Knight-Sevy

Now, in the current state of the game, I no longer understand complaints about the schematics. Especially when it comes to groups of ten or more players. I think there is a lot of ignorance and annoyance, people who were angry either blew their brains out so they could keep complaining endlessly or they need it to justify stopping the game when so many other missing or badly made mechanisms justify it more. I recently reviewed one of our industries that makes almost every T1 item in the game: 35 million shematic. Apart from the core unit, you can craft any PvE ship in the game ! With the current price of ore (eg T2) you can make just over 10 million quanta in just 2 hours! Really complaining about the price of the shematic is stupid now. There is no longer a valid argument for wanting a return to the no schematic version of the game.

Surely size increase is to stop S cores from mounting a whole bunch of L weapons, no? => No, There is a "hard" limitation which prevents using an L weapon on a core other than L. I don't understand why they didn't apply this principle to a lot of elements of the game or something like that: XS => Element size XS / S S => Element size XS / S / M M => Element size XS / S / M / L L => Element size XS / S / M / L With a limitation of quantity or combination of element. now you actually are limited by size of the weapons as to what you can and can’t actually place. => And no, before if I wanted a certain number of weapons, I put them and I had more freedom to design voxels arround. Now I always keep the same number of weapons, but I'm going to make a cube or a shoebox. is damage commensurate with the size of the weapon? Or is it borked like ailerons’ scale lift to weight factor? => Approximate exemple of DPS by gunner for cannons: L => 40,000 M => 30,000 S => 20,000 XS => 10,000

It is a terrible mistake to choose to increase the size of the elements to make a limitation. All it takes is a point counter or something like that. It's a mechanic that they could reuse for every part of a ship. They're gonna have to do a balancing one day or another. Having L ships as mobile as an S is fine at the start of a Beta ... But it will have to end sooner or later.

Hi, We have been told to say when things are good, but also when things are not. For me the last patch is a big disappointment on many points. But the most impactful is undoubtedly also the most visible. The new weapons are a problem. Whether it is from size XS to size L, nothing is right. The main problem is with the size of the guns in the game now, the guns are MUCH too big. Already the previous version was not the most discreet, we now have huge monstrosities to place on our ships. Personally I found the design to be the last highlight of the game. It was the one thing that could make me proud of the game and show my friends the fantastic ships we could build and potentially play with in PvP. Except now I'm really ashamed to show a ship with these weapons. Their new dimensions and skins spoil all the voxel work you could do ... And let's talk about the skins, if the weapons had a modest size we could accommodate them even if they do not look like the standard expected for SCFI weapons. But really there I have the impression that we were put giant water guns or Nerf guns on our boats ... This combination : size + skin is really terrible.

My few opinions: In the next meta, the biggest ship with the most weapons, engines, and armor will win again. Ships without voxel armor and will play shield will still lose in a balanced match (players and quanta). Fighting at 30,000 km / h is very problematic, not to mention the problems with the server getting out of sync. An L ship should not be faster than smaller ships. These can't have the same firepower or range, but will need to compensate with increased mobility. Once at 30,000 there is no more strategy. Why not also engage the ships of Dual Universe on a principle of trinity? : - Mobility (engines, tank ...) - Defense (voxel and shield) - Attack (weapons, ammunition, radar) We have to take risks and choose our strategy according to our objectives or our adversaries. The game has to push the players to do it. We must give a strategic role to each category of ship (idea of an example of specialization that could be done, we can also think of hybrids): - Carrier - Hunters - Anti-hunters - Supply / Cargo - Radar / electronic warfare option - Destroyer - Cuirassier - Tractor beam vessel - Ship with anti-warp - ... We must force the players not to be able to do EVERYTHING. Give us tough choices.

We don't want energy. It takes more limitation to push players to make choices.

no. NQ would have had better manage their arrival in the game. But now that they are there they must stay.

Even though it may be a wobbly mechanic, let's give it a chance. We are starting from scratch for the moment. Then the 4 hour delay is a deceptively safe delay, the goal of PvP players will be to attack you before the end of this timer. Of course they will take a look once the red arrow is in place, but the interest is to catch players before the game tells them "be careful we must leave I give everyone the position" when they are in full extraction job and full pocket. Overall I don't worry too much about our PvE friends, it will certainly have the ability to warp inexpensively to the nearest planet. For the moment the situation and the question will rather be: "you find it normal that a PvE player can escape effortlessly from a confrontation in a PvP zone?"

It is impressive to see what “anti-red” or “fear of communism” propaganda has done in the minds of some people. Rest in peace free will, it is something that is lost ... Or educational problems ... It is funny to see that you accuse an entirely capitalist game following very closely the ultra liberal political movements. JC did not hide it. He even tweeted a month ago praising the "creatoreconomy" ... And it is in France the dominant polithic current of the moment. We also call that a "start up nation" polith For JC (and NQ?) The organizational system is a multitude of micro enterprises and you have to work for each other. Each service will have to be paid and pay to another player. In short, it is a political choice that dictates this organizational gameplay. This is nonsense because over several millennia of history (the one with a capital H), we have seen that empires and society worthy of the name are developing thanks to state institutions possessing inalienable goods regardless of the people. at the head of the institution. This is what is missing in DU so that we can really create organizations (see the current drama with the core limit). We are therefore not at all in a socialist model. But beautiful and good in a few things that are 100% capitalist. In an organization you work for a boss (or a group of bosses) => You give him all what you produce and in exchange he will have to give you a salary / asset (or benefits in kind). And you should do the same with your micro business / organization. In conclusion: You name some things that you do not know by some things that you are afraid of but that you do not know either. You don't know what socialism is. You also don't know what neoliberal capitalism is.

In return for the 0.25. Hauling mission : 1) The packages are difficult to identify (do not know where they should be dropped off and by whom ect) ... 2) In PvP we can do nothing with these packages, and as they are often not identified it is more than laborious to ask for a possible ransom. The Job Forum: 3) announcement too short in time Question for 0.26 and future update. Major minning overhaul: 4) Can we have more detail? What relationship will there be between the future means of obtaining resources (surface harvesting, automatic mining unit and asteroid) compared to the traditional mining that we know today? Asteroid: 5) Will the asteroid system use the current land mining system? 400m manual scanner and hand-operated vein? Or will it be blocks of pure ore? 6) Even if seen some leaks on how the asteroid system is likely to work, can you officially explain the principle? Or what you want to go towards. Balance change pvp : 7) These changes will only bring changes to the current mechanics? (radar range according to cores, chance of hit, resistance of voxels, balancing of life points) ? Or will these changes begin to address more in-depth issues? Limiting the quantities of elements on a ship? End of item stacking / glitching? Speed limit in combat? 9) What is the objective of this balancing? Where does NQ want to go? Introduction of shields: 10) Will this new addition come with an overhaul / balancing of voxels on ships? Will it work in symbiosis with the voxels in a hull + shield system?

In alpha, we have had a limitation of barely ten core units per perssonage. It was a limiation of NQ already purely economic at the time. We are now at over 250 cores per perssonage. The upgrade was really substantial. But NQ screwed up again and let players exploit flaws in their mechanics and abused. And of course we see you all coming to cry today. It is not your fault but that of NQ we agree. Except that it is so. This limitation appears to be mandatory. You have to stop being selfish. If it costs too much for NQ there will just be no more play. So yes you have to pay for your ambitions. This is how the economic system will work.

Too much abuse with the current organizational system, this change is necessary. Unfortunately the organizational system is also to be reviewed. It is inconceivable that we cannot manage our assets like a state to protect against betrayal and player turnover ... But do you have big ambition? It's all about using resources that match your ambitions. Do you need thousands of cores? Buy additional accounts! Don't want to buy a secondary? Lower your ambitions.

Ahahaha To say that when I blasted the organizational system, I was laughed at because "you know you can do sub-organization to manage your rights" Ultimately it is well deserved. Why don't we have a real state system in play? With laws and voting duties in order to truly control organizations. Where are the sub-roles other than legate or member? Why can't we customize the RDMS with votes, rights that can apply to ALL members (even the superlegat)? There need to be more rights and obligations, whether it's for portfolio management or even in-game asset management. The problem is this neoliberal vision for the creation of a civilization. The game is plagued by a false political vision. NO ! You cannot create a civilization with only self-businesses! This is not how it has worked in history. (the one with a capital H) We need an organization resembling states that can have inalienable goods (except PVP of course). Able to withstand player rotations.

I think the advantage of asteroids is in storing the changes of the world, 100 people who dig a hole leave data for their gallery for the life of the game. 100 people on asteroids only leave this same data for a few days (the time for the asteroid to erase). So maybe the storage of this gallery data is insignificant and it fits on a USB drive. But I guess when I walk around a planet the server sends me information about the location of the galleries and my computer has to calculate it to display it. This might be the kind of thing we can do without. But you're right, it probably won't fix pending operations. For beginners, all it takes is a small buff on the harvesting tool to allow them to gain their first quanta. 20l per roller is too little. We can consider going up to 100l. Currently, I am able to sell hybrids with 12T of freight in bulk (without a talented pilot) for 200,000 quanta. Thus, with the daily allowance and a few stones, he can very quickly have enough to buy the ship and accomplish certain missions. Of course, it won't be mining in space just yet. But why wouldn't becoming an asteroid miner require an investment? An industrialist must also buy his diagrams and his machines. Finally we'll see If NQ can keep the current system without suffering any inconvenience I imagine that's good

I have the impression that it is not that simple. I could be wrong, but to play the game from the alphas phases, NQ offloads a lot of calculations on our game clients for all the environment modifications. This also means pending operations when you make a hole. Now if you also need to calculate the operations required to fill the same hole... I think we agree that we don't want to calculate the filling of our neighbors' holes when we fly over their houses. And it is certainly out of the question to have more operations pending (new holes dug by the players + filling old unused holes ...). There is arguably only one alternative, to stop digging (or not encourage it) and restrict mining to just a few areas (asteroid in space). Maybe NQ can certainly set up a dynamic asteroid respawn system. For better control of the performance of their servers or the very generation of resources in the game. If too many operations pending on the server => Creation + weak of asteroid. Either way, I hope they are working on a few things that will keep the game alive (and potentially attract new players).

The worst is the PvP trailer: "We Shall Fight" The vessels with the engines at full speed while they are going at maximum 396km / h ... Blue indicators for the allied fleet, and red for the enemy fleet. The combat zone of maximum 5 kilometers in diameter ... Hunters fly close a capital ship 100m away. Hunters who fight in doght fight at 400m range and 22km above the surface of a planet! So it's not completely false, indeed we can do that in game ... But it is very far from reality.

Yes there here are the problem. Currently there is an arms race because the people who are still in the game and who PvP are among the most active in the game. Ships with indecent amounts of elements and voxels are released in PvP fleets every day. Solo or multi-crew ships have several tens of millions of quanta (see hundreds if you take market prices). So yes it takes an investment to enter PvP. And there is nothing to gain from it. A player who wants to go out cannot even afford a small ship, as the ship design does not suffer from any limitations. For something low cost you will just get annihilated, obliterate, disintegrate, choose the adjective that suits you best ... In a balanced game, you could buy 2 or 3 small S combat ships with your 5 million (a ship with a series of S and M elements and at least a thousand voxels of fuel and ammunition armor included). Except the game is broken, do you want to get out? - You would need all the items in size L or XL, and at least 30 times larger. Welcome to Dual Universe Unlimited building ship with no sense of balancing.

It's not that it bothers me. But when we say where is the game in new feature gameplay as much to say nothing about of color engine. Integrate it discreetly with the update of the asteroids. Even if that means not seeing his visuals for the next 6 months. It will be less frustrating for us players.

And here is a personal attack. I guess that's how you behave when you admit you're wrong. But the point is, no one said it was too complicated to make a PvP ship. This is not the real subject of this topic. We only craft ships in iron armor and we haven't lost a fight against BOO or another incompetent adversary of the same style who thinks their golden ship is everything. But from what you're talking about, it looks like you haven't mastered PvP at all here.

Yes we must remove the planet exploitation and move it to the asteroids. The asteroid have a lifespan and are completely removed from the game once a time limit has elapsed.

It is good form to read the entire subject before commenting

The problem is that there is no balancing or limitation. NQ wants players to be responsible and limit themselves. It's either a terrible joke or I don't know ... I had a hard time digesting the information when they responded with this "vision" of the balancing in one of the questions asked in AMA. I really had the impression of having in front of me a financial market economist spinning money at Total while telling myself that the self-regulation of the markets is sufficient by itself and that the planet will avoid heating up climate. But let's stop joking. And so let's be "constructive". The factor that makes PvP seem far too specialized are several things: - People are all really ultra rich, we all have too many quanta, and resources. People are willing to pay outrageous amounts of quanta for ships. - The absence of balancing and hard limitation prevents any balancing. Why use anything other than L or XL elements? Concretely we can make small combat ships S costing less than 2 million. The gameplay could be present with them for fun fight. But : - Why buy and play cheap ships in PvP when all players have billions in their bank accounts? - Why make an S ship when there is no place for you in the metagame, face of the disproportionate power of the L? - Why even make a cheap S ship when you can also make an S ship with several tens of millions of armor voxels and other glitchy elements?

To bounce back and make a constructive return to NQ-Deckard. I think the priority is not to an XL engine implementation. An adjustment will have to be made, certainly slipping the engine power up a notch. An XS in front of S, S becoming M, M becoming L, L becoming XL ect ... But such a modification would have to be accompanied by a limitation. Core XS => Engine size S max Core S => Engine size M max Core M => Engine size L max Core L => Engine size XL max As well as assigning a weapon / radar point pole for each core in order to balance and have control over the amount of engine on a construct. Of course, this is just an example of an idea for NQ to find its best option. Currently: - I like make the vessels as I want - I do not like : being forced to put dozens of engines to be competitive compared to other players ...

(After proofreading my English was not really good on my last message, sorry) What I mean is that the mining that we are currently doing on a planet will be moved to asteroids. Both in PvP area and also in PvE area. If NQ pops rocks with a radius of 500m, that is approximately the volume of a tile, you will have plenty of time to use the gameplay of your scanner tool and your directional detector as well as your favorite minning chairs. They are NOT REMOVING any current gameplay elements. This will redirect a lot of people in the space around hot points. If we go from + 20,000 tiles to a few dozen asteroid for each planet, we will meet and interact with other players more often and the game will gain in interactivity. By the way, it's really a criticism of solo players that we often see => "" Cry cry the game is empty of player, no one anywhere "" It makes us laugh to see that then when there are ten of us building on the same base or fighting together in PvP ships. Even if they are bad complaints for the game if we listen to them. => They remain players who potentially give money to NQ and they must not leave.

For mining I hope NQ will put an end to the traditional mining that we know today. I have the impression that this is the path he is taking and that it is something that will be able to limit / control the masses of data to be managed. The 3 things that are being changed: - Improved surface harvest + ore (Naeris once said that it was in the NQ plans) - We know that the minning units are planned - We were promised asteroids Once all this is in play, why continue to dig holes in the planets? - Surface harvesting for beginners - Minning unit on planets to keep node scan gameplay - Classic mining on asteroids which is renewed every X hours. We keep all the current game mechanics and we overlay these millions of miles of crazy and useless gallery on the planets.