FerroSC

People might say this is a bit over dramatic, but I feel the exact same way.   We are always reminded that this is a beta and "play the game you have, not the game you want" but when the devs won't be clear with what game you have, it's justifiable to feel like you feel.   NQ: just put the info out there already and quit bullshittin' with folks limited free time they are using to play your game.  

Every beta key was paid for by way of a previous game purchase so this idea of "beta key freeloaders" is unfounded.  Regardless of what those accounts have and what will happen to it I'd they fail to renew a sub, the gametime was still paid for somewhere by someone.  Regardless of payment status, the players in the game currently are the only people generating content.  That's indisputable.  They aren't making content because of what NQ has done, they are creating in *spite* of the setbacks and changes NQ has provided.   So to say "these players are so few they don't matter", which was the point of the comment I responded to, that statement is just not the whole story because the "so few beta players who don't matter" are in fact the only ones generating content and barring some significant additions to the game, these same players are the only ones that could provide any type of content on launch aside from "surface gather to build shitty speeder".   I'm not making any argument for what they should/will/might do.  I have no idea, but it seems with the previously implemented "magic blueprints" you could clear the game world and let the active beta players pick back up basically where they left off, without any of the other clutter remaining in the world.   It's the only way really the established orgs would possibly tolerate and continue to play through a full world wipe.    Fwiw, I think at this point NQ should just completely jump the shark and say this is going to be a web3 blockchain based game.  Lol.  Why not at this point?  

People might say this is a bit over dramatic, but I feel the exact same way.   We are always reminded that this is a beta and "play the game you have, not the game you want" but when the devs won't be clear with what game you have, it's justifiable to feel like you feel.   NQ: just put the info out there already and quit bullshittin' with folks limited free time they are using to play your game.  

Can someone help me understand what it is a new player is excluded from when they join the existing game?  What content does the existing game world prohibit a new player from doing?   I hear this talk about letting people get a fresh start and a new release so everyone has an equal advantage or whatever... but I haven't heard what it is these new players wouldn't be able to do?   How does one "win" DU and if there is no "winning" then how can there be an advantage?  

Can someone help me understand what it is a new player is excluded from when they join the existing game?  What content does the existing game world prohibit a new player from doing?   I hear this talk about letting people get a fresh start and a new release so everyone has an equal advantage or whatever... but I haven't heard what it is these new players wouldn't be able to do?   How does one "win" DU and if there is no "winning" then how can there be an advantage?  

Can someone help me understand what it is a new player is excluded from when they join the existing game?  What content does the existing game world prohibit a new player from doing?   I hear this talk about letting people get a fresh start and a new release so everyone has an equal advantage or whatever... but I haven't heard what it is these new players wouldn't be able to do?   How does one "win" DU and if there is no "winning" then how can there be an advantage?  

Dude, quit gaslighting these people into thinking you care about their well being.  You used mental health issues as a way to demean the original comment, now you're gaslighting like some mmo white knight.  It's gross. Stop.  If you really are concerned about this individual's well-being you should reach out on a 1 to 1 basis and not embarass and stigmatize by making an example out of them here in a general forum.  

Dude, quit gaslighting these people into thinking you care about their well being.  You used mental health issues as a way to demean the original comment, now you're gaslighting like some mmo white knight.  It's gross. Stop.  If you really are concerned about this individual's well-being you should reach out on a 1 to 1 basis and not embarass and stigmatize by making an example out of them here in a general forum.  

Dude, quit gaslighting these people into thinking you care about their well being.  You used mental health issues as a way to demean the original comment, now you're gaslighting like some mmo white knight.  It's gross. Stop.  If you really are concerned about this individual's well-being you should reach out on a 1 to 1 basis and not embarass and stigmatize by making an example out of them here in a general forum.  

Dude, quit gaslighting these people into thinking you care about their well being.  You used mental health issues as a way to demean the original comment, now you're gaslighting like some mmo white knight.  It's gross. Stop.  If you really are concerned about this individual's well-being you should reach out on a 1 to 1 basis and not embarass and stigmatize by making an example out of them here in a general forum.  

Dude, quit gaslighting these people into thinking you care about their well being.  You used mental health issues as a way to demean the original comment, now you're gaslighting like some mmo white knight.  It's gross. Stop.  If you really are concerned about this individual's well-being you should reach out on a 1 to 1 basis and not embarass and stigmatize by making an example out of them here in a general forum.  

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.  

I made this suggestion a few weeks ago on the subreddit and got roasted by the downvote brigade, but I still think this idea has merit. 

I made this suggestion a few weeks ago on the subreddit and got roasted by the downvote brigade, but I still think this idea has merit. 

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.  

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. 

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.  

*Elements Stacking is a bug, there’s no way around it. As a bug, especially one generating a lot of gameplay imbalance, it has to disappear at some point. *
NQ Dev announcement, 20 Sept 2021

So we should allow people to keep an unfair advantage because you like the way it looks.  Copy that. 

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.

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.  

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.    

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. 

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.  

*Elements Stacking is a bug, there’s no way around it. As a bug, especially one generating a lot of gameplay imbalance, it has to disappear at some point. *
NQ Dev announcement, 20 Sept 2021