Knight-Sevy

Stop talking about legal action.
 
To kickstarter NQ only needs to deliver a game "one day". This day has long since arrived, the alpha deliverable was already ok from a legal point of view.
And since the 27th we've been talking about a proper release.
 
So stop dreaming if you think that one day NQ will have a lawsuit against someone. Let alone a trial with someone who has a chance of winning a few things.
 
Take a look at this example:
 
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/soulboundstudios/chronicles-of-elyria-epic-story-mmorpg-with-aging
 
This is a scam, the man paid the entire funds as a salary for himself (8 million). Perssone cannot currently sue him because he publicly announces that he will "one day" deliver his game.
Just pretend for a few decades until prescription.
 
What do you think you can win against NQ which is a real company with employees actively working on the game (at least the day I write these words)?
 
An "lawsuits"  LMAO
 

No they don't.
 
What you assume is that in an MMO you can do all content without player interaction, there's a huge flaw in that! Yes, there's an issue with Alien Goo at Alien stations, but that's not what you're talking about. You want ore? Buy it, pick it up (harvesting), auto mine it, asteroid mine it. Each has it's own 'gameplay' loop, you're only focusing on one loop you can't get to do on your own terms...
 
There are issues in DU, many, many issues! This is not one of them...

One major reason against underground mining on planets is the huge amounts of free ore available to players.
The problem is that everyone can have a huge factory and produce items for next to nothing (with the exception of schematics). This leads to a collapsing market with extremely low prices and a huge oversupply of products.
Each factory owner can depress his prices by simply digging into the ground.
In addition, there is almost no way for factory owners to buy ore on the market (without digging), produce goods, and sell them on the market at a profit.

It is very questionable whether the current system without underground mining on planets can prevent these problems, but at least it will delay the collapse of the market a little...
 
just a thought,
Cheers ...

You where mining an hour(!) in PvP space.
Go into dangerous space. Don't care about the risks. Take no precautions (like bring back stuff to break even). Get killed.
Seems like logical gameplay to me.

Who says you need to *make* weapons. I've found XS-M weapons salvaging.

*facepalm*
There are 'game mechancis' that you need to consider:
#1 If you want high value minerals in pvp space, you don't stay for an hour unless you're heavily armed!
#2 Maybe see if there is some sort of frequency for asteroids mining in save space...
#3 Be already in place relatively close by when that happens, in a fast ship...
#4 Quickly get the higher value ore, take the time with T1 ore in save space...
#5 There's a LOT of T1 ore in save space asteroids, if you mine that, sell it, you can buy higher Tech ore from the market...
 
Stop expecting NQ to make a game just for you, they are making a game that (they think) appeals to different kinds of people. Learn how the mechanics work, and play with those!
 
I'm not into pvp myself, but the potential that it is there is what attracted me to DU (and EVE). During beta I spend a LOT of time between planets in pvp space and getting that working correctly is it's own challenge to figure out and I like that puzzle.

This appears to be more of a rant than actual feedback. Furthermore it contains numerous instances of slander towards the developers. Based on this I can only conclude that your target audience was not NQ but the playerbase. Why then address the playerbase in this manner? From my perspective, this appears to be a blatant attempt to get the community to riot. I do hope that was not the intention here but if you were trying to strong arm NQ into addressing your personal list of gripes by riling up the community then I am truly disappointed.
 
With that said, here are my brief comments on the major points of your post: 
Your verdict on the T2 distribution on Alioth is premature and your belief that changes to the resource distribution should be made public is not one that I share. In fact I think the devs already reached a fair compromise when they decided to list the ores available on each planet/moon as opposed to leaving it to the playerbase to discover.  Antigrav generators were designed with the 1km altitude restriction to limit their effectiveness. The AGG towers were a player made solution to mitigate this downside not an intended gameplay mechanic. Regardless, the only thing NQ has said is that the 1000m limit is a thing now. The exact details have not been uncovered by players. For all we know the limit could be referenced from the tallest point of natural terrain or maybe it even varies in value from planet to planet. This is still the age of discovery and some brave pioneer needs to climb up there and check. If it turns out that AGG towers are no longer viable then politely raise the issue so the devs are aware and can decide whether or not they want to correct it. Also keep in mind that this a bit of a controversial topic as not everyone is fond of the AGG towers.  The missing STUs was an unforeseen issue and is being investigated. HTML screens being phased out was officially announced on numerous occasions prior to launch and was even part of the PTS release candidate. Also as Kurock pointed out, there is an option under your game settings to re-enable said feature for those who have still not mitigated to the new system. The devs already provided advanced notice that blueprint snapping was going to be included in a future update after the launch.  There is nothing wrong with airing your complaints but if you want to actually help improve the game then I strongly recommend dropping the tone and instead providing constructive feedback with actual suggestions for improvement. This will encourage others to do the same and the subsequent interactions will transform ideas into effective solutions.

Yes.
Incompetence of an NQ Game Designer.
He is very stubborn and like a child.
If you find a glaring balance problem but he didn't think of it before you, it will upset him. He will block the subject for a very long time (6 months to 2 years).
Then it come back a bit later when he thinks you've forgotten and offer balancing.
 
 

It's my pain when I want to try a game released only in Korea or Japan.
I can sympathize and can only hope that players of other languages can express themselves and use their language/culture on the game.
But a total translation of it seems to me unfortunately highly improbable
Courage to all our friends sharing a language not based on Latin.

Hello,
 
I follow up on the discussions on this subject:
 
The changes in value of recent honeycombs are really appreciable.
 
The increase in the hit points of certain elements as well.
 
All of this provides a good basis for further balancing. Many of our claims in previous fis still remain up to date, such as the replacement of the cross section by a mechanic more in line with the game's DNA. Or the radar changes to increase the sight distances to adapt to the new speeds and also to prevent L weapons from continuing to destroy at max range XS / S ships.
 
Now that the reminder of the fundamentals is done. I would like to focus this topic on 1 single element :
 
Need to talk the " VENTING DURATION "

The problem right now is that we regularly see S-sized ships with L or M shields. And very rarely in S-sized.
I'm not talking about size XS shields which have practically the same use as a decorative element.

The larger size shields remain more interesting than their lower variant + a little voxel and an active use of venting.

But there is a mechanic that NQ can play on : the venting duration.

It is exactly the same duration as it is for a shield XS or a shield L. (100s in basic version)
In my opinion, it will be necessary to reduce this time for small shields.
An XS shield should be able to vent often and be vulnerable for less time than a large L shield.

 
This could lead to more regular risk-taking by fighter pilots when they think they have a safe window to recharge their shield during combat.
 
Also if they perform poorly, they risk getting hit and punished.
 
The most considerate could put a little voxel to leave room for some "error".
This will give the beginning of a "symbiosis" between the shield and the voxel armor during the combat phases which could become very rewarding for the pilot making the right choices at the right time.
 
What do you think ?

Hello,
 
I follow up on the discussions on this subject:
 
The changes in value of recent honeycombs are really appreciable.
 
The increase in the hit points of certain elements as well.
 
All of this provides a good basis for further balancing. Many of our claims in previous fis still remain up to date, such as the replacement of the cross section by a mechanic more in line with the game's DNA. Or the radar changes to increase the sight distances to adapt to the new speeds and also to prevent L weapons from continuing to destroy at max range XS / S ships.
 
Now that the reminder of the fundamentals is done. I would like to focus this topic on 1 single element :
 
Need to talk the " VENTING DURATION "

The problem right now is that we regularly see S-sized ships with L or M shields. And very rarely in S-sized.
I'm not talking about size XS shields which have practically the same use as a decorative element.

The larger size shields remain more interesting than their lower variant + a little voxel and an active use of venting.

But there is a mechanic that NQ can play on : the venting duration.

It is exactly the same duration as it is for a shield XS or a shield L. (100s in basic version)
In my opinion, it will be necessary to reduce this time for small shields.
An XS shield should be able to vent often and be vulnerable for less time than a large L shield.

 
This could lead to more regular risk-taking by fighter pilots when they think they have a safe window to recharge their shield during combat.
 
Also if they perform poorly, they risk getting hit and punished.
 
The most considerate could put a little voxel to leave room for some "error".
This will give the beginning of a "symbiosis" between the shield and the voxel armor during the combat phases which could become very rewarding for the pilot making the right choices at the right time.
 
What do you think ?

I've put together a brief infographic to help new players figure out what they could do after finishing the intro tutorial. It's not meant to be a full guide, just a jumping off point to give some direction. Image here, but also on Reddit in case it gets downsized.
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/DualUniverse/comments/wqxu0s/
 

Hello,
 
I follow up on the discussions on this subject:
 
The changes in value of recent honeycombs are really appreciable.
 
The increase in the hit points of certain elements as well.
 
All of this provides a good basis for further balancing. Many of our claims in previous fis still remain up to date, such as the replacement of the cross section by a mechanic more in line with the game's DNA. Or the radar changes to increase the sight distances to adapt to the new speeds and also to prevent L weapons from continuing to destroy at max range XS / S ships.
 
Now that the reminder of the fundamentals is done. I would like to focus this topic on 1 single element :
 
Need to talk the " VENTING DURATION "

The problem right now is that we regularly see S-sized ships with L or M shields. And very rarely in S-sized.
I'm not talking about size XS shields which have practically the same use as a decorative element.

The larger size shields remain more interesting than their lower variant + a little voxel and an active use of venting.

But there is a mechanic that NQ can play on : the venting duration.

It is exactly the same duration as it is for a shield XS or a shield L. (100s in basic version)
In my opinion, it will be necessary to reduce this time for small shields.
An XS shield should be able to vent often and be vulnerable for less time than a large L shield.

 
This could lead to more regular risk-taking by fighter pilots when they think they have a safe window to recharge their shield during combat.
 
Also if they perform poorly, they risk getting hit and punished.
 
The most considerate could put a little voxel to leave room for some "error".
This will give the beginning of a "symbiosis" between the shield and the voxel armor during the combat phases which could become very rewarding for the pilot making the right choices at the right time.
 
What do you think ?

Hello,
 
I follow up on the discussions on this subject:
 
The changes in value of recent honeycombs are really appreciable.
 
The increase in the hit points of certain elements as well.
 
All of this provides a good basis for further balancing. Many of our claims in previous fis still remain up to date, such as the replacement of the cross section by a mechanic more in line with the game's DNA. Or the radar changes to increase the sight distances to adapt to the new speeds and also to prevent L weapons from continuing to destroy at max range XS / S ships.
 
Now that the reminder of the fundamentals is done. I would like to focus this topic on 1 single element :
 
Need to talk the " VENTING DURATION "

The problem right now is that we regularly see S-sized ships with L or M shields. And very rarely in S-sized.
I'm not talking about size XS shields which have practically the same use as a decorative element.

The larger size shields remain more interesting than their lower variant + a little voxel and an active use of venting.

But there is a mechanic that NQ can play on : the venting duration.

It is exactly the same duration as it is for a shield XS or a shield L. (100s in basic version)
In my opinion, it will be necessary to reduce this time for small shields.
An XS shield should be able to vent often and be vulnerable for less time than a large L shield.

 
This could lead to more regular risk-taking by fighter pilots when they think they have a safe window to recharge their shield during combat.
 
Also if they perform poorly, they risk getting hit and punished.
 
The most considerate could put a little voxel to leave room for some "error".
This will give the beginning of a "symbiosis" between the shield and the voxel armor during the combat phases which could become very rewarding for the pilot making the right choices at the right time.
 
What do you think ?

The click bait title worked.
 
I like the idea, but they should also look to increase the weight  of the large shields so that it has a bigger impact on top speeds

Cc,
 
Ce que j'en pense ?
 
C'est très intéressant pour quelqu'un comme moi qui ne s'est jamais intéressé au PVP, dommage que la traduction par Google Trad me fasse perdre un peu la compréhension du topic. 
 
La vulgarisation amènera sûrement certains à s'intéresser aux vso de chasse et par la même au PVP. 
 
--

This right here. We were promised only Sanc and 20km of safe zone around ark ship.  Until that is deliverd dont see how I can give them any money.  I dont want some PVE builder game, if I do id play space engineers or another game.  Voxels suck for the most part its not like they support anything, shit just magically floats in the air no physics.  StarBase at least actually have to plan to hold proper weight and build for function.  The selling point of DU was single shard where the players make the content and choose.   You cant have that if everything is in the safe zone.  

Without downsizing current safezones I am not interested in comming back to the game.
This game was supposed to have varied pvp/territory warefare gameplay but it has just become another PVE coop ship builder.

This was the most disappointing stream I've seen for a major announcement you literally didn't release any new feature rich new additions.
 
I expected a major announcement to be new systems coming for launch like territory warfare which was due last year or energy systems.
 
Do you folks realise adding either of those two features later on is not ideal especially energy ?.
 
I totally understand the planets and I also equally hoped a chance to move them all closer to avoid the snooze fest of flying slowboating.
 
Anyway it's disheartening indeed after all these years playing.  Your not convincing people to give it a go.
 
Honvik 

hmm valid point, play strategy is more about either producing half products and sell them and buy your end elements., Or buy half products and produce end elements. It is a different kind oif playing which I did not consider.

Hi, a new topic for resume some of our idea about PVP features in the future.

Wrecks
- add an element similar to the DSAT for them
- put them all in space
- add schematics in their storage, with a value that depends on the rarity of the wreck
This would be a cool first PVP approach for all players as well as an additional way to have content for the most experienced on the rarest wrecks

Asteroids
- delete T4 and T5 from the MUs on each planets/moons
- modify the spawn algorythm for dodge any PVP roid to spawn too close to the Safezone
- reduce their maximum spawn distance
- disable the possibility of create a station with a shield close to them
- allow imprisoning players who farm in jetpack with XS core and glass panel or give us GUNS
In order to restore the interest in asteroids and encourage people to interact with each other, whether through piracy or through group mining to protect/optimize themselves.

Alien core
- Increase the power of items requiring plasma
- Hide/protect ships docked to an alien core, or just on station, with a shield
- Less T5 in MU
- Scales the need for plasma in the schematics based on item size (example 1 for XS, 2 for S, 3 for M and 4 for L, and modify the production of plasma if needed)
This will add interest to Alien cores, preserve an important interest for asteroids by avoiding being the main source of T5
 
Piracy
- Bring back the boarding, the button feature work now, if people don't check their ship then it's their fault. (and the force field for counter boarding is so boring for dock/land)
- Rework the radar, add some range or be able to follow the signature of a ship or any other idea else than this 2SU max
- Delete the jammed zone, if people can see hauler going in space, PVP players can see pirates who hunt it or any other player who want help/warn/counter
- Need more reward for hunting mission hauler
- Go back on group missions and stop special missions (beta keys will end with the release and if you add more tool on pirates, big hauler will be hunted)
- Adds different icons/icons colors, allowing each player to set a reputation on an org or a player
- Add a right clic option on dynamic construct icon for wisp the pilot and allow players to talk (to find a deal, a ransom or a pass)

I tried to summarize some of my ideas as well as possible, if you have better or different ones do not hesitate.

NQ, the talent point rewards for achievements are so tiny that they might as well not exist. Yet these achievements could be a fun and rewarding activity to pursue if they gave meaningful rewards. An easy way to increase player engagement and give them 'something to do' would be to increase these rewards by A LOT. It would also motivate people to learn other parts of the game that they haven't yet experienced.

Examples: 
First Blood - Destroy 1 ship of size XS: 120pts --> 5000pts (about one hour worth of training)
Master Gunner - Shoot all types, variants, and sizes of ammo: 3240pts --> 50,000pts (about ten hours worth of training)
Factory Master - Have at least 50 industry units running simultaneously: 1080pts --> 25,000pts
Speed Freak - Reach max speed for the first time: 120pts --> 5000pts
Billionaire - Reach 1B in your wallet: 9720pts --> 129,600pts (a full day of training)
Expert Miner - Extract ore from 20 different planets or moons: 9270pts --> 129,600pts
etc. etc.
 
Give us rewards that we can be excited about and achievements will be fun! It will give players lots of things to do at launch and encourage them to experience all the game has to offer.
 

I predict there will be a livestream.
 
(Hoping many of you will be watching it too!)

I feel like a lot of people have really forgotten intent for this game was primarily focused on PvP/survival. I think the PvP community are the ones that have had to give up more than any other community in the game. We were told we would get Territory Warfare, instead they gave us Alien cores and said go play in a corner of the universe away from the rest of the community. We were told that survival outside the safe area that you start in would be "cut-throat" and you would definitely need to know what you were doing before venturing out away from that starting safe zone, instead they put a large safe bubble around EVERY planet and a HUGE safe zone that covers three different planets, they gave everyone the ability to completely skip any possible PvP risk by setting warp drives as a T3 element.
 
So from my standpoint, the beacons being PvP locked is the first step NQ has really ever taken to make PvP an actual part of the game and I hope they continue to gate more things behind PvP (or at least the risk of PvP).

And btw, I am currently on the side that doesn't hold any of the alien cores.

Yes I will be there
 
The dozen active players in our organization will also be there.
Even a few additional reinforcements that we hadn't seen for months showed the desire to play.
 
We will be around the planets tracking NQ wreck hunter smugglers.
We will be on the pipes waiting for the heights of reckless missions.
We will be on the asteroids to harvest the precious T4 ores needed for our PvP fleet.
We will be present on the battles of the core aliens to have our name on them.
 
Get ready.