Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FerroSC

  1. 17 hours ago, Jake Arver said:


    You mean you have not watched the last two NQ videos or paid attention over the past 18 months where pretty much every video has a reference to them having to cust cost and things being too expensive for them? The mining changes are brought in with one of the mentioned and direct drivers being the (financial) cost NQ incurs serverside on the current mechanic. I'd say NQ committing to just one weekend to test Demeter on PTS is another signal they can't afford to keep those servers running for longer.

    Demeter is a crucial update for NQ, not opening the PTS for a good amount of time, allowing the changes to be properly tested over some time makes no sense other than not havin the means to provide that .. I see no other explanation but feel free to offer one if you do..


    Can NQ still deliver the game they set out to create? Of course they can but the chance of that really s not very high. I do still have some hope NQ will make a fool out of me and make me eat my words.. And I wil lhappily do so if that time comes. But I do prefer to take a position of logic and common sense, based on clear signals and events.


    --those who just dismiss anything I say outright may as well stop reasding here--



    As you asked for "proof", here's my reasoning;



    • NQ opening up the game to the public with "beta" last year was at least to a considerable extent driven by the need to start making money, JC said as much in the announcement.
    • It was never the intention to go public until release (kickstarter/post kickstart campaign, backer pledges during (pre) alpha, every indication up to April last year)
    • The main investor replaced JC as CEO, taking over NQ in March this year
    • JC has since left the company entirely (as per a post by NQ-Pann)
    • The last injection of capital was June 2019 (NQ announcement and crunchbase)
    • NQ has a total investment of around 24M, including backer pledges, and has been running on that for about 7 years now.



    A simple calculation would show you (on an optimistic budget) NQ will need to generate about 350K a month to just pay the bills.


    Known factors:

    • Office in Paris
    • Office in Montreal
    • Around 65 staff that we know of from LinkedIN
    • 24/7 fairly complex serverinfrastructure rented through AWS
    • At least two PR/marketing companies we know of
    • XSolla


    The offices are (mostly) rented desks so those cost may actually be lower currently, which may well have alowed NQ some serious savings. But just the employee salaries will gobble up the majority of the 350K I am going with here, salaries in the Paris and Montreal areas are considerable.


    There is no indication whatsoever that there was a new investment round or that one is coming. If it was/is, that would be a big positive and reassuring PR newitem to share, so silence here to me can only mean that here is none.


    A reasonable and simple calculation from the above would lead to NQ needing about 50-60K steady paid subs to just pay their bills, and I am just not seeing those numbers.. There is 41K tiles claimed on Alioth and from a conservative number of about 20K backers and their alts or invited players on beta keys they handed out, none  of whom are paying a cent until release. The numbers are just not there.

    So yes, while there is no direct proof for any ofthis, the circumstantial evidence, the signals and straightup logic would lead to a reasonable assumption NQ currently has some severe financial limitations at least. Of course I can always be wrong, but I see no reason to believe I am.

    This is a pretty solid argument for what you're saying.  I dont think it's as dire as you paint it up to be, but it's clearly not a cash-flush free for all over there either.  All businesses make efforts to save money, be it fuel/employees/computers whatever.  Even profitable companies try to cut costs so I'm not as alarmed there.  The 350k number actually seems right and the valuation/fundraising seems about right with the 22mil figure, but again there could be other loans/financing/lines of credit that we aren't privy to, but we should assume crunchbase would have those numbers so for my taste the 22m is correct.  The catch here is they didnt start at the 350k monthly figure and likely didnt swell up to the 65 employees number until the last year or so, so that 350k/month  figure could have easily been 100k/month for the first several years, which buys them a little time with their cash on hand.   Very interesting numbers to arm-chair CEO this thing with.  Thanks for taking the time to put the facts/numbers together.  Makes for a good chat and gives folks some insight into the testing process we are all a part of.  Cheers.

  2. 17 hours ago, helvetian said:

    there's no logical explanation for the old scanner results (that might have been taken a year ago) to suddenly become up-to-date when they didn't refresh before.

    This is a really valid point and may have just changed my mind on this particular point.  Ore scans never updated before, based on ore being extracted so it doesn't actually make sense to have them updated for this expansion.  Just because they technically *can* update them, doesn't mean they should.    Good point.

  3. 2 hours ago, Orth_Tanic said:

    Is Biden running the show? 1 M a week for tax's that is way to high do away with tax's and keep it how it is I would rather pay a high price upfront to not be taxed. That and people have real lives sometimes people might not be able to get logged into the game and then when they come back they will owe millions in tax's 

    Not good tax's suck in RL no need to have them in a game. I have played other games that required tax's to be paid to keep land and it killed not only me but entire clans from playing it.  Looking at that I have I am not sure I would even be able to afford keeping what I have had for over a year now. I don't really see myself playing a game where all my time is used up to make sure my "tax's" are paid. I been all in 100% with DU but this change may make me rethink playing. 

    Tax's can be a HUGE game braker. The only way you will be able to survive is if your in a large Org with a large cash flow the solo player and smaller orgs will die and people will stop playing. 

    Would you be this anti if it was called "maintenance fees" instead of taxes?  I agree the amount is a bit too high, but the point of the tax system was to keep tiles from being locked from inactive players.   I think there is some math to be worked out, but I think the reason behind the tax is a good reason, just needs some math and some patience to listen to the community, but it's not a game breaker.  If anything, it's a game helper to make tiles available to new players, or existing players who are trying to expand.  Also, to your last point I think driving the real.estate market I to the hands or organizations is kind of the point, to encourage cooperate over isolation, but it might be a misguided idea.  

  4. 30 minutes ago, Hagbard said:

    this would still lead to all good mining tiles to be claimed in 24h


    First off,  I also agree 1mil over week is pretty steep.   But the above statement , you have made a couple times and I'm curious: Can you breakdown some numbers for us?  I assume you have done the math on number of tiles versus the cost and the number of players, etc.   Would the solution be to level out the tiles so L/h is more equal between tiles?  What would the fix be to create a more sustainable system?  Re-fill the ore pool for unclaimed tiles every month?  Wipe all the scans we already have?  Curious to hear what you think.  Thanks. 

  5. OP, I'm sorry if I derailed your post.  I'm sure you have put every bit as much time into this game as I have, if not more.   I disagree with your assessment of exploit usage and I used way too many words to say that.  The ideas of  buffing elements is a good start.  Realistically, new elements are part of the fix here.  Why does the thrust end of an engine and the power generating end of an engine have to be the same element?  Combustion chamber and burner, linked somehow maybe?  Who knows.  I think more complex systems and additional tools would be a great discussion without the caveats of the exploit usage.   In my opinion the rationalization of the exploit usage detracts from the constructive discussion of "where do we go from here".  Again, sorry for derailing.  Hope our next exchange goes better.  I'll try harder next time.

  6. 19 hours ago, CyberDay said:

    Im confused why Ferro thinks that they are bound by the Player ToS.

    The devs are not bound by their own ToS, per se..  the devs arent users so they're not bound by a "user agreement" but the way it is now neither are the players.  The official rules say one thing and the announcement says another.  It's just bad communication and sets a really bad precedent that "rules are meant to be broken."  

  7. 1 hour ago, Atmosph3rik said:

    This is the same idea from the other thread that you've posted in like 5 times arguing against it though lol

    Except the other thread is about why stacking was used to begin with, in which the author tries to convince the reader that the exploit was used for anything other than an in-game advantage. From "different metas" to artistic ability, that thread basically said stacking was used for every reason other than in-game advantage.  Didn't need me to derail it.  Some posts are train wrecks from the beginning..

  8. On 9/22/2021 at 11:37 AM, Sabretooth said:


    Or does stacking prevent fuel use? If it doesnt, I think it should be a feature in this game. Sure 2 military= 4 basic engines, but the weight!!! yes yes

    I think some designs maybe deserve stacking, really!

    I've thought this too.  An industry unit where you could put 2 completed engines in, one gets consumed in "research" and the other comes out of the industry with a substantial buff, far beyond any talent buff.  Obviously 1 + 1 would not equal two, but you would open up a wide variety of design options if something like this was available.  Depreciating returns on researching the same engine could be tweaked so it's not too OP of a mechanic, and fully researched Exotic engines would take weeks to complete so its not for everyone, but why not let people make super charged engines and stuff?  Seems like a solid idea.  

  9. 3 hours ago, EpicPhail said:

    Your reaction here is the same as if I asked the question "How would one go about breeding a new color of tiger" and you come in and reply with "But tigers are orange and black"....

    But tigers ARE Orange and black.  Fun fact:  a tiger is orange because its primary prey are color blind.  To those animals, tigers blend right into the jungle because green=orange to the colorblind animals.  Mammals lack the ability to produce the color green in basically all cases, so evolution adjusted to this limitation and created the ultimate jungle killing machine. 


    So now you know why we don't need another color of tiger because outside of curiosity and spectacle, it is inferior to the black and orange tiger.. because black and Orange, in this scenario is the meta..  just like cubes are the meta.  If the animals were color blind on a different spectrum the tiger would have evolved to be another color.  Another "if" that is irrelevant because the meta is the meta which is based on reality, not on hypothetical MS Paint squares and poorly constructed paragraphs.  So you and I agree, in another universe things would be different.  


    You're trying to explain something everyone understand already:  why stacking was used.  Problem is, your reason is wrong.  You're giving the builders this creative license that everything they did with this exploit was for creative/artistic reasons and if only the game was "better" then this exploit would have never even been used.  You're saying "if we had more tools, people wouldn't have used the exploit" which is just a ridiculous point to make because 1. There is no way to prove what would have happened so it's a pure hypothetical argument (see also, not a constructive criticism or anything else that is useful aside from a conversation starter)  and; 2. People will always use exploits regardless of the tools they have available.  There are no ethical cheaters.   There are ships that are currently exploiting the bug for many, many different reasons and the "preservation of artwork" IS a valid reason not to delete the constructs but it's hardly the reason the exploit was so widely exploited.  All these "unbalanced" ships are for players to game the system and gain an unfair advantage.  Aside from like The Nautilus and some other flagship creations(which are all very very impressive and should be preserved) , there isnt a jancko ship in the game that was build "just because I didnt like how a wall of engines looked".  They were made to min-max the physics engine in the game and for nothing else.   Cheaters gonna cheat, regardless of how many excuses you make for WHY they cheated... cheating is cheating.  

  10. 41 minutes ago, Daphne Jones said:

    The advantage in combat is that the ship can have higher acceleration without incurring a cross-section cost. Target cross-section affects hit probability.

    On top of that, it negates any "battlefield literacy" a non-advantaged player may have.  Consider this:  an experienced Pilot sees a M core ship inbound. This experienced pilot has been playing a long time and he knows very well the capabilities of each core size and the risks associated with engaging each one.  With the "unbalanced" elements, his battlefield literacy is 0.  He has no idea what could be on that M core.  He knows what is on *his* M core,  but without a fair playing field this player is not just potentially disadvantaged at a technical level; But he is also disadvantaged at a tactical level because all of his information, which should be accurate, is completely unreliable because the rules of the game are not clear.   Even if the ship he is facing DOESN'T have any unbalanced elements, the fact that it persists in the game means any engagement is done blindly without anyway to know what you are actually going to encounter.    

  11. 8 hours ago, EpicPhail said:

    People like Arch or FerroSC make it obvious they didnt even make it past the title before spewing out a predetermined opinion that has nothing to do with the actual suggestion at hand here in this thread.

    I read all of it.  I had to read some of it a few times because the ideas weren't very well organized.  You are arguing against the "cube meta" .  We get it.  Meta means "most effective tactic available".   Would you prefer a cylinder meta?  Perhaps a spherical meta?   Your post here basically says "if things were different we could do different things".   Then you made some poorly argued descriptions of what "different" would be, but you never really land on anything you are trying to endorse.  You simply don't like the cube meta and think everyone around you is stupid because "they just don't get it"...  cylinders, cones, rings..  all shapes could be meta if conditions were different.  Well, if "if" was a fifth we would all be drinking.  If dont mean shit.   Maybe in another universe those can happen, but in this universe we are worried about 3 planes.  X, Y, Z.  It JUST so happens that a cube is perfect for min/maxing a ships ability to maneuver efficiently in these directions.  You don't like cubes.  So you made some drawings to prove what we all know:  cubes are meta.  Then you made some long winded reasons about why people used and exploit and then you made an attempt to rationalize being able to keep the exploit based on some hypothetical metrics that could exist in the game but don't.  Them you closed it with "did I ramble?" Which indicates you are unsure of your own ideas and you realize they are poorly presented.  Then you came and threatened to report people who disagree with you, then you claim no one read your post.  And now we are here.  Thus ends my book report on your post.  I'll look forward to reading the next one.  Have a great day. 

  12. 34 minutes ago, XKentX said:

    2 PVP pros discussing how and what ships should be used in PVP

    Hi.  I'm not a pvp pro and never claimed to be.  I've been shot down a couple times and never actually fired a weapon myself.  I am 0-3 at PvP.


      I am, however, fluent in English and can read the ToS and the recent Dev announcement and identify the contradictions between the two.  Im not suggesting what ships should be used, I'm suggesting that the message from NQ be consistent and changes implemented on a way that is as fair and equitable as possible.  


    The script you suggest would be fantastic.   Other suggestions have been good, too.  A variety of options have been suggested and we should feel free to discuss those as a player community.  It seems the only bad ideas in this discussion have come from NQ themselves in the way they have chosen to tackle this issue.  I don't think coming onto the forum and being condescending to other players is constructive in any way, but everyone has their own interests, I suppose.  Lemme ask you this Kent:  if NQ grounded all the ships with "unbalanced" elements until they were fixed, not deleted but simply immobilized, would that be a reasonable solution for this problem or do you think the ships should be allowed to persist and NQ should let them fade out organically and focus on other things?  What other ways could they fix this that would allow players to keep their investment but not their in-game advantage? 

  13. 1. Are you going to be replacing ships that are lost from "unbalanced" ships?  If so, what is the claims process for that?


    2.  Are you going to educate players on how they can identify unbalanced ships, particularly after a ship has destroyed theirs?  If so, when and where will that guidance be posted?


    3. What is the proper reporting process for a player that believes an unbalanced ship has attacked them?


    4.  What tools does NQ have at its disposal to identify unbalanced ships, aside from player reports?


  14. On 9/17/2021 at 11:00 PM, Draqolas said:

    Game was build as PVE game and they added PVP without though as core element.

    That's simply not true.  The first trailer for this game mentions "combat" several times and even describes various types of combat that could take place.  This was billed as a "civilization building mmo" and guns were a part of that design from day one.  

  15. On 8/23/2021 at 7:06 PM, Eternal said:


    A "company" is a corporate organization. What does it mean to incorporate? Starting a sole-proprietorship means you register and operate a business under your name or a DBA, which means you are fully liable for it. If you get into a partnership, the general partner is liable. People can get together and consolidate their investments to start a limited liable corporation, that is what a "company" means. An incorporation (Inc.) means a fully liable business has been incorporated, so therefore it is now a corporation with plural shareholders.


    The problem that I'm trying to bring up here is the issue with shares. A company has many shareholders (investors). It's way too risky to invest in something that has no protection. Incorporating doesn't work! What you call a "share" is a claim! How can I assert that? You can't! Like I said, we got no platform to do that! 


    To give you the reality, it doesn't work! And here is the game forcing you to incorporate!


    You will get automatic mining unit in this game, the industry is automatic and all you got to do is feed it with materials, and retailing is automatic -- you can solo this game with those leverage! Who would want to be an employee when everybody in this game has an equity (as they can all mine with their own equipment on their personal and unclaimed tiles) and they receive 150K of ayuda (financial assistance) everyday. Only an idiot would want to be an employee on a condition like this! They all have the ability individually to employ and support themselves, so why would they work for anybody as an employee? Everyone should be an entrepreneur! Why? Because they all have the ability to generate income out of their own resources! If you can do that, you are a successful entrepreneur, which is easy to do for everybody! Do you have to make any ends meet? Nope, that's why income level doesn't matter on a game that has no survival! 


    As far as equitable system is concerned, none of these things work! You can play in a group inequitably, I won't, and I will play something else with a sense of equity! I ain't playing a game of slave!


    They failed to factor this game for the individual! I mean look at the basic unit of land in this game? It is 1 Km². That is the size of a financial center! If you just made it 5,000 m² and let them agglomerate into an urbanization with no government, this game would have realistically worked! 1 Km² for each player is too big to agglomerate together (30 tiles in this game in a line is just 30 player properties but 30 Km long. It will take you 40+ minutes to traverse that by foot. That is equivalent to travelling inter-city in real-life for just 30 player properties), which means the org will acquire the 1 km² and everyone will centrally live in it! So we are back here again with shares which does not work!

    My single player property is basically a city.  So what you are describing is 30 mediocre players, not 30 awesome tiles that actually make a player community.  

  16. I think the challenge of designing around the limitations is part of ship building.  I think your description of the existing systems as limited only speaks to the limits of the builder's creativity.  A true craftsman can make excellent work with only simple tools.  It is the novice who needs a special tool, or an exception to every rule, to make a quality product.  This is why the ship creators are popular, because they used the existing tools to make great ships.  At a time,  jancko elements was one of the tools that was used.   To argue that a ship can not be built to the same quality without that tool is a reasonable position to take, but it's both subjective and irrelevant since the tool has been removed.   Many of my favorite ships in the game have zero "unbalanced" elements (see also, janko/clipped) and those ships perform outstanding and look terrific.  I think we should challenge ourselves with the tools we have. 


    The game is young and this will definitely not be the final form of ship building.  Maybe NQ finds a way to combine elements in a more sophisticated way?  Perhaps linking engines or stacking brakes as multi-element kits that are more aesthetically pleasing.  There are lots of cool things that could happen, but to say that you can't make good ships without this particular tool is untrue.  To play a physics based game and insist on physics breaking tools is just counter intuitive.  Of course there are form factors that are the most efficient.  Of course there are physical limitations to the different sized cores.  The things you say are obstructing creation are many of the same things that are fueling innovation.  

  17. You can use them in PvP and only if you are reported and confirmed by NQ will they get deleted.  You could kill a thousand ships before getting reported.  That's what their words say.  "If you use them and get caught we will take it away."  They are not disabled.  They are not even marked.  They are free to be used for several months and given the sheer number of them out there, the PvP spicy boys can lose one a day and still have left overs when Demeter drops. 


    Quit saying "you cant use them in PvP" because by their own words, you 100% can and there is no consequence for doing so unless you are reported and NQ can prove your allegations.  

  18. 2 minutes ago, EpicPhail said:

    Can you explain to me, how that is a bad thing, in any way shape or form? How does this negatively impact you? It doesn't. It only positively impacts those who may be around you.

    So NQ was incorrect when they said this issue creates "a lot of gameplay imbalance" and that its "a bug".  You realize if someone is "advantaged" then inherently someone else has to be "disadvantaged".   That's what that word means. Is that someone has a better setup than someone else.  In this case, that better set up is from exploiting a bug and NQ says that in plain English.  Not going to do your mental gymnastics on this.  The ToS contradicts their actions.  Plain and simple.  

  19. 2 minutes ago, EpicPhail said:

    i think you should re-think your ragepost. specifically the part that says:

     They clearly and specifically stated, in the very announcement you clearly saw and read because you already mentioned that you know they are backtracking a bit on their initial decision:


    So you won't find anyone PvP'ing in stacked ships and if you do, report them and their ship goes poof. I'm willing to bet that if you get your salad tossed by someone using a stacked ship, and you report them, NQ will probably fix your ship for you if you ask nicely. NQ are cool like that. Stop being such a whiner.

    If quoting their own ToS and their own announcements to show a contradiction is a rage post then I guess this is a rage post.   I call it a disappoint post because I'm continually disappointed in NQs lack of clarity in their own rules. 

  • Create New...