Knight-Sevy

If you are not willing to participate in PVP, then:
Do
Not
Enter
The
PVP
Zone
Simple as that.

a huge zone with 3 planets and moons is small Oo
 
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay

I will focus my observations on anything that can relate only to Apollo (0.26.2) and Ares (0.26.12).

I won't go into the details of the bugs, these are things that will most certainly be fixed quickly, I feel like I performed better, but there are still a few crashes. A bug that always occurs is having its seat in the state "used by another entity" for example
 
1 - Condition of use of the shield
When you introduce the S and M size constructs into the fight, how are you going to balance the fact that it is possible to put L shields on them?
Aren't you worried that all ships have to equip an item of this size to be viable in PvP?
Do we really have to say goodbye to any attempt at Design on an S ship?
 
2 - Shield vs Voxel
The shield is free hp. Voxels require quanta, weight, and volume to be used. They are also impacted by the CCS what the shield ignores. There is an imbalance between these 2 means of defense.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
3 - Quality of Voxels
Top tier voxels do not reflect in their quality the investment required to use them. The upper thirds are rare, can be found in hostile environments, require more time (harvesting, refining, manufacturing), require higher tier shematic and industry ...
Example on “heavy” voxels for relation to T1
T1: Price 100% / HP 100%
T2: Price 289% / HP 101%
Q3: Price 532% / HP 107%
Q4: Price 1193% / HP 122%
T5: Price 3228% / HP 128%
The CCS is one thing, but we must not neglect the basic gross hp of the constructs.
What do you plan to do to enable the player to use the higher quality voxels?
 
4 - Chance of hit
I always kill an XS ship several hundred kilometers away with a few hits.
I think it can be very frustrating for a player to die this way so easily and quickly with no escape.
Do you think about fixing that and not allowing the XS / S ship to be annihilated from this far?
 
5 - Maneuverability of L ships
With the leverage effect on adjusters and larger build boxes, an L-core is easily far more responsive on its rotations than a smaller vessel.
How do you plan to fix this and allow hunters to have a real mobility advantage?
 
6 - Combat and Vmax
Currently during a PvP engagement the adversary in difficulty will seek to reach Vmax as quickly as possible.
This brings several problems:
 
6 A --- Quantum and time investment for PvP
- In order to be able to escape or catch up with the runaways, the players must use ships with a very high engine power. This increases fuel consumption and the overall price of ships. This requires players to make a huge investment in order to be able to participate in PvP.
How are you going to democratize PvP accessibility to as many people as possible?
 
6 B --- Disadvantage during combat at 30k km for ships other than L
Once ships are at high speed, smaller sizes such as XS / S / M are at a disadvantage due to their lower combat range. If their trajectory varies slightly, they risk losing the possibility of firing on their target. While the ship L can still shoot him.
How are you going to allow smaller ships to catch up with larger ships so they can get in touch and use their weapons?
 
6 C --- High speed combat achievement.
It is common for players to log out (intentionally or not) during a PvP engagement. When the player is no longer on board, the ship stops. You are also forced to brake and then re-accelerate when your opponent reconnects.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
6 D --- Future mechanics
Can you tell us if you think in the near future to introduce a game mechanic that could interfere with the speed / maneuverability of an enemy ship?
Ammunition that slows down the enemy, tractor beam, gravitational influence?
 
7 - Impact of the cross section:
The cross section does not influence the time to kill an XS or S fighter in any way, it's really speed. few seconde and it down.
On the other hand, it is far too decisive in a fight between an L nano ship and an L ship resembling a large ship.
A voxel ship that suffers 100% hit against a nano that suffers 50% is at a huge disadvantage.
It takes a huge amount of voxel, which makes the ship twice as expensive, also adds several hundred tons of voxel and slows the ship down by that much.
What do you plan to do to remedy this problem?

I will focus my observations on anything that can relate only to Apollo (0.26.2) and Ares (0.26.12).

I won't go into the details of the bugs, these are things that will most certainly be fixed quickly, I feel like I performed better, but there are still a few crashes. A bug that always occurs is having its seat in the state "used by another entity" for example
 
1 - Condition of use of the shield
When you introduce the S and M size constructs into the fight, how are you going to balance the fact that it is possible to put L shields on them?
Aren't you worried that all ships have to equip an item of this size to be viable in PvP?
Do we really have to say goodbye to any attempt at Design on an S ship?
 
2 - Shield vs Voxel
The shield is free hp. Voxels require quanta, weight, and volume to be used. They are also impacted by the CCS what the shield ignores. There is an imbalance between these 2 means of defense.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
3 - Quality of Voxels
Top tier voxels do not reflect in their quality the investment required to use them. The upper thirds are rare, can be found in hostile environments, require more time (harvesting, refining, manufacturing), require higher tier shematic and industry ...
Example on “heavy” voxels for relation to T1
T1: Price 100% / HP 100%
T2: Price 289% / HP 101%
Q3: Price 532% / HP 107%
Q4: Price 1193% / HP 122%
T5: Price 3228% / HP 128%
The CCS is one thing, but we must not neglect the basic gross hp of the constructs.
What do you plan to do to enable the player to use the higher quality voxels?
 
4 - Chance of hit
I always kill an XS ship several hundred kilometers away with a few hits.
I think it can be very frustrating for a player to die this way so easily and quickly with no escape.
Do you think about fixing that and not allowing the XS / S ship to be annihilated from this far?
 
5 - Maneuverability of L ships
With the leverage effect on adjusters and larger build boxes, an L-core is easily far more responsive on its rotations than a smaller vessel.
How do you plan to fix this and allow hunters to have a real mobility advantage?
 
6 - Combat and Vmax
Currently during a PvP engagement the adversary in difficulty will seek to reach Vmax as quickly as possible.
This brings several problems:
 
6 A --- Quantum and time investment for PvP
- In order to be able to escape or catch up with the runaways, the players must use ships with a very high engine power. This increases fuel consumption and the overall price of ships. This requires players to make a huge investment in order to be able to participate in PvP.
How are you going to democratize PvP accessibility to as many people as possible?
 
6 B --- Disadvantage during combat at 30k km for ships other than L
Once ships are at high speed, smaller sizes such as XS / S / M are at a disadvantage due to their lower combat range. If their trajectory varies slightly, they risk losing the possibility of firing on their target. While the ship L can still shoot him.
How are you going to allow smaller ships to catch up with larger ships so they can get in touch and use their weapons?
 
6 C --- High speed combat achievement.
It is common for players to log out (intentionally or not) during a PvP engagement. When the player is no longer on board, the ship stops. You are also forced to brake and then re-accelerate when your opponent reconnects.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
6 D --- Future mechanics
Can you tell us if you think in the near future to introduce a game mechanic that could interfere with the speed / maneuverability of an enemy ship?
Ammunition that slows down the enemy, tractor beam, gravitational influence?
 
7 - Impact of the cross section:
The cross section does not influence the time to kill an XS or S fighter in any way, it's really speed. few seconde and it down.
On the other hand, it is far too decisive in a fight between an L nano ship and an L ship resembling a large ship.
A voxel ship that suffers 100% hit against a nano that suffers 50% is at a huge disadvantage.
It takes a huge amount of voxel, which makes the ship twice as expensive, also adds several hundred tons of voxel and slows the ship down by that much.
What do you plan to do to remedy this problem?

I will focus my observations on anything that can relate only to Apollo (0.26.2) and Ares (0.26.12).

I won't go into the details of the bugs, these are things that will most certainly be fixed quickly, I feel like I performed better, but there are still a few crashes. A bug that always occurs is having its seat in the state "used by another entity" for example
 
1 - Condition of use of the shield
When you introduce the S and M size constructs into the fight, how are you going to balance the fact that it is possible to put L shields on them?
Aren't you worried that all ships have to equip an item of this size to be viable in PvP?
Do we really have to say goodbye to any attempt at Design on an S ship?
 
2 - Shield vs Voxel
The shield is free hp. Voxels require quanta, weight, and volume to be used. They are also impacted by the CCS what the shield ignores. There is an imbalance between these 2 means of defense.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
3 - Quality of Voxels
Top tier voxels do not reflect in their quality the investment required to use them. The upper thirds are rare, can be found in hostile environments, require more time (harvesting, refining, manufacturing), require higher tier shematic and industry ...
Example on “heavy” voxels for relation to T1
T1: Price 100% / HP 100%
T2: Price 289% / HP 101%
Q3: Price 532% / HP 107%
Q4: Price 1193% / HP 122%
T5: Price 3228% / HP 128%
The CCS is one thing, but we must not neglect the basic gross hp of the constructs.
What do you plan to do to enable the player to use the higher quality voxels?
 
4 - Chance of hit
I always kill an XS ship several hundred kilometers away with a few hits.
I think it can be very frustrating for a player to die this way so easily and quickly with no escape.
Do you think about fixing that and not allowing the XS / S ship to be annihilated from this far?
 
5 - Maneuverability of L ships
With the leverage effect on adjusters and larger build boxes, an L-core is easily far more responsive on its rotations than a smaller vessel.
How do you plan to fix this and allow hunters to have a real mobility advantage?
 
6 - Combat and Vmax
Currently during a PvP engagement the adversary in difficulty will seek to reach Vmax as quickly as possible.
This brings several problems:
 
6 A --- Quantum and time investment for PvP
- In order to be able to escape or catch up with the runaways, the players must use ships with a very high engine power. This increases fuel consumption and the overall price of ships. This requires players to make a huge investment in order to be able to participate in PvP.
How are you going to democratize PvP accessibility to as many people as possible?
 
6 B --- Disadvantage during combat at 30k km for ships other than L
Once ships are at high speed, smaller sizes such as XS / S / M are at a disadvantage due to their lower combat range. If their trajectory varies slightly, they risk losing the possibility of firing on their target. While the ship L can still shoot him.
How are you going to allow smaller ships to catch up with larger ships so they can get in touch and use their weapons?
 
6 C --- High speed combat achievement.
It is common for players to log out (intentionally or not) during a PvP engagement. When the player is no longer on board, the ship stops. You are also forced to brake and then re-accelerate when your opponent reconnects.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
6 D --- Future mechanics
Can you tell us if you think in the near future to introduce a game mechanic that could interfere with the speed / maneuverability of an enemy ship?
Ammunition that slows down the enemy, tractor beam, gravitational influence?
 
7 - Impact of the cross section:
The cross section does not influence the time to kill an XS or S fighter in any way, it's really speed. few seconde and it down.
On the other hand, it is far too decisive in a fight between an L nano ship and an L ship resembling a large ship.
A voxel ship that suffers 100% hit against a nano that suffers 50% is at a huge disadvantage.
It takes a huge amount of voxel, which makes the ship twice as expensive, also adds several hundred tons of voxel and slows the ship down by that much.
What do you plan to do to remedy this problem?

I will focus my observations on anything that can relate only to Apollo (0.26.2) and Ares (0.26.12).

I won't go into the details of the bugs, these are things that will most certainly be fixed quickly, I feel like I performed better, but there are still a few crashes. A bug that always occurs is having its seat in the state "used by another entity" for example
 
1 - Condition of use of the shield
When you introduce the S and M size constructs into the fight, how are you going to balance the fact that it is possible to put L shields on them?
Aren't you worried that all ships have to equip an item of this size to be viable in PvP?
Do we really have to say goodbye to any attempt at Design on an S ship?
 
2 - Shield vs Voxel
The shield is free hp. Voxels require quanta, weight, and volume to be used. They are also impacted by the CCS what the shield ignores. There is an imbalance between these 2 means of defense.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
3 - Quality of Voxels
Top tier voxels do not reflect in their quality the investment required to use them. The upper thirds are rare, can be found in hostile environments, require more time (harvesting, refining, manufacturing), require higher tier shematic and industry ...
Example on “heavy” voxels for relation to T1
T1: Price 100% / HP 100%
T2: Price 289% / HP 101%
Q3: Price 532% / HP 107%
Q4: Price 1193% / HP 122%
T5: Price 3228% / HP 128%
The CCS is one thing, but we must not neglect the basic gross hp of the constructs.
What do you plan to do to enable the player to use the higher quality voxels?
 
4 - Chance of hit
I always kill an XS ship several hundred kilometers away with a few hits.
I think it can be very frustrating for a player to die this way so easily and quickly with no escape.
Do you think about fixing that and not allowing the XS / S ship to be annihilated from this far?
 
5 - Maneuverability of L ships
With the leverage effect on adjusters and larger build boxes, an L-core is easily far more responsive on its rotations than a smaller vessel.
How do you plan to fix this and allow hunters to have a real mobility advantage?
 
6 - Combat and Vmax
Currently during a PvP engagement the adversary in difficulty will seek to reach Vmax as quickly as possible.
This brings several problems:
 
6 A --- Quantum and time investment for PvP
- In order to be able to escape or catch up with the runaways, the players must use ships with a very high engine power. This increases fuel consumption and the overall price of ships. This requires players to make a huge investment in order to be able to participate in PvP.
How are you going to democratize PvP accessibility to as many people as possible?
 
6 B --- Disadvantage during combat at 30k km for ships other than L
Once ships are at high speed, smaller sizes such as XS / S / M are at a disadvantage due to their lower combat range. If their trajectory varies slightly, they risk losing the possibility of firing on their target. While the ship L can still shoot him.
How are you going to allow smaller ships to catch up with larger ships so they can get in touch and use their weapons?
 
6 C --- High speed combat achievement.
It is common for players to log out (intentionally or not) during a PvP engagement. When the player is no longer on board, the ship stops. You are also forced to brake and then re-accelerate when your opponent reconnects.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
6 D --- Future mechanics
Can you tell us if you think in the near future to introduce a game mechanic that could interfere with the speed / maneuverability of an enemy ship?
Ammunition that slows down the enemy, tractor beam, gravitational influence?
 
7 - Impact of the cross section:
The cross section does not influence the time to kill an XS or S fighter in any way, it's really speed. few seconde and it down.
On the other hand, it is far too decisive in a fight between an L nano ship and an L ship resembling a large ship.
A voxel ship that suffers 100% hit against a nano that suffers 50% is at a huge disadvantage.
It takes a huge amount of voxel, which makes the ship twice as expensive, also adds several hundred tons of voxel and slows the ship down by that much.
What do you plan to do to remedy this problem?

I will focus my observations on anything that can relate only to Apollo (0.26.2) and Ares (0.26.12).

I won't go into the details of the bugs, these are things that will most certainly be fixed quickly, I feel like I performed better, but there are still a few crashes. A bug that always occurs is having its seat in the state "used by another entity" for example
 
1 - Condition of use of the shield
When you introduce the S and M size constructs into the fight, how are you going to balance the fact that it is possible to put L shields on them?
Aren't you worried that all ships have to equip an item of this size to be viable in PvP?
Do we really have to say goodbye to any attempt at Design on an S ship?
 
2 - Shield vs Voxel
The shield is free hp. Voxels require quanta, weight, and volume to be used. They are also impacted by the CCS what the shield ignores. There is an imbalance between these 2 means of defense.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
3 - Quality of Voxels
Top tier voxels do not reflect in their quality the investment required to use them. The upper thirds are rare, can be found in hostile environments, require more time (harvesting, refining, manufacturing), require higher tier shematic and industry ...
Example on “heavy” voxels for relation to T1
T1: Price 100% / HP 100%
T2: Price 289% / HP 101%
Q3: Price 532% / HP 107%
Q4: Price 1193% / HP 122%
T5: Price 3228% / HP 128%
The CCS is one thing, but we must not neglect the basic gross hp of the constructs.
What do you plan to do to enable the player to use the higher quality voxels?
 
4 - Chance of hit
I always kill an XS ship several hundred kilometers away with a few hits.
I think it can be very frustrating for a player to die this way so easily and quickly with no escape.
Do you think about fixing that and not allowing the XS / S ship to be annihilated from this far?
 
5 - Maneuverability of L ships
With the leverage effect on adjusters and larger build boxes, an L-core is easily far more responsive on its rotations than a smaller vessel.
How do you plan to fix this and allow hunters to have a real mobility advantage?
 
6 - Combat and Vmax
Currently during a PvP engagement the adversary in difficulty will seek to reach Vmax as quickly as possible.
This brings several problems:
 
6 A --- Quantum and time investment for PvP
- In order to be able to escape or catch up with the runaways, the players must use ships with a very high engine power. This increases fuel consumption and the overall price of ships. This requires players to make a huge investment in order to be able to participate in PvP.
How are you going to democratize PvP accessibility to as many people as possible?
 
6 B --- Disadvantage during combat at 30k km for ships other than L
Once ships are at high speed, smaller sizes such as XS / S / M are at a disadvantage due to their lower combat range. If their trajectory varies slightly, they risk losing the possibility of firing on their target. While the ship L can still shoot him.
How are you going to allow smaller ships to catch up with larger ships so they can get in touch and use their weapons?
 
6 C --- High speed combat achievement.
It is common for players to log out (intentionally or not) during a PvP engagement. When the player is no longer on board, the ship stops. You are also forced to brake and then re-accelerate when your opponent reconnects.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
6 D --- Future mechanics
Can you tell us if you think in the near future to introduce a game mechanic that could interfere with the speed / maneuverability of an enemy ship?
Ammunition that slows down the enemy, tractor beam, gravitational influence?
 
7 - Impact of the cross section:
The cross section does not influence the time to kill an XS or S fighter in any way, it's really speed. few seconde and it down.
On the other hand, it is far too decisive in a fight between an L nano ship and an L ship resembling a large ship.
A voxel ship that suffers 100% hit against a nano that suffers 50% is at a huge disadvantage.
It takes a huge amount of voxel, which makes the ship twice as expensive, also adds several hundred tons of voxel and slows the ship down by that much.
What do you plan to do to remedy this problem?

I will focus my observations on anything that can relate only to Apollo (0.26.2) and Ares (0.26.12).

I won't go into the details of the bugs, these are things that will most certainly be fixed quickly, I feel like I performed better, but there are still a few crashes. A bug that always occurs is having its seat in the state "used by another entity" for example
 
1 - Condition of use of the shield
When you introduce the S and M size constructs into the fight, how are you going to balance the fact that it is possible to put L shields on them?
Aren't you worried that all ships have to equip an item of this size to be viable in PvP?
Do we really have to say goodbye to any attempt at Design on an S ship?
 
2 - Shield vs Voxel
The shield is free hp. Voxels require quanta, weight, and volume to be used. They are also impacted by the CCS what the shield ignores. There is an imbalance between these 2 means of defense.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
3 - Quality of Voxels
Top tier voxels do not reflect in their quality the investment required to use them. The upper thirds are rare, can be found in hostile environments, require more time (harvesting, refining, manufacturing), require higher tier shematic and industry ...
Example on “heavy” voxels for relation to T1
T1: Price 100% / HP 100%
T2: Price 289% / HP 101%
Q3: Price 532% / HP 107%
Q4: Price 1193% / HP 122%
T5: Price 3228% / HP 128%
The CCS is one thing, but we must not neglect the basic gross hp of the constructs.
What do you plan to do to enable the player to use the higher quality voxels?
 
4 - Chance of hit
I always kill an XS ship several hundred kilometers away with a few hits.
I think it can be very frustrating for a player to die this way so easily and quickly with no escape.
Do you think about fixing that and not allowing the XS / S ship to be annihilated from this far?
 
5 - Maneuverability of L ships
With the leverage effect on adjusters and larger build boxes, an L-core is easily far more responsive on its rotations than a smaller vessel.
How do you plan to fix this and allow hunters to have a real mobility advantage?
 
6 - Combat and Vmax
Currently during a PvP engagement the adversary in difficulty will seek to reach Vmax as quickly as possible.
This brings several problems:
 
6 A --- Quantum and time investment for PvP
- In order to be able to escape or catch up with the runaways, the players must use ships with a very high engine power. This increases fuel consumption and the overall price of ships. This requires players to make a huge investment in order to be able to participate in PvP.
How are you going to democratize PvP accessibility to as many people as possible?
 
6 B --- Disadvantage during combat at 30k km for ships other than L
Once ships are at high speed, smaller sizes such as XS / S / M are at a disadvantage due to their lower combat range. If their trajectory varies slightly, they risk losing the possibility of firing on their target. While the ship L can still shoot him.
How are you going to allow smaller ships to catch up with larger ships so they can get in touch and use their weapons?
 
6 C --- High speed combat achievement.
It is common for players to log out (intentionally or not) during a PvP engagement. When the player is no longer on board, the ship stops. You are also forced to brake and then re-accelerate when your opponent reconnects.
How do you plan to solve this problem?
 
6 D --- Future mechanics
Can you tell us if you think in the near future to introduce a game mechanic that could interfere with the speed / maneuverability of an enemy ship?
Ammunition that slows down the enemy, tractor beam, gravitational influence?
 
7 - Impact of the cross section:
The cross section does not influence the time to kill an XS or S fighter in any way, it's really speed. few seconde and it down.
On the other hand, it is far too decisive in a fight between an L nano ship and an L ship resembling a large ship.
A voxel ship that suffers 100% hit against a nano that suffers 50% is at a huge disadvantage.
It takes a huge amount of voxel, which makes the ship twice as expensive, also adds several hundred tons of voxel and slows the ship down by that much.
What do you plan to do to remedy this problem?

You are completely wrong about PvP.
 
And if you don't understand that and don't want to respect the safes zones: you can quit the game. It doesn't seem like it's right game for you.
 
And when we look at the game's kickstarter announcement :

" Safe Zones will protect you, and avoid Dual Universe to become a free for all PvP game. However, PvP will be possible when you step out of the Safe Zone. Players will be able to fight each other, balancing their equipment and energy between shield and armor, with dedicated weapon type with different types of damage. We will provide a “lock & fire” mechanism to combat, to facilitate very large battles that are made possible in-game by our Continuous Single-Shard Cluster. Players can further specialize into certain weapons through skills and improve their combat prowess with better equipment. "
 


The game has been exactly as advertised for several years now .

No, no and no.
 
If you don't want PvP don't go to the PvP zone.

There is a gigantic safe zone which was expressly created for this.
If people go out into the unarmed PvP zone it is THEIR problem, not this of the game.
 
The ore that we harvest in PvP zone costs us extremely more expensive than that which can be harvested in PvE zone. We are spending tens / hundreds of millions in quanta / playing time to have PvP ships to defend against pirates. We cannot let people freely mine without making this effort, it is unfair competition.
Someone so unlovable and condescending that you will have to understand this.
 
DUAL UNIVERSE is an initially PvP game. Yes, PvE has to see its place. But it's not YOUR game.
You have the right to play the role of victim but stop cry like a child.

No, no and no.
 
If you don't want PvP don't go to the PvP zone.

There is a gigantic safe zone which was expressly created for this.
If people go out into the unarmed PvP zone it is THEIR problem, not this of the game.
 
The ore that we harvest in PvP zone costs us extremely more expensive than that which can be harvested in PvE zone. We are spending tens / hundreds of millions in quanta / playing time to have PvP ships to defend against pirates. We cannot let people freely mine without making this effort, it is unfair competition.
Someone so unlovable and condescending that you will have to understand this.
 
DUAL UNIVERSE is an initially PvP game. Yes, PvE has to see its place. But it's not YOUR game.
You have the right to play the role of victim but stop cry like a child.

This is the best announcement that I could have look since the start of the game.
Removal of all that is Janko. People who used this should even be punished more than destroying their ship for cheating all this time on the game with unconventional ships.
Compared to a player who does not cheat, people have been able to make millions with their janko freighter. It's a matter of honesty now.
All those who complain are players who seem to me to be very borderline when it comes to respecting the rules. It's not good for the game.
NQ gives you a few days to erase your past. Say thank you and don't complain if your ships are deleted. You deserved it.
 

No, no and no.
 
If you don't want PvP don't go to the PvP zone.

There is a gigantic safe zone which was expressly created for this.
If people go out into the unarmed PvP zone it is THEIR problem, not this of the game.
 
The ore that we harvest in PvP zone costs us extremely more expensive than that which can be harvested in PvE zone. We are spending tens / hundreds of millions in quanta / playing time to have PvP ships to defend against pirates. We cannot let people freely mine without making this effort, it is unfair competition.
Someone so unlovable and condescending that you will have to understand this.
 
DUAL UNIVERSE is an initially PvP game. Yes, PvE has to see its place. But it's not YOUR game.
You have the right to play the role of victim but stop cry like a child.

We recently announced that an additional update, Ares, was added to our public roadmap. Many of the features and changes for Ares will be available on our public test server (PTS), when it is updated and back online tomorrow, September 15th, at 10.00 UTC. (See the roadmap here.)
 
In that announcement, we promised a devblog that would talk about the big-ticket items we plan to deliver with Ares: the new Core Combat Stress victory condition, more functionality for shields, and PVP-related fixes. (Inside Ares, Part Two will cover warp improvements as well as boarding and docking changes. Watch for it on Thursday.) 
 
Without further ado, let’s dive in! 

CORE COMBAT STRESS 
In a nutshell, core combat stress represents a core's ability to keep functioning under prolonged weapons fire. A core unit that takes too much stress will be destroyed and will be considered a PvP destruction.
 
Core combat stress will be used as a second loss condition on constructs during PvP, working in tandem with generic core unit destruction. It does not matter which one happens first, only that one happens eventually. This will allow us to support larger fights and ensure that everyone's weapons are doing damage, even if it is only against core stress.
 
Stress will be accumulated as the construct takes non-shield weapons hits, taking the form of a gauge that starts at 0% and goes up to 100%. Non-shield hits on a construct will make the gauge go up. The core stress gauge is affected by a weapon's raw damage and is unaffected by the resistances of the element or material the attack hit.
 
Example: A weapon hit does 1,000 thermic damage. It hits an element with 50% thermic resistance doing 500 damage to the element; however, the core stress gauge will count 1,000 damage for that hit.
 
When the core stress gauge hits 100%, the core unit will be destroyed and will be considered a PvP destruction (as if it was destroyed by a weapons hit) and everything that implies.
 
The value of the stress gauge will be defined by the following:
The base of the core stress gauge value will be the health sum of honeycomb materials on your construct. The quality of the material used will provide multipliers to the value. Higher honeycomb tiers will provide better multipliers. The type of material used will provide a different multiplier, with products having a better multiplier than pure materials.   
Finally, the stress gauge will gain health linearly with honeycomb until a cap, at which point additional honeycomb will have diminishing returns.

SHIELDS v2
The fundamentals for shields were unveiled in this devblog and made their initial debut with the Apollo update in August. The time has come to increase their potency and value with some new features. 
 
Shields v2 brings adjustable resistances and venting. 
 
Adjustable resistances Shields have a base resistance value of 10/10/10/10 with an additional resistance pool of 60% that players can assign in 5% increments to any of the four resistances. (Examples: 10/10/10/70 or 25/25/25/25) Once players have locked in their resistance selections, those choices will be active and cannot be changed until the cooldown time of 60 seconds has expired, at which time the resistances will remain as set unless they are recalibrated. Shields UI will display which resistances are taking the most damage on the shield, allowing pilots to make an informed decision regarding the settings. Venting Pilots may vent their shields at any point, the exception being when the venting cooldown is active. Cooldown duration varies per size, with smaller shield variants having lower cooldowns. Venting shields will do two things: Turn off the shields, bearing in mind that they can’t be active during venting.  Begin shield regeneration of a certain percentage per second.  Venting may be deactivated at any time. Deactivation will occur automatically when shields have reached maximum capacity.   
We highly encourage pilots to explore the use of shields and venting while it’s available on PTS. Since there’s a bit of a learning curve involved, the test environment is the perfect place to experiment freely without any real cost to your ship on the Live server. 
 
PVP FIXES
We’re closing the loop on some “unintended” uses of these game mechanics. 
Speed Resume deactivated on construct death: When a core is destroyed, that construct will be incapable of benefitting from speed resume in any way. This will avoid and fix various exploits in regards to “ghost-riding” destroyed ships into safe zones. Offline player deaths on construct death: Offline players on constructs will now be killed on core destruction. This will avoid logging off characters that can then log back in, repair the core unit, and attempt to flee.   
Originally, the plans also included a change that would cause ownership loss on core unit crash destruction. Thanks to our intrepid PTS players who tried it out and promptly let us know the problems such a change could cause, we pulled it from the Ares update. (Read the related post from the Game Design team’s NQ-Entropy.) 
 
This is exactly why we have a test server and why we value those who do reconnaissance there before the updates are released on the Live server. We offer sincere thanks to the players who took the time to give us candid, constructive feedback. 
 
SEE YA THURSDAY
Inside Ares, Part Two will be published on Thursday. While you’re waiting, why not head over to the forum and share your thoughts about Part One? 
 

This is the follow-up to Tuesday’s devblog, Inside Ares, Part One. Here we’ll go over the improvements and changes to warp sequences as well as docking and boarding. Even if you read the previous devblog about docking and boarding, you should give this a look; we’ve been finessing the original plans to make them even better. 
 
WARP IMPROVEMENTS
Based on player feedback, we’re turning the knobs down a bit on warp drive. The ability to cancel a warp at any time made it more powerful and flexible than originally intended. To curb that, warp speed has been divided by 4. Although it may seem like we’re overcorrecting, in effect it’s not as drastic as it sounds. Travel will take a little longer at the new rate; expect trips to be closer to the minute mark rather than 15 seconds. This will take it from “blindingly fast” to “still pretty damn fast”. 

The cooldown has been adjusted to 150 seconds (2.5 minutes). This will require more judicious use of warping as you weigh the convenience of using it against having it available in case of needing to bug out quickly if you unexpectedly encounter threats. 

Probably the most impactful change is that auto-align strength during the warp sequence has been reduced to 20%. This change will correct a situation where the warp alignment was way too powerful for larger ships. Keep in mind you can still align manually before warping and skip this step. We hope this will keep pilots more engaged and thinking about the warping process either by passive aligning to an extract point or actively aligning before warping.

We’re also adding spool-up time. Spooling is a post-align state in which your warp drive is spooling after aligning. This is intended to curb the purely reactionary defensive use of warp drives. Going into a PvP zone is a risk, and the risk vs. reward needs to reflect the weight of those situations. If you’re paying attention, hitting warp could get you out of most dangerous situations in a flash and we felt that this was a little too strong. Initially, the spool-up time will be set to 15 seconds.

Last but not least, weapon fire taken during the initialization sequence - be it starting the warp, alignment, or spooling sequences - will cancel the action. (Note: Hits taken once the ship enters warp after the spooling process will not cancel the warp and the ship will continue to warp.) This is a behavior players have requested and we've also intended to implement for a while. Although we don’t want to shift the risk-vs-reward ratio too far the other way, we believe this is a good change.

DOCKING AND BOARDING REVAMP
Since we published the Docking and Boarding Revamp devblog, we have continued to iterate on the design to make it even better. Before explaining the incoming changes, here’s a quick recap of what we previously announced.
 
The owner of a construct or ship is considered the “parent”. As a parent, you will now have more control of, and more information about, your current docking and boarding situation. On the information side, you will always see your current avatar/ship boarding/docking status. You are free to (un)dock/(un)board while in the immediate proximity of any construct to which you have RDMS rights. To get ''in'’ the construct, you will need to be docked/boarded to that construct or you will be repulsed.
 
A new widget will display your construct parenting information. This will also be available in the control unit data in Lua. We’re also adding a build helper window that lists parented masses (player or construct) to the inspected construct. This will allow you to evict any unwelcome guests. 
 
Thanks to your feedback, we’ve revisited our plans and made some additional adjustments based on your input. The introduction of two alternative docking modes to complement the existing default “manual” mode. 
To change your docking mode preference, you will need to reset it in the context menu action on the targeted new parent construct or by using the new shortcut to switch active docking to the closest docking candidate. 
 
The "Automatic'’ mode will automatically dock you to the closest ship for which you have docking rights. ''Automatic (owner)'' will do the same if the ship is owned by the same entity as the pilot.   
The docking widget is changing to display these changes.  

 
New Lua functions will give you more flexibility to create docking rules for your constructs. 
 
Players also told us that having to use a context menu while maneuvering the construct felt awkward. To address this, we’re making changes to the reticle that will give more fluidity by allowing you to see the best docking candidate of the maneuvered constructs, using the same shortcut (Alt-T) so that you can switch docking of the maneuvered construct without using a context menu.
 
COMING SOON
Production to transition Ares from PTS to Live is well underway. It bears repeating that players, especially those who enjoy PvP, should spend a little time on the test server to see the impact these changes will have on their personal gameplay. 
 
We’d love to hear your feedback about Ares. Join the conversation in this thread. 
 

The Dual Universe team is nearing the finish line, doing a last round of checks before transitioning the Ares (0.26.X) update from the public test server to Live. 
 
You can help! Listed below are some features and fixes that we have planned for the update. Before we take them to Live, we want to verify that everything is working as intended for our players. For that, we need you - as many of you as possible - to log onto PTS now and check them out.  
Core combat stress Shields v2 Boarding and docking  Crashes related to AMD graphics cards Inventory-related crashes Previously, we had a background asset on the inventory that caused the game to crash. We removed it as a temporary workaround, but now we have a proper fix and reintroduced the asset and would like to know if it's working. [UEF Store]  All the ships at the UEF store have had a quality improvement (Mark 2) pass. Some ships look very similar to their predecessors with power, lift, and balance tweaks, while some others (such as the Dragonfly, the Mule, and the Specters) have been overhauled so that their performance improvements are also matched by visual improvements. The ship prices have also been adjusted to match current market conditions. Please give the ships a try and let us know what you think. (Note: Eclipses are currently unavailable.)  
Feedback regarding these specific items (or any additional anomalies you may encounter this weekend on PTS) should be reported in this designated thread. 
 
We are sincerely grateful to everyone who answers the call. You are helping DU be the best it can be and we appreciate your support. 
 

I'm going to piggy-back on Deckard's post to answer a question many of you have been asking. 

 
 
Although I wasn't able to confirm with Support, the answer I was able to get is that decorative elements should not be an issue; functional elements are the "no no" that's being addressed with this update. If you are uncertain whether or not your elements will be problematic, please contact Support. 
 
We try our best to avoid doing maintenance or deploying things on the weekend or on Mondays. This means that the earliest we could possibly deploy Ares to Live is Tuesday but that is not set in stone. We'll need to see the results from players who were on PTS over the weekend and go from there. The point is that you have plenty of time to address any element stacking situation that needs to be corrected, even if you need to ask Support for guidance. 

No, no and no.
 
If you don't want PvP don't go to the PvP zone.

There is a gigantic safe zone which was expressly created for this.
If people go out into the unarmed PvP zone it is THEIR problem, not this of the game.
 
The ore that we harvest in PvP zone costs us extremely more expensive than that which can be harvested in PvE zone. We are spending tens / hundreds of millions in quanta / playing time to have PvP ships to defend against pirates. We cannot let people freely mine without making this effort, it is unfair competition.
Someone so unlovable and condescending that you will have to understand this.
 
DUAL UNIVERSE is an initially PvP game. Yes, PvE has to see its place. But it's not YOUR game.
You have the right to play the role of victim but stop cry like a child.

UPDATE: More up to date information on this announcement can be found here.

In the recent PTS 0.26.12 update, we fixed an exploit related to placing elements in the same location. 
 
Exploits Fixes
Fixed an industry duplicate production. Fixed an exploit that allowed placement of several elements at the same position.  
This was done to prevent the ability to overlap elements in the same location, which was never part of the intended game design. 
 
Several months ago, we stated in our clarification on bugs and exploits that we would continue to allow element stacking for the time being until a solution was in place. With this fix now coming in the Ares update as part of our continuing effort to close the loop on a number of issues, we will be changing our stance on the stacking of elements.
 
When the Ares update is released on the Live server (date TBA), constructs containing stacked elements will no longer be permitted. Violations of the “no element stacking” mandate will be subject to deletion without warning or compensation. We strongly urge players who have currently overlapping elements to remove those immediately to prevent the loss of those constructs once Ares arrives.
 
Players may report violations via Support ticket or by messaging @gm in the in-game Help channel. 

I don't know you, you don't know me, why are you insulting us?
Legion does PvP in a video game that has a PvP area for PvP players to practice PvP in.
I'm curious to see how far your ignorance goes, so I invite you to contact us so that you can come and see our facilities  and realize the magnitude of the things these people which you call "destroyer" have built.

Well, I found a lot of DU fun so far, but this post is about the login page.
 
From some of the posts here, I should probably take this login page with a grain of salt, but as far as I'm concerned, having this right there when I log in is way cool. I get to see some of the recent things that happened before I arrived and what I can look forward to now that I'm here. 
 
And on a related note, the tutorial was fantastic! Spent about 20 mins a day on it the past few days and took notes. There seems like there is so much in DU, and I'm excited to start exploring it.

Yeah, I agree, that current more "grounded up" approch is obviously better, then JC era crap.
 
Still, personaly I kinda burned out on game become sort of Landmark-2 where few people grind and build just for sake of it in near-singlplayer, bubbled alienated experience, sitting in immensly large, but immensly empty 3d space/world.
 
I was expecting something like EVE, with politics and stuff, but nothing like this survived.

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.

The doors are not difficult.
 
You just need to play less than 5 hours to have the quanta to do ALL the Tiers 1 crafts in the game.

The way NQ approaches the cross section system in PvP really scares me.
 
So far they seem to be trying to make the cross section system work from the XS ship to the L ship.
 
( The insane increase in weapon size is made for this attempt at balancing which I find quite bad. )
 
For me there is a scaling problem which means that it will not work to want the same system for all sizes of cores.
 
Finding a happy medium between an XS with a volume of 4000 m3 and a core L with a volume of 2,097,000 m3 ... Just Meh ... why make that.
 
There should be a very clear distinction between the core sizes.
The principle of cross section should only intervene to differentiate the ships on the same core size.
 
Example with 4 ships you try to shoot with an L weapon :
(value as an example)
 
- M of 10,000m3 => 50% chance of a hit
- M of 50,000m3 => 60% chance of a hit
- L of 10,000m3 => 80% chance of a hit
- L of 50,000m3 => 90% chance of a hit
 
Even if it is almost as big as an L, the ship M needs to be put in a lower category.
Of course, there has to be a balancing:
For an M core: No weapon L, no shield L ect ...
 
We must give a role to all ships.
 
The 380mm guns of the military navy were not designed to shoot down fighter planes!
This must be the same for Dual Universe weapons, why can an L railgun shoot at a target potentially 500 times smaller ?!