Dakanmer

I like this idea. It might even be worth requiring the maintenance to be in the form of Parts (the ones that would go to make up the Element in question) rather than a built Element...
 

Hi.
 
I'm a returning player from beta, and decided to emigrate to Jago as soon as possible in release, because it sounded like a fun idea, being a pioneer building the restaurant at the end of the universe.
 
And now, the money sinks become a serious issue: Weekly tile tax. 500k a week is not too bad, but the current mechanics to get the money is "collect ore, sell to NPC". Since other settlers are arriving, I already make the occasional money on selling T2 ores from asteroids and static M cores, but this is not regular income I could depend on.
 
I pondered if selling M engines would be another viable source of income, but those are available for a relatively low price from the market NPCs. Same for fuel. Meh.
 
I'm not running NPC missions, because again, this is pure grind, and I have no clue if Jago even offers NPC missions (didn't check before they were disabled).
 
Then, the quanta barrier on L and XL schematics also is quite steep. I don't even complain about the time-gate to develop those schematics, but the quanta cost on L element schematics is crippling.
 
Life on Jago is hard enough already, with Copper not being available locally, and Iron only available in surface rocks. This is not a complaint, though, this is the challenge I was looking for. But upon accepting this challenge, I wouldn't know tax-free life isn't even possible in the remotest areas of the known universe.
 
Imagine if Columbus discovered America and was hit with a huge property tax from day three. 😉
 
Suggestions:
 
- Make the first HQ tile tax-free, maybe limited to non-safe zone planets.
- Reduce or abolish T1 schematic prices
 
/edit: After reading the schematics bank post, maybe it would even better if schematics would be completely removed, and instead wear & tear is added to industry. Like after a given number of batches, the element starts acting up (starts producing slower) and eventually completely breaks down. This would be an actual element sink on the game, and would be quite balanced - for a megafactory producing 24/7, regular maintenance is in order, but for a small backyard factory that's only producing for a small demand, it would last much longer. Bonus points, if a broken element can be exchanged with a new one in-place, keeping configuration and links (i.e. consume inventory element to reset placed element to pristine state).
 
 

If you were really looking at player feedback and responding to it...this nonsense wouldn't have even been considered. Sorry, I just don't buy it. A research tree would have been infinitely better.
 
Research stuff, make copies of schematics from that research, use/sell schematics, but make it cost time (you don't need money for a digital thing, and if the machines aren't using digital schematics, then what's the point of calling it a futuristic game?) instead of quanta.
Yes, people can make zillions of alts to speed up the research and acquisition rate, BUT THEY DO THAT ALREADY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, AND WILL DO THAT FOR THIS AS WELL, so think ahead, have an open dialogue where you can work with the community to get the best (i.e. the most widely supported after discussion) ideas, etc. Basically, don't just make something up at the last minute and say that it's because of community input. Because that's the vibe for this. No real thought put into it. Just checking a box in a hurry.
 
The more of these "we listened to the players and this is our response" posts that I see, the less interested I am in seeing the final product.

If you were really looking at player feedback and responding to it...this nonsense wouldn't have even been considered. Sorry, I just don't buy it. A research tree would have been infinitely better.
 
Research stuff, make copies of schematics from that research, use/sell schematics, but make it cost time (you don't need money for a digital thing, and if the machines aren't using digital schematics, then what's the point of calling it a futuristic game?) instead of quanta.
Yes, people can make zillions of alts to speed up the research and acquisition rate, BUT THEY DO THAT ALREADY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, AND WILL DO THAT FOR THIS AS WELL, so think ahead, have an open dialogue where you can work with the community to get the best (i.e. the most widely supported after discussion) ideas, etc. Basically, don't just make something up at the last minute and say that it's because of community input. Because that's the vibe for this. No real thought put into it. Just checking a box in a hurry.
 
The more of these "we listened to the players and this is our response" posts that I see, the less interested I am in seeing the final product.

First I will say I'm glad that the Schematics will still exist. However with the current idea that has been presented, I have MANY MANY questions.

As a factory builder who was attracted to this game for the Factory building aspects, (I have no interest in combat or PVP.) the changes that are proposed to the schematics seem to be aimed at frustrating and destroying factories in DU. Looking at Large operations like SVEA and Gottchar this will def wound those operations.

Even small factories having to print and load schematics for 2000 programming boards? 

The post calls out HoneyComb RIP Honeycomb Central. We have several large player built cities that exist in the world and are being built. Atlantis comes to mind. This will make that project so much more frustrating, since now they will need millions of schematics to make the billions of honeycomb needed for the build.

I understand we want player interaction, and that Mega factories cause lag and other issues for the game. But with the addition of the Exchange and this change to schematics. IS NQ building a Sand Box for us to play in? or a playpen? Do you want player interaction? or do you want player interaction that NQ has control in and gets a cut of the profits? 

Also how is Fuel going to work? will we need Schematics for those? how about Warp Cells? We need more information, and once again we have a massive sweeping change to the game. that will destroy at least 2 days of my work building my little tiny medium core factory. Don't even get me started on larger factories that I have no information of. I can imagine how much chaos this will add to SVEA, Gotttchar, Honjo  and so many other large factories. 

Not to mention the new Mini game of loading the schematics in to the machines. I want to play a game to have fun escape the real world for a little while and meet new and awesome people, Not be stuffed into the bowels of my factory twice a week attempting to find all the machines that are now idle because they ran out of copies of copies of schematics. 

Also why charge players for making copies of schematics that they bought? seems like an un needed Tax on the economy? we are already taxed on the land we mine on, The Selling of items in the exchange, Storing Items in the Exchange, Do we think there is going to be a large market for selling single use schematics on the exchange? is that going to be the new way to generate and bleed the factories to death? 

Much like the real world. If we make it difficult for people to produce the things we need in game, then we wont have the items we need to build the ships to play. If you kill all the farms in the real world then we have no food to eat.

Sorry for the Rambling, just a little confused as to why NQ doesn't want us to play their amazing creation.

TLDR; Schematic Changes sound like a bad plan that will kill factories.

The issue I have with this is that 0.23 was launched in December of 2020.
 
The fact that they are complaining about not having enough time when this change has been live over 1.5 years is very annoying.
 
Maybe if you actually made a real design and planned features, you wouldn't need to spend the last several update cycles reworking features!
Maybe if you engineered the game properly, it wouldn't take a year and a half to push such a simple change.
Maybe if you cared (at all) about making a good UX, this wouldn't seem tedious. Do they even have a single UI/UX person on staff? Very, very doubtful. 
 
It constantly feels like they are making excuses...nothing is their fault, so they will never improve as a company. Their bad choices and poor planning is brushed off as "not having enough time"...
 
This studio has zero capacity to learn from their past mistakes.
 
The choices they've made makes it hard to root for them as a player, which makes it hard to offer the "balanced" feedback they apparently crave. If NQ showed a dash of humility, it'd be a lot easier to be positive. 

Like some other people, I got excited about the new gravity-inverted containers. I set up a spreadsheet and everything to see if they would be worth the exorbitant cost of production...only to find out that, by design, they do not work as anything but standard, lower-volume containers when linked to a hub.
For those who haven't tried making them, the schematic costs alone are nothing to sneeze at. I built a single production line for advanced containers, with enough sub-production to make sure there's always just enough stuff to keep the assembler running. Material-wise, it's not super-horrid, but time-wise it's a monster. Producing these containers (worse for rare, and I'm not dumb enough to even consider exotic, because the plasma cost and time sink are not worth the end product) is slow, so expect to only replace containers on ships you've already built....except....not even that, because, again, by design they don't work to reduce mass when linked to a hub.
 
In short, that means that you will now need to design new ships that put the containers at the center so that your adjusters will work properly (meaning turning doesn't result in pitching and rolling). Cost-wise, it would be better to just add more engines on a ship with standard containers, because at least then you can link to a hub and have the same result.
 
Sooo....why bother with gravity-inverted containers in the first place, if the intent was to have them act as single-container units from the get-go? What is the point? Designing a ship around individual containers, which you have to manually distribute resources between to get the center of gravity just right, was done away with when hubs were introduced. Why bring it back while wrapping it in the c***-tease "but you have a small mass reduction of the contents" ploy?
 
To be clear, I stopped my production of these containers. They're effectively lesser-volume basic containers that just cost a lot of time and resources to produce. That makes them worthless. No value added to the game except for ships designed around 1-2 containers with no hubs, and the cost doesn't even justify that for most cases. Maybe I'm just salty, but the fact that the official response to identifying the issue was to point out that they were intended to work this way doesn't give me much hope for the future of the game. If it was intended to work this way, but also to be changed later to work with a hub, then that would be fine, because that's the way of development...but not even that.
 
So a suggestion for the devs, if you want a feature to be seen as actually adding value to the game: make sure it isn't just a gimmick before releasing it.
This new gravity-inverted container type is a gimmick; a container that reduces mass, but only when not linked to a hub, and is supposed to go on a dynamic construct where mass and volume and center of gravity are important factors. The optimized containers at least work properly when linked to a hub, making them worth producing.
If it's about mixing container types/tiers, then do something simple, and make it so that the reduction only applies if all containers are of the same tier/type (independent of size, obviously). That, at the bare minimum, is reasonable.
 
This is a mixed rant and feedback. I wasted a lot of money setting up production, and got my hopes up that it would be worth the cost. Now I have millions worth of schematics that are worthless to me. Obviously, saltiness is to be expected, especially since it wasn't clearly explained that the mass reduction wouldn't work when linked to a hub. Something like that, for something so costly, speaks to incompetence or malice, given that it was by design, even if it was just an oopsie-doodle "I forgot to mention this really important 'feature' with this new element."

Maybe allow LUA access to the list of beacons/planets currently in the users' map?
 
Maybe add a game setting, disabled by default, that allows the player to grant access to it? If the setting is disabled, just return a tuple of {false, "::pos{0,0,0,0,0}"}

Some things are missing from LUA API that I think should be there:
Get docked construct name by ID Currently you can only get its ID, except through radar. This function should be available as a general parent construct function, not just radar. Get docked construct position/orientation by ID These functions exist for getting the parent's position/orientation, but not the docked construct Get active waypoint If the player has a waypoint active, return it as a ::pos string, just as with the function to get waypoint from player position. A category for "database" in the codex Some functions use database to get information, like database.getConstruct and database.getPlayer(ID). Categories for other function types that aren't listed but can be used, if there are any others (like database), or updating existing categories with functions that aren't listed but exist Self explanatory. People can't use functions if they don't know they even exist, what they do, or how to properly call them

That's going to be the case for exotic things. Somebody undercutting your exotic weapons sales. You go blow there plasma collectors.

And the thing is that NQ has been operating in this "easy" mode for a long as I can remember now.
So.. when are they actually going to start producing content, and what have they actually spent all those years with countless man-hours doing?

Market in space is the result of laziness from dev team, they are not going toward at all the civilisation building mechanics the game is selling and supposed to have.
This is not a step forward players market and wallet API. 
But will only create an other pile of polluting trash space stations and abandoned ships all around it.

This is absolute shame that dev is focusing more on saving their effort by nerfing or under developing everything with the only pretext that an extreme minority of players may abuse of some features.
How about giving the majority of players better and deeper features/APIs, including some that will let us deal our self with greifers and cheaters?

Its painful to see after 7 years of development such poor decisions still taken
 

I do love that Aphelia doesn't care if you murder each other or become a pirate (this after saving a tiny slice of humans from a world-ending tragedy) -- but players making markets outside its supervision? That it cannot allow. 
 
 
Yeah, this is the last major update before launch. They've said that there will be smaller updates before release, but IMO those will be focused on balance and bugs.
 
They'd be a bit dumb to slap new features in before release without leaving room for several patches focused on bug fixes and polish. 
 
They say it'll keep getting updates post-release, but they still don't seem to understand how MMOs work or the expectations they set with adverts and a monthly sub. People will not patiently wait around forever...they should know this based on how the public beta launch worked. 

I am worried if this is "the last patch before launch". Or do we get final feature update at launch?
 
There are essential parts of the game still missing:
RDMS is totally missing the D = Duties part Energy is not implemented Player markets are missing Only one star-system Star gates+probes to find other systems and build star gate networks All these are "Big Game changers" and may create problems if introduced after launch.
 
Edit: And all missing pvp features
 

There is no market but market 6. 
 
Centralize planet markets into a single hub already.... All Alioth markets = Alioth Market. All Madis markets = Madis market, etc.
 
No point to all these different markets when players will just group to one.....that is not a space market.

What does this mean:


 
"entirely built and driven by players..."?
 
NQ dictates how we are supposed to play their game to a point that they take the fun out of it.
 
What is fun?
 
Creativity!
So it be building ships or static constructs, finding the meta and tactics for victorious PVP, LUA programming to overcome "technical problems".
What makes this fun?
There is a challenge and when we succeed it triggers positive feelings so we learn and evolve.
 
Aphelia markets is no fun.
Most players use the market to turn stuff they have into quanta and back to stuff they want. No fun in that.
But, a few players can find joy in doing good businesses buying and selling. But with no in game tools to analyze supply and demand that's not really a thing. And if you produce the stuff yourself it's merely just a place to throw your stuff to get quanta back to invest in your business.
 
Player made markets can be fun.
You can put an effort in building a construct that attracts players to come and visit. Either it's functional and/or esthetic. You can build relations with your customers to find out what their demand is. You can build relations with suppliers to meet the demand. You can interact with other players and make friends and socialize. I am part of an organization running one of these player made markets.
We can offer our customers to:
see all items before they buy because all items are at display in the store. Especially welcomed by new players who have not yet seen all things in the game. buy in VR and store it in their personal container to pick up later, or if they share it within an org, someone else from that org can get it. have their own parcel container to be able to create a hauling mission (player made!!) for someone else to get their stuff for them.  
The only way we can sell stuff is by using dispensers, one fore each item and batch size. So we have almost 400 dispensers in our store, plus a second store with almost the same amount of dispensers to sell the same items in a different batch size. We've built a system to automate updates to the screens with new prices, a lot of LUA coding and a lot of elements and linking. With an API for the dispensers we could have automated the whole process, but now we need to update each dispenser with a new price.
 
All these display items, dispensers, back end system elements and links makes the place quite laggy, but it works.
We don't have thousands of customers, but enough to make money to expand and keep working on new ideas.
 
We've built a small part of the society, we succeed, and it's fun.

Hi @Dakanmer

Let me reply to your proposals in order of your list :
Get docked construct name by ID This is a gameplay choice, we always wanted to keep this aspect of needing a sensor to get information outside the construction. Just like a telemeter for example. So the use of a radar is a gameplay choice. However considering it's "docked" construct ... potentialy 🤔 Get docked construct position/orientation by ID Same that the first point. Get active waypoint Can be a privacy/security issue to get the waypoint of the player, could be used to track other players destinations. 🤔 Even if we put that on explicit use only this issue still relevant. To consider ... A category for "database" in the codex Will see if we can add it to the codex (which is auto generated and do not parse Lua libs). Categories for other function types that aren't listed but can be used, if there are any others (like database), or updating existing categories with functions that aren't listed but exist Same, I see the point as Navigator ...etc Same than the previous point. Warp drive API Setting the warp destination is a bit complex, considering it's not a position but a warp beacon or planet. It adds some consideration as "How the player get the destination ?" "How do we designate a destination ?" ...etc An other point is automation on that point. Getting warp destination, same issues, but not really for the automation, but for the "How". Warp cell cost ? Absolutely nothing against on that point ; a function getWarpCost, getWarpAvailableCells (or something like that 😅 ) Deactivate ... automation possibility 🤔 Warp beacon API and/or perms RDMS API is a complex subject. What do you expect as API ? There is no action to do on the element without Lua, so we don't see what to add on Lua. Clear waypoint Hmmm, no real problem in mind. So it could be added. Do not hesitate to ping me, else I can miss some useful topics like that  

Some things are missing from LUA API that I think should be there:
Get docked construct name by ID Currently you can only get its ID, except through radar. This function should be available as a general parent construct function, not just radar. Get docked construct position/orientation by ID These functions exist for getting the parent's position/orientation, but not the docked construct Get active waypoint If the player has a waypoint active, return it as a ::pos string, just as with the function to get waypoint from player position. A category for "database" in the codex Some functions use database to get information, like database.getConstruct and database.getPlayer(ID). Categories for other function types that aren't listed but can be used, if there are any others (like database), or updating existing categories with functions that aren't listed but exist Self explanatory. People can't use functions if they don't know they even exist, what they do, or how to properly call them

Hello, Noveans! Athena’s Lua changes bring many community-requested features into the game, and there is a lot to go over, so let's dive right in!
 
SIGNS REFORGED
 
We’re revising the resolution of opaque and transparent screens to 1024x513 pixels in order to better fit them into the real screen element dimensions and improve image resolution on screens.
 
Also, each sign will now have a resolution adapted to its actual size:
Horizontal Sign XS : 1024x512
Horizontal Sign S : 1024x1024
Horizontal Sign M : 1024x512
Horizontal Sign L : 1024x256
Vertical Sign XS : 512x1024
Vertical Sign M : 512x1024
Vertical Sign L : 256x1024
    These changes are also accompanied by new features and substantive changes.
 
NEW TEXT & COLORS RENDERING
 
With this update, we’re making a fundamental change in text rendering technology. Called, ‘Signed Distance Field,’ (SDF), this rendering method allows for cleaner rendering at any font size and also supports effects such as outlines and shadows.
 
As a result, here are some text-related changes in the Rendering Lua API:
[int] loadFont([string] fontName,[int] defaultSize) - The font size setting becomes the "default" font size and can be changed during script execution with the setFontSize function.
addText([int] layer,[int] font,[string] text,[float] x,[float] y) - Now supports the following properties : fillColor, shadow, strokeColor, strokeWidth.
 
And some additions:
[float] getFontSize([int] font): Return the currently-set size for the given font.
setFontSize([int] font,[int] size): Set the size at which a font will render.
setDefaultTextAlign([int] layer,[int] alignH,[int] alignV): Set the default text alignment of all subsequent text strings on the given layer.
 
But that's not all! As you may have seen from the image below, we have also added support for High Dynamic Range (HDR) colors which will let you add a glow effect on your colors.
 
To use the HDR colors, you just have to set color values higher than 1 in the colors you use; commonly multiply each color component by the same HDR coefficient.
 
As an example, here is the ‘PEGGED,’ screen from Bonusaben’s Underdun Arcade modified with HDR colors:
   
LET’S MOVE LAYERS
 
One of the most common requests for screen rendering has been the ability to apply transformations (translation, rotation and scaling) to text. Given that this is not strategically optimal for rendering, we’ve decided to apply transformations to layers instead with the following functions:
setLayerOrigin([int] layer,[float] x,[float] y): Set the transform origin of a layer; layer scaling and rotation are applied relative to this origin.
setLayerRotation([int] layer,[float] rotation): Set a rotation applied to the layer as a whole, relative to the layer's transform origin.
setLayerScale([int] layer,[float] sx,[float] sy): Set a scale factor applied to the layer as a whole, relative to the layer's transform origin.
setLayerTranslation([int] layer,[float] tx,[float] ty): Set a translation applied to the layer as a whole.
 
We’ve also added a clipping area! This allows you to define an area to limit rendering per zone, especially useful for making scrolling areas and so on.
setLayerClipRect([int] layer,[float] x,[float] y,[float] sx,[float] sy): Set a clipping rectangle applied to the layer as a whole.  
Please note that anything drawn outside of the clipping area will not be visible but will still be counted in the rendering budget.
 
THE MINING UNIT API
 
As already announced in Athena roadmap, we’ve decided to add a Lua API allowing players to take accurate information from Mining Units with the following functions:
[string] getStatus() : Returns the current status of the mining unit ("STOPPED", "STALLED", "RUNNING")
[float] getRemainingTime() : Returns the time remaining on the drilling process.
[int] getActiveOre() : Returns the ID of the current selected resource.
[table] getOrePools() : Returns the list of resources pool on the territory. Each resource pool object of the list contains ‘id’, ‘available’ and ‘maximum’ fields.
[float] getBaseRate() : Returns the base production rate of the mining unit.
[float] getEfficiency() : Returns the production efficiency of the mining unit.
[float] getAdjacencyBonus() : Returns the territory's production adjacency bonus factor. This value will only be updated when a new batch is started.
[float] getCalibrationRate() : Returns the current calibration rate of the mining unit.
[float] getOptimalRate() : Returns the optimal calibration rate of the mining unit.
[float] getProductionRate() : Returns the production rate of the mining unit.
[vec3] getLastExtractionPosition() : Returns the position of the extracted ore during the last calibration in world coordinates.
[int] getLastExtractingPlayerId() : Returns the ID of the last player who calibrated the mining unit.
[float] getLastExtractionTime() : Returns the time in seconds since the last calibration of the mining unit.
[float] getLastExtractedVolume() : Returns the amount of ore extracted during the last calibration.
[int] getLastExtractedOre() : Returns the ID of the extracted ore during the last calibration.
 
And with some events:
[event] statusChanged([string] status) : Emitted when the mining unit status is changed. Provide the new status.
[event] completed([int] oreId, [float] amount) : Emitted when the mining unit completes a batch. Provide the item ID of the mined ore and the amount mined in the batch.
[event] calibrated([int] oreId, [float] amount, [float] rate) : Emitted when the mining unit is calibrated. Provide the item ID of the extracted ore, the amount extracted and the new calibration rate.
 
THE ITEM API
 
We have chosen to integrate the notion of item-IDs in a more concrete way. This is the first API using this principle, which seems to us the most adapted. Some functions and events will provide you with an ID designating an item in the game.
 
We will then integrate the getItem function:
[table] getItem([int] id): Return the item table corresponding to the given item ID.
 
The returned table will then contain the following information:
[int] id : The ID of the item.
[string] name : The name used to define the item.
[string] displayName : The name of the item used in the game.
[string] locDisplayName : The name of the item used in the game in the language of your game.
[string] displayNameWithSize : The name of the item used in the game with the size (XS,S,M,L).
[string] locDisplayNameWithSize : The name of the item used in the game with the size (XS,S,M,L) in the language of your game.
[string] description : The description of the item in English.
[string] locDescription : The description of the item in the language of your game.
[string] type : The type of item.
[float] unitMass : The unit mass of the item.
[float] unitVolume : The unit volume of the item.
[int] tier : The tier of the item (1 to 5)
[string] size : The size of the item (xs, s, m, l)
[string] iconPath : The path of the item's icon in the game files (usable on the screens).
 
BONUS FEATURES
 
We’ve also decided to include several smaller features with this update:
 
The function allowing you to draw a quadratic Bézier curve:
addBezier([int] layer,[float] x1,[float] y1,[float] x2,[float] y2,[float] x3,[float] y3): Add a quadratic Bézier curve to the given layer. Supported properties: shadow, strokeColor, strokeWidth.
 
Additional functionality for images:
addImageSub([int] layer,[int] image,[float] x,[float] y,[float] sx,[float] sy,[float] subX,[float] subY,[float] subSx,[float] subSy): Add a sub-region of an image to the given layer. Supported properties: fillColor, rotation.
[float],[float] getImageSize([int] image): Return the width and height of an image.
 
Finally, a function that lets you know the language setting of the rendering client:
[string] getLocale(): Return the locale in which the game is currently running (“en-EN”, “fr-FR”, “de-DE”).
 
CONCLUSION
 
Our goal is always to provide a larger and more feature-rich panel while maintaining rendering performance, and we hope that you will enjoy these Lua additions coming in Athena.
 
As always, we appreciate your feedback, so please share your thoughts and let us know your ideas on what Rendering Lua-related improvements and/or additions you would like to see in Dual Universe. Also, our API approach seems to be suitable and could potentially be applied to other API’s in-game, but we’d love to hear your feedback on that first.
 
NQ-Ligo is looking forward to discussing them with you in this forum thread!

Long story short, I would have only one reason to visit this new space outpost: to see it once out of curiosity, and then never again.
Why should I bother going to a market that's further away from most of the actual trading going on? Fuel costs money. Travel time slow-boating is already obscene. Why should I bother going to a market whose only draw is that it's in space with 0G? Others have pointed out that moons already fill this role, but...no surprise, Alioth Market 6 is still the trade hub of choice for most people. Once something is established, it's hard to de-establish it for something else without a REALLY good reason. Why should I bother going to a market that is not near the base that took my org insane amounts of time to build? Do a full wipe, then we'll talk...but by the time I can even get there after a wipe, Alioth Market 6 will probably be re-established as the trade hub simply because, you know, it's easier to reach than space, and we come full circle to the "hard to de-establish" issue. As to other suggestions about putting markets in PVP space...
Pirates own PVP space. Few orgs/players contest them. Until that changes, PVP space markets are worthless to anyone but pirates and those who can warp into their safe zones...which...why bother when you can just as easily warp to a moon and do business there? More warp locations in dangerous places doesn't entice me to use those locations. Slowboating is already a full day of time invested into doing nothing if you're going a moderate distance round trip. With the changes to max speed, where's the motivation to slowboat at all? It seems like they're just listening to the complaints from pirates (and noticing that, surprise surprise, their system of NPC missions makes it easy to make a fortune quickly using a bunch of alts on a large hauler. Almost like it was predictable. Like they could have devoted time to developing something else that wouldn't be so obviously exploited and force them to ruin space travel even more, rather than change the mission system) and completely ignoring the fact that space travel is a huge time sink already. If it takes an hour to go between Madis and Alioth at max speed (including accelerating up/down) with low/high mass, and they change the max speed to the degree that it appears they will, then going from Madis to Alioth will take multiple hours for even medium haulers. It's like they're trying to make space hauling less appealing than it already is. Now add back in the fact that it's PVP space, or rather, pirate territory...and again, what's the motivation? Find other ways to make PVP relevant to non-pirates, and to NQ, stop coddling pirates at the expense of everyone else. Balance your gameplay so that pirate trolls don't rule/ruin the PVP world as in so many other games. All told, I'm not really impressed with how NQ is doing things. Some stuff, sure, but they're going farther and farther away from the "player created content" that was PROMISED.
Alien cores for space defense/mining? Sure, why not. A reason to go to PVP space, except that you still have to deal with the heavy pirate troll advantage and the serious lack of non-pirate players in non-pirate orgs dedicated to PVP. Mission system? Cool. It adds content for players who want to run missions (to a very small degree. It's still not highly used). Escort missions? Are you joking, or what? Slowboating is tedious and can go for 6 hours or longer. You SERIOUSLY think that anyone would do escort missions like that and not expect a high reward that would not only potentially overshoot any potential profits from the haul, but also be better spent buying a lot of warp cells and just warping between planets? You would need to hire at least 2 escorts to be reasonably secure against pirates. Find two non-pirate (because pirates get hard thinking about trolling) players or teams of players willing to waste 4-8 hours constantly watching their radar, and you'll be lucky...and that's before the mass/speed update, which will make those travel times ludicrously longer. More NPC markets instead of player-owned markets? Wasted time that could have been spent improving the actual game or adding features that people actually ask for. Space wrecks? Okay, sure, except for the fact that they apparently took pre-DRM blueprints to be used in their wrecks, opening up code to public distribution that should be locked. Making space wrecks really rare to the point of "you have to accidentally stumble on them once in a blue moon, under the proper star sign, and only if a 2-hump camel farts while facing north," and putting the ones of actual value in pirate territory? Wasted time that could have been spent improving the actual game or adding features that people actually ask for. New stasis weapons? Sounds good. Lowering the max speed based on ship mass? Wasted time that could have been spent improving the actual game or adding features that people actually ask for, and seriously makes me glad that my org can afford to make/buy enough cells to warp heavy loads, because slowboating just went from bad to worse. At least until they decide that pirates don't get enough action and make warping more expensive and interruptible during transit. I can totally see that happening with the way things are going. Different weapon types and sizes? Great. Versatility. Forcing people wanting to specialize in large weapon types to first train all of the sizes below, or people wanting to specialize in other talents being required to train everything else that precedes that talent (like having to get talents in T1-4 ore refining just to focus on T5), and other talents that don't feed into the one they want to specialize in? So much for specialization, when you have to get everything to specialize in something else, making you waste so much time on things that don't make sense. This may seem like a long complaint-filled rant, but honestly, I don't think NQ actually listens to most of the issues that people bring up based on their development priorities, and the lack of real interaction between devs/admin and players. So, here's some feedback, NQ. I'm FAR from the first one to put it out there. Let's see what you decide to DU with it.

Long story short, I would have only one reason to visit this new space outpost: to see it once out of curiosity, and then never again.
Why should I bother going to a market that's further away from most of the actual trading going on? Fuel costs money. Travel time slow-boating is already obscene. Why should I bother going to a market whose only draw is that it's in space with 0G? Others have pointed out that moons already fill this role, but...no surprise, Alioth Market 6 is still the trade hub of choice for most people. Once something is established, it's hard to de-establish it for something else without a REALLY good reason. Why should I bother going to a market that is not near the base that took my org insane amounts of time to build? Do a full wipe, then we'll talk...but by the time I can even get there after a wipe, Alioth Market 6 will probably be re-established as the trade hub simply because, you know, it's easier to reach than space, and we come full circle to the "hard to de-establish" issue. As to other suggestions about putting markets in PVP space...
Pirates own PVP space. Few orgs/players contest them. Until that changes, PVP space markets are worthless to anyone but pirates and those who can warp into their safe zones...which...why bother when you can just as easily warp to a moon and do business there? More warp locations in dangerous places doesn't entice me to use those locations. Slowboating is already a full day of time invested into doing nothing if you're going a moderate distance round trip. With the changes to max speed, where's the motivation to slowboat at all? It seems like they're just listening to the complaints from pirates (and noticing that, surprise surprise, their system of NPC missions makes it easy to make a fortune quickly using a bunch of alts on a large hauler. Almost like it was predictable. Like they could have devoted time to developing something else that wouldn't be so obviously exploited and force them to ruin space travel even more, rather than change the mission system) and completely ignoring the fact that space travel is a huge time sink already. If it takes an hour to go between Madis and Alioth at max speed (including accelerating up/down) with low/high mass, and they change the max speed to the degree that it appears they will, then going from Madis to Alioth will take multiple hours for even medium haulers. It's like they're trying to make space hauling less appealing than it already is. Now add back in the fact that it's PVP space, or rather, pirate territory...and again, what's the motivation? Find other ways to make PVP relevant to non-pirates, and to NQ, stop coddling pirates at the expense of everyone else. Balance your gameplay so that pirate trolls don't rule/ruin the PVP world as in so many other games. All told, I'm not really impressed with how NQ is doing things. Some stuff, sure, but they're going farther and farther away from the "player created content" that was PROMISED.
Alien cores for space defense/mining? Sure, why not. A reason to go to PVP space, except that you still have to deal with the heavy pirate troll advantage and the serious lack of non-pirate players in non-pirate orgs dedicated to PVP. Mission system? Cool. It adds content for players who want to run missions (to a very small degree. It's still not highly used). Escort missions? Are you joking, or what? Slowboating is tedious and can go for 6 hours or longer. You SERIOUSLY think that anyone would do escort missions like that and not expect a high reward that would not only potentially overshoot any potential profits from the haul, but also be better spent buying a lot of warp cells and just warping between planets? You would need to hire at least 2 escorts to be reasonably secure against pirates. Find two non-pirate (because pirates get hard thinking about trolling) players or teams of players willing to waste 4-8 hours constantly watching their radar, and you'll be lucky...and that's before the mass/speed update, which will make those travel times ludicrously longer. More NPC markets instead of player-owned markets? Wasted time that could have been spent improving the actual game or adding features that people actually ask for. Space wrecks? Okay, sure, except for the fact that they apparently took pre-DRM blueprints to be used in their wrecks, opening up code to public distribution that should be locked. Making space wrecks really rare to the point of "you have to accidentally stumble on them once in a blue moon, under the proper star sign, and only if a 2-hump camel farts while facing north," and putting the ones of actual value in pirate territory? Wasted time that could have been spent improving the actual game or adding features that people actually ask for. New stasis weapons? Sounds good. Lowering the max speed based on ship mass? Wasted time that could have been spent improving the actual game or adding features that people actually ask for, and seriously makes me glad that my org can afford to make/buy enough cells to warp heavy loads, because slowboating just went from bad to worse. At least until they decide that pirates don't get enough action and make warping more expensive and interruptible during transit. I can totally see that happening with the way things are going. Different weapon types and sizes? Great. Versatility. Forcing people wanting to specialize in large weapon types to first train all of the sizes below, or people wanting to specialize in other talents being required to train everything else that precedes that talent (like having to get talents in T1-4 ore refining just to focus on T5), and other talents that don't feed into the one they want to specialize in? So much for specialization, when you have to get everything to specialize in something else, making you waste so much time on things that don't make sense. This may seem like a long complaint-filled rant, but honestly, I don't think NQ actually listens to most of the issues that people bring up based on their development priorities, and the lack of real interaction between devs/admin and players. So, here's some feedback, NQ. I'm FAR from the first one to put it out there. Let's see what you decide to DU with it.

So no bots at the space, including schematics?
 
And the normal bots for t1 and schematics stay the same...
 
Hire an economist and play your game. This implementation is backwards. Nobody is going to use this market without making some changes that actually make sense.

Financial markets need stability to be truly successful. I.e. you will never get a player driven equivalent to DS6 if it can be "blown up" at any time, or if players feel unsafe while staying there.

"the Market station provides a new dynamic in the transport of cargo, in that merchandise can be bought and sold without the need to make planetfall."

so like any of the already existing moon markets, without the moons. 
 
Market 1 Alioth moon 1 is:
-closer to most players
-also in space
-more landing space
-easier landing, because a tiny bit of gravity is nice to have
-you can already warp to a moon, no public warp beacon needed
 
I have no idea how the new space market adds anything in any way for anybody except the Utopia guys, that was not already provided by any of the moon markets. Unless the fact that there is a moon below the moon markets is an issue, which I doubt, the new market is not going to see a lot of action, it is yet another waste of time.
 
Next time players ask for something that would actually be nice and make the game more fun and the devs say "we would love to, but it isn’t priority, maybe later we find the time" just remember there was time enough for this thing.

Currently in the game Market 6 is the only real market used. Sure other markets see trickle of players from time to time, but not enough to justify their existence.  This new market in space will be dead.  There really is no reason for 90% of the player base to fly to the middle of the safe zone on a regular basis when they can just go to market 6.  The ONLY way this market will do well is if TAXES are removed from it.  Make it a free market.  No taxes on products sold or purchased.  Since players will need to fly for an hour to get there and back, the cost of hauling/shipping is on them already. (unless they place a beacon close) DO this if you want it to be used as a functional market, not just a complete waste of development time and effort.

Planet Markets- Heavily taxed as they are now.
Space Markets- Tax free markets.

A tax free market would encourage players to pay for hauling, could encourage "Transportation" players and things like Freighter gameplay. 

Though this blog says that there will be no bots at this market, you do say including the new Alien core resources.  Does this mean that these resources can't be sold at any other market? If yes then it will drive traffic to the market, if no and these resources can be sold elsewhere, then they will just end up at Market 6 anyways and players will again have no reason to use this "middle of the safe zone" market.

Some ideas
Many people believe this is a complete wasted opportunity.  Player markets will benefit some, but thousands of scattered player markets don't really help the game.  This single space only market should have been placed in the middle of pvp space.  Where it could encourage pvp, group play, escort play, freighter play.  It should have also included 4 capturable points around it (new pvp objectives) that when held by a single org allow them to earn a portion of revenue from the station.  This would encourage large scale pvp combat for those looking to hold the market, also would put pvp orgs on the defensive as they would wish to protect those using the station from pirates to ensure they are making quanta.  This would change the dynamics of pvp from attack miners to more natural flow of point capture and hold for increased org revenue. (sure you can hold and attack freighters, but then you limit your income and lower your reputation in the community). 

PVP Salvage Market Sales. - One of the core space content parts of DU is and always has been PVP.  With PVP the result of lost lives on elements has been ever-present.  These elements cannot be sold on existing markets.   This new space market should have that ability.  This would give salvagers a place to sell their hard earned elements to other players through the traditional market system.
 
Constructive Feedback

The addition of alien cores for resources and a space only market is very encouraging overall.  Many feel this is a good direction overall, though many existing industrialists are miffed that the schematics they paid millions for will change and their factories will change with the introduction of these resources. (yes some existing factories will need new schematics to function after this patch based off the pts)  That said, it is paramount that NQ listens to player feedback here. Many of the above posts and posts to follow will contain valuable information from players who actually play the game in this fashion already.   As this is the pre-release patch that has the opportunity to bring hype to the community and by proxy bring in new players, every bit of attention should be paid to those taking the time to provide any feedback that is constructive. Thanks NQ and good luck.