Distinct Mint

We have asked NQ to consider this: 
 
Release with a new system. All new accounts will only spawn in that system. 
 
All existing accounts are stuck in Heilous until a stargate is crafted. Make the craft time long like in the 90-180 day area. 
 
This gives new players a clean start without veteran interference. It gives existing players an option without a wipe where they cannot snowball over new players. By the time the stargate is crafted enough time has taken place to allow new players to grow without interference. 
 
Lastly it will add subs for NQ as some of you will not wait you will just sub a new toon to see and start in that system until the gate is open. 
 
Sort of a middle ground between wiping and not wiping. 
 
 

It's even harder to start from scratch, especially solo, now than when "beta" first launch.
 
Like many others, I don't really have the desire to do that again.

According to Gottchar himself it's like 30-60min a day, pretty much every day (every 35 hours with max skills). Also you're just assuming 7 tiles, but that's not optimal and not how Gottchar was calculating it all. You also need the tiles around those 7 tiles for optimal results, and other factors. His exact words:
 
That leaves you with ~700.000 worth of ore if you want to use it yourself. IF you can find the ideal patch.
 
A LOT of players are solo players, only choosing (sometimes) when they do stuff with others. One of the more relaxing activities in DU is mining in a tile that doesn't have anyone near it, just you with the soil and ore! So Zen! ? The current implementation of the asteroid system is anything but relaxing nor Zen. When I want to go mining in pvp space for rich rewards, I can, but relaxed mining with a ton of others around, I cannot do anymore.
 
If the reason for phasing out planet mining is saving money on server resources for the always persistent ant tunnels we've dug under there. There is a very simple, yet effective solution. Make an asteroid belt that goes through both the safe zone and pvp space. Just create tens of thousands of asteroids, the moment someone mines or terraforms the first voxel on an asteroid a 7 day timer starts to run, after which the asteroid despawns and a new rock spawns. In safe zone you'll have access to everything, but the higher tier ores are more abundant in pvp space. There are many variations of this concept possible, instead of automatically despawning and respawning you can have an attached missioning system where if an asteroid has more then x amount of tunnels (costs x amount of data on the server) it's marked as a missioning target by Aphellia, 90% of the asteroid ore needs to be mined out and then a charge set at the center of the asteroid, which despawns it. You get Y amount of quanta based on how bad the asteroid is on the server (higher load, more quanta). Or asteroids do not automagically respawn, respawn only happens every x months or once a year.
 
There are a ton of options which don't require us to run like a bunch of lemmings on an asteroid and then quickly mine it out as fast as possible. That sounds to much like work, just like having to log in every day or every 1.5 days to set 7-10 autominers via an annoying mini game...
 

The negatives to a complete reset are:
The tedium of putting talents back in again that you didn't want to respec; For people who are not actively playing, a talent wipe means that all queued talents are likely removed from the active training queue. This means when the player returns, they have hardly any accrued talent points, and they are pretty unhappy. (This is a beta: players aren't expected to play daily until launch.)

The negatives to a complete reset are:
The tedium of putting talents back in again that you didn't want to respec; For people who are not actively playing, a talent wipe means that all queued talents are likely removed from the active training queue. This means when the player returns, they have hardly any accrued talent points, and they are pretty unhappy. (This is a beta: players aren't expected to play daily until launch.)

Sounds great!  Are there any approximate timescales for this?

The main questions I can see and come from our large mining organisation:
 
Is ground ore being removed to improve servers and the user experience, replaced with asteroid and passive mining?
Is Passive mining coming before asteroid mining?
Will Passive mining use the same locations as the previous data accidently released?
Will asteroid mining require new skills or are some skills being removed?
With the addition of shields will this also include the need for power at a core level and will this be reflected in industry cores?
 
So far the pace has been better in recent months and the content has been much less buggy. 
I am seeing new players joining and there is alot more to do that even 3-4 months ago in game.
 
So keep up the good work.
 
Zero
 
 

THE FUTURE OF DU
We’ve seen a lot of positive feedback following the release of our devblog series on the future of DU. We’re  thankful to our community for the great feedback and encouragement. We’ve collected what seem to be the most burning questions following the publication of the blogs and wanted to do a follow-up to address them the best we can. Not all questions have an answer at this point, and we’ll try to fill in the gaps as we’re able in future communications. 
 
Are you going to launch the game in 2021? 
Realistically speaking, we have too much to do with the time that’s left  this year to get to a state where we feel the game is ready for launch. Our current plan is “at some point in 2022”, and we’re targeting mid-year. That projection is tentative, depending largely on our progress and  the feedback we get from our community, so please don’t hold this as a commitment. It could be sooner, it could be a bit later. The state of the game will dictate the date.
 
Why is the game not working on Shadow (cloud gaming platform) and do you plan to support it?
We believe cloud gaming platforms are a great way to enjoy DU if you want to play the game but don’t meet the proper PC specs or want to benefit from the latest hardware improvements without investing in upgrades for your gaming rig; however, we need to clarify that we are not yet officially supporting cloud gaming platforms, including Shadow. Our releases are not tested on these platforms or Windows emulations on Mac and Linux, and we can’t guarantee compatibility at this point. The game is still in beta, and we are focusing our efforts on native Windows PC support.
 
We plan to officially support these platforms at some point, and would like to ensure that when we do we are able to offer ongoing compatibility with adequate testing and collaboration with the platform holders to make a long-term commitment. 
 
We recently started working with a cloud gaming platform in an official manner, and we are hopeful to announce our official support of that platform soon. In the meantime, compatibility with cloud gaming platforms can’t be guaranteed. We log bugs and look at potential quick wins, but we can’t commit to a timeframe for fixing them. Please also note that there is a waiting list of one year to have access to one of the machines of Shadow, which makes debugging all the more difficult.
 
Will there be an updated roadmap?
At the moment, there is no plan to release an official roadmap with dates. We tried to explain why in the three devblogs. We’re changing many things in the way we develop DU, and it’s hard right now to have a clear idea of our future velocity. We don’t want to give you dates that we might not hold. We think it’s more important to have the freedom to adapt to your feedback rather than trying to hit the dates on a public roadmap. We hope you will see this as a sign that things are changing for the better and that we’re being more realistic in our approach.
 
Why don’t we have more frequent releases?
Dual Universe is an extremely complex game to develop. Many of the systems we have already in place are interdependent, and changing or adding a feature has ripple effects on other features and systems both in terms of code and in terms of feature design. For example, RDMS has to be carefully considered in many things we do, as does  the role of organizations in the introduction of new features, etc. Most of the tech we use is custom and not off-the-shelf. It’s one of the secret sauces of the game, and it also makes features much more difficult to work on because we develop the tech AND the features at the same time.
 
Now, with the introduction of the PTS, we hope to make more frequent releases, including releases of prototypes, such as the Lua technology for screen units. How frequently will depend on what goes in these releases and how much work needs to be done after we receive feedback from the PTS. We estimate that you can expect three to four additional major releases in 2021, and smaller releases in-between, but that’s only a ballpark estimate for now.
 
What’s going on with long-standing beta bugs? Are you going to fix them?
Yes we will fix them as quickly as possible although we aren’t able to pinpoint an exact date. Some bugs are easier to squash than others, and some even require a rework of an entire complete backend system to resolve. These processes need to be scheduled accordingly, also taking into account that we want to avoid reworking the same thing multiple times if we suspect that the development of an upcoming feature will force us to rework the same system again. The more critical the bug, the higher the priority. When we’re focused on fixing bugs,  that means we’re not working on the plan we presented to you, so it’s a balancing act. We wish we could give you a list of bugs and a timeframe for each one, but that would be highly unrealistic. These bugs are not being forgotten, that’s the best we can tell you right now.
 
Can we expect a more frequent communication from Novaquark?
We’d love to, just understand that the frequency of our communications really depends on the cadence of the game releases. The way it works is that as soon as the content of a new release is established (at least a content draft), we sit down and make a plan for how and when we’re going to talk about these features/this content. Often we have to wait until a feature is stable enough in terms of game design and/or coding to be able to talk about it or show it, as a feature can evolve a lot along the development process and the unfolding of our sprints. We simply want to ensure that the information we give you isn't misleading, as early communication means the end result may differ significantly once development is complete and the feature is released.
So between releases, there is indeed a communication gap. 
 
There are different general topics we could discuss between releases, but they wouldn’t really bring anything concrete to the table and that communication could be seen as shallow and vague. It’s actually an interesting topic we’d like to explore with you: what is it exactly that you expect in terms of communication? How can we balance having meaningful content to present with what seems to be the need of our players to see ongoing communication? Based on reactions we’ve seen in the past, we  believe that communicating simply for the sake of it when we have nothing really new to talk about is never well-received.
 
What about PvE? Are you planning to add PvE features to make the game more varied?
Our current focus is on enabling emergent content between players. PvE is not one of our priorities at the moment. This doesn’t mean that it won’t ever come to the game, but it is not going to be added before the official release of the game. That said, one could potentially consider the challenges that we’re currently working on as some form of PvE, though not in the sense that you’ll be shooting NPCs or wildlife.
 
Will we see a return of NQ employee Interviews and AMAs?
We would love to do things like livestreams and AMAs again when the time is right. We feel like these formats are better suited when there is a clearly defined topic to focus the discussion, such as a major release for instance. It is duly noted that these interactions with the community are appreciated, and we will include them whenever possible.
 
You mentioned the changes in the industry gameplay, but it wasn’t clear if schematics will stay or go?
The honest answer is that we don’t know yet. When we introduced schematics, it was a major disturbance in the forc… in the economy of the game.  We don’t want to rush into more changes after that, especially given that players invested a lot of hard-earned quanta in buying them. Removing schematics is ONE of the options we’re looking at, as well as changing their prices or adding more recipes. Reverting to the way it was before the introduction of schematics is also on the table. We know we want to do something with the current state of the industry to add back some of the fun that was taken away with 0.23, but how exactly we’ll do it is yet to be decided.  
 
Is there going to be a wipe?
We see that the debate on the topic has been pretty hot in the community for a while, and it’s about the same at Novaquark. We’re uncertain if the changes we are planning to introduce will require a wipe or not, and we’ve started (intense) internal discussions on the topic. Our priority is to try to preserve the time and effort that our players have put in the game since the beta started. Once we’ve got a better idea of how much the changes we discussed in the third  “Future of DU” devblog will impact the game’s economy, we’ll make a decision. If there is a wipe (and it’s a big IF), it may be a partial one only affecting certain aspects of the universe. Our  priority will be to mitigate the impact for long-time players.

Join us in our feedback thread here!
 

Hello Noveans,

Over the past months, we have been working with the Support and Community teams to better identify the wants and needs of our players. These findings have sparked the initiative to implement a Live Support system to address some of the most common issues during peak times as well as address urgent tickets outside of office-hours. In addition, we’re adding some self-help tools that will enable you to resolve some of the most common issues without having to reach out to Support.

The changes described below will be included in the next update.
 
NEW TOOLS
We are making it easier for players to help themselves in times of need. This is in the form of the following three features, one of which many of you will already be familiar with.
 
Global Chats
To better organize and filter the chat within the game, we are implementing the following channels:
General - Joined by default and can not be left. Help - Joined by default and can be left. Trade - Can be joined and left.  You can interact with these channels by using the following commands in the text window:
/join - To join a channel, such as Trade, i.e. “/join Trade”. /help - Lists all available commands. To leave a channel, right-click on the channel tab. We know that global channels have been in high demand from our community, and we’re thankful for that feedback and the opportunity to see them implemented. Please continue to provide feedback about our chat system on our forums.
 
Fetch
If you have a dynamic construct that’s become stuck, you can right mouse button-click on the construct from your map view and click to Fetch. This will teleport the construct towards you, allowing you to reach and interact with it normally.

We had hoped to be able to make this redundant; however we have seen that there is still a need for it. We are now intending to leave this feature available for the entire duration of beta, initially with these parameters:  
Players can only fetch once per 24 hours. Maximum range has been limited to 4,000 meters. Players must be standing on a planet/moon’s surface.  
Unstuck
If you find yourself trapped and unable to resume your current play, you can now use /unstuck in chat to free yourself in a random direction. This feature has the following limitations:
You can use this command once per five minutes. This teleports you up to 100 meters in a random direction. Teleports can not move players into the building zone of any construct.
  Please note that the Fetch and Unstuck features are intended to be used only to free stuck constructs and avatars. Any usage outside of this scope may be considered an exploit and actioned accordingly. The team will be continually monitoring the behaviour and results of these features, tweaking when and where needed to ensure that players are not abusing these systems designed to help players in need.
 
LIVE SUPPORT
It is important to emphasize that the purpose of Live Support is not to cover all game knowledge questions and assistance scenarios, at least not in this first incarnation. We’ve noticed that many of our community members enjoy helping and teaching other players. We strongly encourage everyone to join our forums where players and organizations can offer further guidance and services to each other.

That being said, our Support staff will be monitoring the in-game Help channel for any issues that are eligible for assistance, to offer advice regarding knowledge resources, or to recommend when players should file a Support ticket. 

Here is a sample of the assistance we may offer: 
Assistance with the tutorial. Freeing stuck characters (if /unstuck does not work). Raising constructs from below the surface (if Fetch did not work). Fetching ships stuck in the sky above a planet (if Fetch did not work). Refreshing glitched elements.  
Should you encounter one of these issues, give us a shout out with a description of your issue via @GM in the Help channel. Please allow at least 10 minutes for a response, after which you may choose to file a Support ticket instead. With the implementation of Live Support, we are expecting a significant improvement to response time for urgent inquiries.

We are very interested in hearing your feedback and your thoughts about these changes. Please join the discussion here.

Given the way you have written your post, I would say: please don't join this game.

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/22123-mining-efficiency-5-talent-likely-adds-zero-per-level/
 
 
Also: The daily quanta login screen blocks the "back to the surface ..." event from triggering. This means that if you fall through the surface on login, and the daily quanta screen is up, you will continue to fall until you click "ok". The effects of this can be interesting: if you continue falling, then by inspecting the altimeter and speed you can see that you will eventually oscillate around the centre of the planet (no interaction with the planet "core" that is in the game proper). When you finally get bored and click "ok" on the daily quanta screen, you'll be teleported to the surface of the tile that you are in. Of course, if you've oscillated to the other side of the centre of the planet you'll appear exactly on the other side of the planet to the one you started on. Free teleporting!

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/22123-mining-efficiency-5-talent-likely-adds-zero-per-level/
 
 
Also: The daily quanta login screen blocks the "back to the surface ..." event from triggering. This means that if you fall through the surface on login, and the daily quanta screen is up, you will continue to fall until you click "ok". The effects of this can be interesting: if you continue falling, then by inspecting the altimeter and speed you can see that you will eventually oscillate around the centre of the planet (no interaction with the planet "core" that is in the game proper). When you finally get bored and click "ok" on the daily quanta screen, you'll be teleported to the surface of the tile that you are in. Of course, if you've oscillated to the other side of the centre of the planet you'll appear exactly on the other side of the planet to the one you started on. Free teleporting!

Since the ticket queue is bound to be overwhelmed, this is just a friendly little announcement that Eyes & Ears Search and Rescue is ready and able to accommodate players requests for situations that do not fall outside another players ability to assist. Aside from the typical rescue, repair, refuel, and transport situations, this non-exhaustive list of situations include:
 
Crashing and respawning
Surrogate sessions swapping places with your avatar
Someone leaving your space station unaware your ship is docked to theirs
Constructs getting stuck up in the air
 
This does not include:
Respawning inside your friends construct with no way out
Glitching under someone's base
Adjuster locks (get out and back into the pilots seat)
Disobeying the rules and NQ teleporting you to some moon 1,000 SU away with no ore/resources/constructs.
 
For any requests, we ask that you join our Discord server and submit a ticket and our dispatchers will help you find a rescuer to get you back up on your feet.
 
While NovaQuark is pulling back in support, Eyes & Ears is stepping forward as a player run solution to fill that void.

Interesting that you have one example of it working, not a very accurate example though, try it a few more times with actual rescaning and recording the results.

We know that the Mining Efficiency +5% ore extracted talent isn't working properly. Other threads have reported this, and NQ have said via twitter that they changed the talent. However they didn't say what they changed the talent to, even after persistent asking. Could it be +1% or +0.5% per talent level? It still says +5% in game, which is quite unfair to players who choose to train this, and who are unaware that it doesn't work.
 
In another thread in these forums, there were many wild ideas about what the talent did. So after rolling my eyes at this, @Billy_Boolaand I decided to do the obvious:
Scan a hex and record the ore value. Call this S (in kilo-litres). Mine a known amount of ore. Call this m. Re-scan the hex and see how much ore remains. Call this s. Repeat until bored.  
The data we recorded is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kIquhrbSAllViRFlCqtxtfS0SJCq76FWpgiyt1u6jr8/edit#gid=0
Yes we got bored fairly quickly. (Mining boring?!)
 
The talent as written says that
(S-s)(1+xT) = m where T is the talent level (0-5), and x is the (for the purposes of this experiment) unknown +x% level of ore added per talent level. 0.01=1%.
 
If the above is correct then we can estimate x via:
x=(m/(S-s)-1)/T  for any talent level >0.  
The data in the above spreadsheet does this for n=30 datapoints. The results are:
Sample mean = -0.0011 (4 d.p.) Sample standard deviation = 0.0060 95% confidence interval for the true value of x = (-0.0033, 0.0012)  
Conclusion: The Mining Efficiency talent most likely adds ZERO ore per talent level.
 
Notes:
There is some noise (rounding) in the data as scans report ore in KL to 2 d.p. and only more when the ore amount is low. I'm too lazy to attempt to account for this. We have no idea if the territory scan amount accurately represents the amount in the hex I didn't attempt to see if there were any variations via planet, ore tier, player(!) or a different +x% amount per tier level.

We know that the Mining Efficiency +5% ore extracted talent isn't working properly. Other threads have reported this, and NQ have said via twitter that they changed the talent. However they didn't say what they changed the talent to, even after persistent asking. Could it be +1% or +0.5% per talent level? It still says +5% in game, which is quite unfair to players who choose to train this, and who are unaware that it doesn't work.
 
In another thread in these forums, there were many wild ideas about what the talent did. So after rolling my eyes at this, @Billy_Boolaand I decided to do the obvious:
Scan a hex and record the ore value. Call this S (in kilo-litres). Mine a known amount of ore. Call this m. Re-scan the hex and see how much ore remains. Call this s. Repeat until bored.  
The data we recorded is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kIquhrbSAllViRFlCqtxtfS0SJCq76FWpgiyt1u6jr8/edit#gid=0
Yes we got bored fairly quickly. (Mining boring?!)
 
The talent as written says that
(S-s)(1+xT) = m where T is the talent level (0-5), and x is the (for the purposes of this experiment) unknown +x% level of ore added per talent level. 0.01=1%.
 
If the above is correct then we can estimate x via:
x=(m/(S-s)-1)/T  for any talent level >0.  
The data in the above spreadsheet does this for n=30 datapoints. The results are:
Sample mean = -0.0011 (4 d.p.) Sample standard deviation = 0.0060 95% confidence interval for the true value of x = (-0.0033, 0.0012)  
Conclusion: The Mining Efficiency talent most likely adds ZERO ore per talent level.
 
Notes:
There is some noise (rounding) in the data as scans report ore in KL to 2 d.p. and only more when the ore amount is low. I'm too lazy to attempt to account for this. We have no idea if the territory scan amount accurately represents the amount in the hex I didn't attempt to see if there were any variations via planet, ore tier, player(!) or a different +x% amount per tier level.

We know that the Mining Efficiency +5% ore extracted talent isn't working properly. Other threads have reported this, and NQ have said via twitter that they changed the talent. However they didn't say what they changed the talent to, even after persistent asking. Could it be +1% or +0.5% per talent level? It still says +5% in game, which is quite unfair to players who choose to train this, and who are unaware that it doesn't work.
 
In another thread in these forums, there were many wild ideas about what the talent did. So after rolling my eyes at this, @Billy_Boolaand I decided to do the obvious:
Scan a hex and record the ore value. Call this S (in kilo-litres). Mine a known amount of ore. Call this m. Re-scan the hex and see how much ore remains. Call this s. Repeat until bored.  
The data we recorded is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kIquhrbSAllViRFlCqtxtfS0SJCq76FWpgiyt1u6jr8/edit#gid=0
Yes we got bored fairly quickly. (Mining boring?!)
 
The talent as written says that
(S-s)(1+xT) = m where T is the talent level (0-5), and x is the (for the purposes of this experiment) unknown +x% level of ore added per talent level. 0.01=1%.
 
If the above is correct then we can estimate x via:
x=(m/(S-s)-1)/T  for any talent level >0.  
The data in the above spreadsheet does this for n=30 datapoints. The results are:
Sample mean = -0.0011 (4 d.p.) Sample standard deviation = 0.0060 95% confidence interval for the true value of x = (-0.0033, 0.0012)  
Conclusion: The Mining Efficiency talent most likely adds ZERO ore per talent level.
 
Notes:
There is some noise (rounding) in the data as scans report ore in KL to 2 d.p. and only more when the ore amount is low. I'm too lazy to attempt to account for this. We have no idea if the territory scan amount accurately represents the amount in the hex I didn't attempt to see if there were any variations via planet, ore tier, player(!) or a different +x% amount per tier level.

We know that the Mining Efficiency +5% ore extracted talent isn't working properly. Other threads have reported this, and NQ have said via twitter that they changed the talent. However they didn't say what they changed the talent to, even after persistent asking. Could it be +1% or +0.5% per talent level? It still says +5% in game, which is quite unfair to players who choose to train this, and who are unaware that it doesn't work.
 
In another thread in these forums, there were many wild ideas about what the talent did. So after rolling my eyes at this, @Billy_Boolaand I decided to do the obvious:
Scan a hex and record the ore value. Call this S (in kilo-litres). Mine a known amount of ore. Call this m. Re-scan the hex and see how much ore remains. Call this s. Repeat until bored.  
The data we recorded is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kIquhrbSAllViRFlCqtxtfS0SJCq76FWpgiyt1u6jr8/edit#gid=0
Yes we got bored fairly quickly. (Mining boring?!)
 
The talent as written says that
(S-s)(1+xT) = m where T is the talent level (0-5), and x is the (for the purposes of this experiment) unknown +x% level of ore added per talent level. 0.01=1%.
 
If the above is correct then we can estimate x via:
x=(m/(S-s)-1)/T  for any talent level >0.  
The data in the above spreadsheet does this for n=30 datapoints. The results are:
Sample mean = -0.0011 (4 d.p.) Sample standard deviation = 0.0060 95% confidence interval for the true value of x = (-0.0033, 0.0012)  
Conclusion: The Mining Efficiency talent most likely adds ZERO ore per talent level.
 
Notes:
There is some noise (rounding) in the data as scans report ore in KL to 2 d.p. and only more when the ore amount is low. I'm too lazy to attempt to account for this. We have no idea if the territory scan amount accurately represents the amount in the hex I didn't attempt to see if there were any variations via planet, ore tier, player(!) or a different +x% amount per tier level.

Hahaha your credible source needs to keep me in the loop. I've heard nothing about a wipe! ?‍♀️

Alright, I have an answer for you.

"The first thing to keep in mind is that you have to spend quanta in order to begin a mission, which creates some measure of abuse deterrence. Also note that the issuer and respondent rate each other at the end of each mission.

To avoid reputation farming and other forms of abuse, we've given everyone the ability to review the whole mission history of a player. If you feel that his reputation has been manipulated/is suspicious, you can check the player's past missions and assess the issuers/distance/completion state etc."

Very interesting prospect. I'll share this suggestion!

I seriously don't understand why NQ insists on destroying the ability for the market to stabilize. So we had bots buying ore , then the bots slowly got eaten away and people started trading ore with each other again. Prices were beginning to stabilize in the upper teens , then bam without warning suddenly the bots refill their orders today. Everyone buys out the lower orders and sells to the bots and we are right back to everyone dumping ore to the magical bot orders.
 
How in the world do you ever expect any player market stability to form when you insist on a whim destroying whatever pricing has stabilized. Not to mention the fact that you make it even harder for producers to acquire ore in bulk because everyone is selling it to bots. No one knows your bot plan , so I'm certainly not going to post buy orders above the bots , because for all I know if I wait a week or two you won't refresh them and then I will have bought a bunch of ore at twice the going rate.
 
I mean seriously where is the common sense that your haphazard bot orders are unhealthy to the game world. At least if you said "we are permanently having bots buy these ores at this price" we could actually plan around that. Same would hold true if you said "after this batch of bot orders there will never be bots buying ore again". You don't however communicate any of this with the player base. This paralyzes the markets because producers cannot properly plan pricing , traders risk at buying and selling products is forever at risk at the carpet being pulled out from under them.
 
I mean truly , you have central bank like power with these bot orders and apparently none of the common sense that would generally be required of people in those positions. No one knows what your doing, no one can anticipate when you'll wave your hand and completely unhinge the market again. Seriously , please treat the player base with some respect and either tell us your plans with the bots or just remove them and let the players actually control the market without your random sledge hammer bots.
 
  
 
 

At some point you would think that people would consider the amount of outright rudeness in their posts.
 
If people have nothing constructive to say, then please don't bother.

At some point you would think that people would consider the amount of outright rudeness in their posts.
 
If people have nothing constructive to say, then please don't bother.

I doubt that, there was a lot of noise by a vocal minority, I doubt many people left over this and most of those that did were going to leave anyway, it's early days for DU and a lot of players that started playing the beta were always going to decide that it isn't their sort of game while others decide it is their type of game