work on SC 2 or... 2) Reconsider the game from the ground up with a much expanded scope commensurate with the new income.. WELL over 80% chose option 2... So SC was basically scrapped and restarted... The progress was so painfully slow, building up a proper studio, working with subcontractors who were basically pants and having to redo entire swathes of the game *again* Many started to call it Scam Citizen, Star Shitizen, Stop Citizen, Star Cynical and other names... Yet it's now a very enjoyable if buggy Alpha with epic graphics and some cool game play loops. Yet it causes almost as much constant hate as the US Dems vs Republicans shitshow that is the US political scene... I was like this, positive beyond reason, with No Man's Sky, which I have played hundreds of hours and has basically become a verb: "To Pull a NMS" means to drag yourself kicking and screaming from the ashes and rise as a phoenix... Another game that is controversial that I yet have hope for is Cyberpunk 2077... I am currently playing it through on the PC and though it was not as revolutionary as originally promised, the somewhat gelded game that the PC version became is nevertheless eminently playable (I have >100 hrs so far).. If CDPR do add the patches promised, they may even have a Skyrim on their hands since the world of Night City and the badlands is just that good. So I'm here watching the growth of Dual Universe in the hopes that the devs somehow manage to pull this game off... It's got so much promise and potential that it would be a hideous shame for it to crash and burn... and the years are dragging by and funding has all but dried up, so I'm only borderline positive right now... However... I am still here *Because* I hope DU will fulfil its potential (Just don't ask me about how I feel about Hellion)

Something tells me Elitez got herself a bunch of schematics on Friday... ? /troll

Welp, those were certainly *mostly* all real words. Add a dash of Ranch Dressing or some finely sliced olives and you'd be good to go.

I've always said that any bug a company is not willing to rollback or mitigate in an entirely fair way should be announced to the whole player base so that everyone has a reasonable chance of benefitting from it... This is standard business practice 101: "More than actual, absolute compensation, worker parity -or indeed the perceived disparity thereof- is an important driver of workplace conflict and general employee disaffection." Yeah, I know this is a game and not a job (though someimtes it feels like one) but this well established concept of hygiene factors extends far, far beyond the workplace and to membership of organisations and society in general. Anyone who runs a company should be well aware of this... JC!!!! The FOMO is real and I'm kicking myself now that I didn't take advantage of that and leverage my 20m of liquid assets into 2,000,000,000 ℏ worth of schematics.

I've decided stay away from this game until release.... No point wasting any more time on stuff that may or may not disappear in the future... I had put 200 hours or so in since the so-called "beta" dropped and really don't want to risk any more time... But if they wipe in the current state with the markets being lag fests, we'll just be back where we are today, but in x years time...

I kinda understand the OP in terms of the meh.... Seriously, what has changed in this game since last summer? Have any of the core mechanics been improved? Any much needed QoL features implemented? Any new game loops introduced? Not really. This game has stagnated with ancient bugs unfixed and new bugs only being patched after they are used by people to gain massive advantages over others... JC and his crew are seemingly content to apply band-aid after band-aid to the broken basics and allow rampant disparity between those who noticed certain bugs and... ahem.. unintended price points... remain un "punished" , fostering bad will and FOMO among the player base. However, between 150,000 ℏ per day and JC's ridonculous bots sucking ores out of the game for market-crippling, stupid-level money, there is no excuse for being poor, really.

Ah, you mean the SC model where they have multiple weekly community shows paid for by community subscriptions, a regular "Ask the Devs" spot where questions are pitched by the players at the devs to get (usually) straight answers.. Oh and then they bombard the backers with weekly newsletters regarding the different aspects of the game, the week's progress, where they are falling behind the roadmap and some behind the scenes' tidbits... Sorry, I just assumed SC meant Star Citizen. In which case no, completely NOT the SC model, unfortunately.

Damn, did I miss yet another exploit? what happened this time? 1 ℏ schematics? ---edit: I see I was nearly on the mark... not a bad guess, if I do say so myself.

You mean ARPANET (Yes, it was funded by a DARPA, later renamed ARPA and then back to DARPA under Clinton... but the network's name was ARPANET). The Advanced Reasearch Projects Agency Network, which came out of a desire for a network with the express ability to be able to route around "outages" (cutely metaphorical word for being nuked, which allowed them to unlock federal funding), when in reality it was more the fact that electronics were so unreliable that they needed a way to ensure that the network remained operational even if some blown transistors rendered a node inoperable. It became, in effect, a drive to create an automated, digital version of the telephone network which at the time consisted of patchboards and switched operated by human switchboard staff. By the end of the fifties, it was still limited to just four disparate machines and in order to expand beyond the original four computers, DARPA enlisted the help of various universities and research labs. Research laboratories and universities of course saw the need for reliable exchange information and federal funds were made available for them to research packet switching and proto TCP/IP which is the basis of modern TCP/IP today which was finally introduced around 1969 and the first "customer" nodes were attached to the network soon thereafter. The concept of routing protocols and redundancy was also addressed during this period. By the early 70s, many top universities in the US were connected and the first international connection was completed in or around 1973 to the UCL (University College, London)... Again, it seems you are under another common misapprehension. This time you're stating that civilian interaction with ARPANET was them basically creating the World Wide Web on top of ARPANET and conflating the WWW with the internet, when in fact the first civilian interactions were 20 years prior, in 1969 or thereabouts and used to share proto-emails, later file transfer and still later, just before the WWW, concepts like FTP and Gopher. So, it's a stretch to say that war created the internet when it was basically created by universities and private institutes, to all intents and purposes. It's like saying that the first car was actually a horse drawn carriage... Which, to an extent is true... I guess... This is somewhat different to NASA, which was very active during the Cold War and was a centrally, coldwar focused body of research. NASA's many projects were indeed focussed on military prowess and technical prowess in general and surely wouldn't have succeeded to the extent they did without the competition from the USSR. But, see, that is as I mentioned in a previous post: Competition. Which is healthy.. Neither the US nor the USSR engaged in actual direct war... nuclear or otherwise. And after the collapse of the USSR and until Putin, relations with East Europe had been fairly stable. I'll give you ENIAC, though, which was designed for ballistic calculations and later used for simulating nuclear weapons... But that wasn't really a generally programmable device in the modern sense because it required massive rewiring for each problem... Real computers were developed separately, after the war once regular business resumed and things calmed down. Truly programmable computers with punch cards and optical tape were invented that, while not as fast as ENIAC were actually useful for general purpose tasks... Again, a rather separate branch with separate purposes. ENIAC was more like an FPGA than a "real" computer, in that it could only solve a single problem at a time and it was more like an uncle than a father to modern computing in that respect. I could go on, since this is the sort of stuff I wrote a dissertation on at the end of the 90s.

If they blocked screen scripts, people would just make cheesy "ASCII" art with voxels.

What blockade? Did I miss something?

deleted

^^This!!! It needs to be the OP of another thread. So, so true. The problem is that planets are 10% of real size, meaning only 1% surface area and 0.1% of the volume... (That's 1/1000th of the volume for those who struggle with percentages ? ) And mining speed is so, so fast (>200L per second per person). Let's call it 10x realistic... These two multipliers mean that we are hollowing out the planets far more rapidly than in real life. By this scale, 200 players mining in a single org is equivalent to 2,000,000 miners on earth, all with advanced, quantum, material-beaming mining equipment.... With a single org able to entirely map a planet out in a couple of days with TSs, you just know it's going to end badly. But JC, as a fellow PhD, should have calculated that trivial fact as easily as I did... or even easier since he didn't have to reverse calculate a load of figures... Heck I said before the "beta" dropped that even if we reset the planets, at the rate we were mining pre-beta we will have removed all the >T2 mats within a year and people scoffed at me, telling me I didn't understand how big the planets were... I said if extra players joined the "beta" and the largest orgs coordinated they could basically rape all the planets of >T2 mats within 3 months... Strange how simple mathematical and statistical calculations actually work... Also strange that JC didn't figure that one out. Here we are just over 3 months after "release" of the "beta" and even though most of the players appear to have quit, all the meganodes and anything T3 and above is Swiss cheese.

As it does in mine... and in mathematics. Your second "or" is apparently right according to this below. Seems that it was an intentional balancing leading to JC wanting to deliver more content... I mean wanting to slow down the fastest players. Yes... Those were the two skills that I presented and it is obvious how they work... Just like how +5% ore extracted means plus five percent ore extracted. But how do you THEN say that +5% ore per level equates to speed? How does your curious interpretation of the skill's meaning mesh with the two skills you yourself defined identically to how they actually work, given the tweet from NQ. This is just so wrong I can't even... You even literally used 1+5/100 in the next part of your calculation.. i.e. +5% We do not know if it really is a compound multiplier or a linear multiplier, leading to two different answers. compound 1 * 1.05*1.05*1.05*1.05*1.05 = (1.05)^5 = 1.276 linear: 1 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 + 0.05 = 1.25 but given that things like container capacity bonuses, fuel tank capacity bonuses, weight reduction, thrust bonuses etc are all linear and not compound, I'd go with the latter. Heck, as mentioned by someone in the thread, it could even start from 75% of the max extraction at L0 and go from 80% at L1, 85%, 90%, 95%, to 100% (full extraction) at L5. This would lead to relatively larger percentage increases of 85/80 (6.25%) for L1... 90/85 (5.88%) etc... It would be nice to actually get OFFICIAL information in the OFFICIAL forum and not have to trawl through the morass of umbrage that is Twitter, like US citizens used to have to do to find official information until last week.

I see i derailed a bit there. my apologies. I completely agree with this above and yes, I"ve noticed the same issues pop up among the newer players repeatedly...

I think he might be a roleplayer, TBH. Elite Dangerous has a few characters like him. Lot's of talk, very little in the wedding tackle department.