Castanietzsche

今更？！！ 　As we say in Japan, "Ima sara?"..... Oh, so *now* we're down to a double digit player base they are talking about monetization?
Another one we use in situations like this is...
後の祭り! Ato no matsuri..... meaning, "the festival is already over..."

Microtransactions with the current population is going to be pretty much the death throes of DU. There is no way MTs can raise useful amounts of cash with these numbers. Unless MTs stands for Mega Transactions.

Speed limitation based on mass
The max speed change is a bad idea. Besides it being not needed, the tools to better balance acceleration in relation to thrust and mass are already in the game and could just be tweaked to better balance behaviour, it severely nerfs missions as it will make trips be much longer and more risky with nothing to justify the risk.,
 
It is a typical example of a team with no intercommunication, no long-term plan, badly documented features and generally people just throwing stuff on the table and getting it greenlit without anyone questioning it.
 
In space there is no "max speed", As long as you can apply more thrust than the mass of your object, you accelerate, it is that simple. For technical reasons having a cap at 30K is fair enough but capping speed based on mass, especially when you already have the means to better balance this, makes absolutely no sense.
 
A much better balance, bar proper power management, would be for a core to have a set capacitor value, and each element would draw from that to function. This would mean choices need to be made as to what is included on a ship and would drive co-operation and fleeting for larger or multipurpose/function ops. You could specialize in cargo and run a ship designed for that more efficiently, with more thrust and cargo capacity by using more engines as opposed to a mix of engines and weapons for instance.

Talents could extend the efficiency of capacitor use for different elements, which would drive specialization and (again) co-operation. Even better would be the option for players to combine their specialization by being seated in command chairs which would add their combined capacitor skillset to the ships core.
 
It's really not hard to be creative with this but it seems NQ lacks any ability to do so.
 
 
Stasis Weapons
The statis weapon is another one which entirely misses the mark. It’s not the small ship needing to slow down the bigger one, it is the exact opposite. The bigger ship needs to be able to slow does the smaller one's transversal speed in order to be able to hit it with weapons that track slower than the small ship moves. In general it seems NQ lacks a fundamental understanding of PVP engagement or how these mechanics should be designed.   
 
 
This announcement reeks of NQ rushing to a release so fast they completely forgot what they are working on and what has been done in the past. A PTS weekend one week from now seems to imply they may even push Athena much sooner than "Late Spring" and may well want to "release" by September .. And that release simply can never come even close to what NQ set out to do and committed to during their kickstarter, something they have an obligation to deliver on.
 

Yes, if I didn't know better I'd start thinking that whoever wrote that doesn't really understand the way PvP is actually done.  Nobody really uses armoured ships very much now because of the core stress change.  It certainly isn't relied on as armour the way it used to be.  It will mean an end to the slowly escalating 'put more XL rare space engines on it' meta and that's a good thing but I think most PvP ships will probably still weigh aroud the same as each other (somewhere around the 0.8-2kt mark) so they'll probably have similar top speeds anyway.  As you say, the real losers here are going to be the non-pvp ships running ore between planets (or whatever) who were fairly easy to hunt before and will now be ridiculously easy because they'll be so much slower than the ships hunting them.  So it's just making easy kills easier IMO.

I think it would have been much more interesting to go the other way, so high mass gives a higher top speed at the cost of reduced acceleration (particularly at the higher speeds).  Then there are some real costs, tradeoffs and tactics to balance against each other rather than 'lighter is always better'.  Do you want to be able to maneuver/accelerate or to be able to go faster in a straight line?

That would mean that large haulers, for example, could outrun pirates if they're lucky but if someone gets them with a stasis shot they can slow them down and then they're caught.  Also if you get someone's vector then they'll be easier to catch as with reduced braking and acceleration it would be more difficult for the prey to change vector without slowing down and being caught.

Salut à tous !
 
Ici NQ-Nishtar, votre nouvelle CM FR sur Dual Universe... Ravie de vous rencontrer !
 
C’est un réel honneur de pouvoir enfin me présenter à vous.
 
Tout d’abord, sachez que vous risquez de me voir apparaître de temps en temps sur les plateformes anglophones. Pas de panique, mes missions sont principalement dédiées à développer à vos côtés la communauté francophone.
 
Etant nouvelle sur le projet, il faudra me laisser le temps de m’adapter et d’apprendre à vous connaître avant que je puisse vous proposer un plan d’attaque. Mais, si vous avez d’ores et déjà des propositions à faire concernant la communauté française, n’hésitez pas à venir m’en parler !
 
Pour la petite anecdote, avant Novaquark, je travaillais sur un autre MMO. Et je compte bien continuer à apprécier à mes heures perdues l’univers de DU !
 
En tout cas, je suis très motivée pour commencer cette aventure et j’ai hâte d’échanger plus en profondeur avec vous, que ce soit à propos du jeu ou juste des diverses questions et requêtes que vous pourriez avoir.
 
Alors n’hésitez pas à venir discuter avec moi. Je n’aurai peut-être pas toujours LA réponse, mais je ferai tout mon possible pour vous aider du mieux que je peux. Je suis persuadée que nous avons beaucoup à apprendre mutuellement les uns des autres ☺️
 
A très vite !

Another important factor related to this is the lack of economic growth. PvP is the icing on the cake, but cannot be the sole core of the economy for the following reason:
 
The difference between a PUSH economy and a PULL economy.
 
In a PUSH economy:   When overall wealth comes from the lowest/first activity of the value chain, anything that follows it  along the creation chain is a luxury (meaning not a necessity)
                                        Thus, demand for complex goods happens only where there is excess capital and can be afforded.
 
In a PULL economy: The last link in the production chain is vital to the survival and profit of the main activities. In this case, there is a much larger demand pool because the entire                                                         production chain is needed to create the income and vital to providing the defense of income-creation equipment.
 
 
This is why making money from PvE rewards is much, much healthier for the economy than mining.  When overall demand is low as in the PUSH economy, all prices will eventually drop to the level of barely above the cost of input raw materials. This is due to an overabundance of supply competition.
 
The price premiums injected by the high cost of schematics will eventually fade away as it is only a fixed cost, and once people have recovered their initial investment, then excessive supply competition will force it down. The only long term fix is to increase demand.
 
 

To clarify my earlier post:

PvP is inherently a zero-sum game or less.  It is a net loss due to fuel consumption and repairs, even if you win the battles some of the time.

PvE on the other hand can be a net gain because enemy space bots won't get burned out on losing big or rage quitting.  PvP is best used to control who gets the best hunting grounds for PvE, and defending lucrative turf. As it stands, there is nothing worth defending in the game as almost everything is available elsewhere. Because mines are single use and don't refresh, even the best meganode has a limited lifespan and the costs of defending it or attacking it could reduce its value quite a bit.
 
I don't think that bragging rights of winning a PvP battle is a sustainable reason to spend the huge gobs of time and money that it takes to win it on a large scale.
 
In EVE online, there was lots of PvP, but there was also PvE to practice on, hone your skills, and walk away with more cash than you came in with. At the moment, there is no point to DU outside of crafting pretty stuff.  Even when the PvP gets revamped with new mechanics,  it may still be missing the most important ingredient - a purpose.  Control of generic territory is not a purpose.
 
Since renewable mining nodes are not available, then control over great (and renewable) hunting spots is something worth engaging group vs. group PvP.  Individual PvP for stealing other people's cargo just isn't sustainable. Because mining nodes wear out, everyone is basically nomadic at the moment. Renewables make a specific geographic location valuable and worth defending.
 
Only when humans stopped being nomadic did civilization truly begin.
 
I'm mining and staying active with the hope that someday there will be more adrenalin-inducing content, comradery in battle,  and a purpose to this grind. 
 

Hi everyone,
 
It seems the DevBlog was not clear enough on some points.
We have said it many times before, and we'll continue to say it again:
While many players wants to see Dual Universe with a dominant gameplay aspect, it's important to understand that it's NOT the case. 
 
Building gameplay is as important as Combat gameplay. Not more, not less. Balancing both won't be easy and we are aware of it. No, Building is not the major feature of Dual Universe. If the Building aspect has been made first, it's only because, it was making total sense to start the development with this part: we are pretty much in R&D field regarding the Voxel technology. It was an essential piece of tech to build the base of the game: Voxels were necessary to create editable planets in the first place. Then the logical next step was to develop tools to give players to manipulate voxels. That wouldn't make sense to develop Combat gameplay before the two previous steps because, there wouldn't even something to destroy, or even an environment where the combat could happen.
 
The order in which the features are developed are NOT by order of importance.
It's just a matter of logical game development roadmap.

We have no plan to make Dual Universe a total free for all PvP game, just as we won't make it a whole game universe safe, just because some players want to explore it completely without taking any risk. While we don't plan to make our game some kind of "EVE Online 2.0", we don't want either to make a "No Man's Sky 2.0". We understand this may not appeal to everyone taste, and we totally understand that. However, if there is something that is very unlikely to change, it's the fact that there's no intention to catter to only one specific category of players. 
 
A final word about the griefing and the mindset of the community. Our point of view is that griefing mainly proliferates when it's an easy way to get rewards with little effort, not necessarily because many people really wants to play that way. Of course, there are people who like to grief just for the enjoyment of annoying other players but we are convinced they're not a majority. If game mechanics are designed in such a way that griefing doesn't give easy rewards, then griefing will be naturally limited. 
 
Why not simply remove the possibility of griefing, then?

Yes, it would be clearly easier and quicker to remove the ability to grief other players, but while we have no intention to encourage griefing, removing it totally would go against the very definition of the sandbox concept: players are free to interact in the way they want. If we remove any kind of interaction, then we are not in a Sandbox MMORPG anymore: we would be in a Theme Park one. And that is not Novaquark's vision. We want a game universe where bad behavior is discouraged by game mechanics and heavy in consequences if a player still choose to do so, than arbitrarily forbid the said behavior. We want players to be free but also to live with the consequences of their choices. That's what Sandbox mean to us at Novaquark.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

In one of the topics, Nyzaltar responed to Daddio, talking about how elements could be rotated, but rotation of voxels is not yet supported. Nyzaltar said about this, "but it should be implemented when the Voxel Elements will be introduced ingame." That was in May of 2016, so something could have changed that I missed.
 
So if this hasn't already, is it definitively going to happen at some point?
If rotation of voxels happens, to what degree of precision and accuracy can this be done?
Can we rotate a Voxel Element down to the degree, half a degree, tenth of a degree? Or are we more limited to, say, 15 degree intervals?
Can we type in a value of rotation like how you can rotate a selection in Blender with a keyboard shortcut and then value, or are we limited to rolling the mouse wheel and eyeballing it or snapping between 15 degree intervals?
 
What I have in mind specifically is how very large, round, circular, and spherical shapes (such as in a space station...which is a sphere...and is sometimes mistaken for a moon... ) will be designed/constructed: will it only be possible to create a massive sphere out of upright, aligned blocks (aka minecraft style) and then smooth the whole structure afterwards? Or will it be possible using aforementioned rotation techniques to build a large hollow sphere/cylinder in a way similar to the makeup of a static mesh by connecting thousands of ever-so-slightly rotated voxel tiles (comparable to polygons of a static mesh), voxel tiles being large flat shapes? If that last part is too poorly described, imagine making a giant soccer ball by first making the hexagons and pentagons out of voxels and then rotating them and placing them together at the seams.
 
If this topic is already answered elsewhere, please leave a link.
Thanks 
- Sir_Rat

If trees generate lag the first thing to do is kill all trees around a base, but if trees generate lag i can imagine that every generated small hole also generates lag, so then if that was the case and i want a lagg infested base so its easy to defend i would just make the ground one chees grid of about a thousand small hole tunnels crisscrossing my territory. That is probably then a very effective way to overload the server on my position. So the lagg reason to not introduce trees is one we can scrap as probably the players themselves can find ways to induce lagg much more efficient.

It'd be nice if we were able to plant trees or to fill pools with water. Or even to grow seeds !
I don't know if the wood is a ressource right now (I suppose, I've seen parquet floor and furnitures) but I definitely want to be able to get some voxels without digging and mining !

It'd be nice if we were able to plant trees or to fill pools with water. Or even to grow seeds !
I don't know if the wood is a ressource right now (I suppose, I've seen parquet floor and furnitures) but I definitely want to be able to get some voxels without digging and mining !

Basically its a trail that can be left behind you so you can find your way back. either a light , flare breadcrumb or a coloured trail ,luminous floor. Would help when mining in the same material as often you cannot workout where you are as everything looks the same.  Perhaps a device that maps the tunnels for you.

So, this is my first post.
I just purchased the Patron Pack yesterday and I want to support this game
 
Here's a suggestion:
-Avatars are limited to 0.05MB, whereas your profile background has 0 limits - I was able to set a 12MB image as background and it took ages to load my profile.
> Please increase the Avatar size a bit, and limit user backgrounds so they dont use too much space.
 
You're using IPB so this should be easily be doable

People in Russia are called Russians, those in France are French, and people from America are Americans; but what should people in Dual Universe be called?
 
"Dual Universians" is kind of immersion-breaking, since it is nothing other than the title of the game itself.
 
So, what do you think?
 
If you have any suggestions other than what is on the poll, please feel free to suggest them!
I will try to keep up with this and post any other REASONABLE options on the poll. I will not be putting up anything I think is offensive, or if it is just pointless. (like: "name-of-my-organization"-ites, or "I-like-space"-ers.)
 
Other than that, let's hear your thoughts!
 
(By the way, you can select more than one option in the poll. )

DU is giving us some excellent tools to create and build with. Guaranteed that players will build some awesome unique constructs I sure others will not be allowed to destroy these creations. 

I'm really not optimistic about buying DAC with in-game currency.
We don't have any information on how easy will it be to gather enough IG money, and that can be huge. For example, in World of Warcraft it's ridiculously long to get enough for 1 month and your month will still be paid by another player. (in this extreme case he even pays more than by buying a month for himself...).
That's also very unwholesome to connect real currency to in-game one.
 
This argument isn't one or it is a scam. I think that the expensive pricing of Dual Universe is going to refrain tons of people to play. The point is, we used to play MMOs and minecraft because our friends played it at school, it became a social phenomenon, everybody spoke about it and playing with friends is really that makes people love multiplayer games.
About we can suscribe month by month... It's not day by day. You may suffer from a confirmation bias but this game IS one of the most expensive game ever made. It's much more expensive than Europa Universalis IV. And we still don't know how many in-game purchases there will be.
About the "free 2 years" while playing during the beta, hey a game in beta is full of bug. You test the game, that's all.
 
That being said, this game is really expensive but I still bought it because I think I'll have tons of fun on it.