EasternGamer

I'm not sure why everyone is so agro about this topic. What do you mean by this? You mean like a third "option" where you can enter your own, or did you mean like a option to change your vote?

...the majority of the forum community believes in a dark, inky-black sky. If no one knows the irony, "Niemand" is German/Dutch/Afrikaans for "Nobody" ? "NOBODY CARES, dual universe is scifi fantasy and so is freelancer." "nobody wants the realistic black empty space of nothing" I considered it ironic that a person named "niemand", the word for "nobody" in another language, used the word "Nobody" in a way that can be interpreted in a way to say "EASTERNGAMER CARES," and "easterngamer wants..." I have no idea why you have to assume intelect based on comment meant to be a joke. Your username isn't a joke, the context of your words made it ironic. Irony is funny. Really, no offense was ever intended towards you or anyone else. I was just correcting your statement that "nobody cares" is a completely false statement. There are people who do care—like myself, and 15 others agree with me.

Sorry, but "Niemand", oh the irony, it's pretty clear by both the poll and the comments, the majority of the forum community believes in a dark, inky-black sky. I would agree. Making UI is not easy, but the current space environment makes so many good-looking UI look terrible. In generally, they need to improve lighting in the game. So many things just don't make any sense, like light bleeding through voxels, or the fact that eye adjustment is just broken. (And don't even get me started on how stupid luminescent glass can be with lighting) Though, I hadn't really cared about skybox, on second thought, it does look weird. I would prefer the more realistic look. Edit: If no one knows the irony, "Niemand" is German/Dutch/Afrikaans for "Nobody" ?

Perspective? I'm working on a HUD-based projection system. Probably would run faster on the new screen API because it's all just lines and circles.

That is beyond the scope of what I can really say. PVE should take place out in the PVP zone, where it will be more like PVPVE. Maybe an asteroid is an NPC pirate's base and you have to kill them first. The "strictly a hunt" bit is a little inaccurate. Maybe they could be rewards for NPC missions? For explorers, the idea that exploring could yield money is great. Like, imagine finding an asteroid before everyone else and it has an exotic L weapon schematic, you could make a huge amount of profit without even digging. You could even sell the cords of the asteroid itself. The balance has to come for how a discovery is made. Giving a massive advantage to large orgs should be avoided. They should have an advantage, but not one that is a landslide.

Regarding schematics, I feel they should be something you find and can sell on the market. Maybe with the asteroids, there could be a crashed ship with a schematic or two on them? Players can then sell these schematics on the market. ^^ Just a quick suggestion. Edit: PVE content could tie into it in the future as well as an alternative method of finding schematics.

Lol, NQ has nothing to do with the forum look and feel. "ISP Theme by ISPFocus" "Powered by Invision Community" Anyway, it would have been a waste of resources for NQ to make their own forum.

You didn't answer my question. What is A/A+? If it doesn't exist yet, adjust your scale. I also disagree with you on ship building. I don't want to assume, but it's probably because you can't make something look nice in Dual Universe. Combat in Dual Universe is very placeholder at the moment for me. As for the combat, it's a far more realistic depiction of what space combat could be in reality. It's not the most action-packed, but when you're encouraged to keep distance and high speeds, people will do so. And, considering people can push 12G's in acceleration, close quarter combat makes even less sense because you're talk 117.6 m.s^-1 velocity change every second. Considering in games like Space Engineers the max speed is less than that...

"or in any other way moving a construct that does not belong to you"

What would an A/A+ be in Mining, Ship Building and Infantry combat? Why is ship building a C-? Sounds like it's not the game for me since I consider DU's ship building A+ at least, and that's practically 99% of what I do in the game at the moment.

Yeah, I was right. It isn't much different fundamentally. Much like any space game. You shoot, you mine, you build. It looks cool, sure, but it's just an expanded version of DU with a more defined damage model, physics and mining. I'm not saying it's better or worse, I'm saying it's not the answer to everything. Much like Dual Universe wasn't the answer to everything if you had only played Space Engineers.

As for the Empire, we're building our station out in space. Most of the people who offered to help build are building it. On the PVP side, we're building our fleet back up. We're almost ready for official PVP ops again. I don't think Starbase is much different. You build, you shoot, you mine. I haven't played any of it, but, seeing the videos, it's not the answer to everything.

What does "PE" mean here? Lol, I'm familiar with that term.

I don't think anything more needs to be said when Deckard clearly says "transporting of third party ships out of safe zones for the purposes of pvp and claiming them is not allowed." This is someone from NQ stating on/off the record that what was done is essentially not okay. It doesn't matter the method of transport, be it gravity, the ship's original velocity. If you say it's too broad and not official enough, no one can help you there. Also, you're defending this, why? Is it because your source of income is this and you're afraid now that the technicalities of the rules may no longer hold true? I would urge you to just stop. However, I'm 100% with you that NQ should handle the motion of an object server-side once no one's on it, until it just gets really far away. It's not computationally excessive. You don't need to render an entire construct, just a point in space with x,y,z coordinates and a velocity vector. Hell, even slow down the simulation time, it wouldn't matter until you actually saw the construct anyway. Things like orbiting ships can be a thing. I'd estimate they could even locally run it on maybe ten modern desktops, if they had to. They're just points in space that need to be simulated. And, to reduce load, just simulate ships which move more than one block a second. That should eliminate static ships. Edit: The only downside might be dev time, depending on how messy or complicated they made simulated motion be.

But that's how it works. You don't need someone from NQ to say that. And you have like a 0.01% chance they will say anything on that.

Based on your last statement, you seem to not know how the game works. Parenting is both between constructs and between a construct and a player. Have you noticed how you also move along with the ship when the ship begins to move, and when you go too far out, you no longer move with the ship? That's because you're parented to the construct. Just like how a construct is parented to another construct. The world parenting probably comes from the fact that any object attached to another is described as a "child" and "parent" object, respectively. On your other points, common sense says that, if it is in the safe zone to begin with, it should be considered untouchable. If you do anything to make it no longer safe, or steal it, then it's exploiting a mechanic unfairly. If that mechanic is bugged, or working as intended, using it to get a ship outside the safe zone or crash, without the permissions to fly it, is a no-no. But if it is in PVP space to begin with, you can do whatever you want.

The game crashes the moment I try export the lua. But that's fine. I can copy and paste the code however I like. I just chose not to use outside editors because I never need to use them. I'm like this meme Replace Math with "An editor" :P

Well, I guess I painted a house with a toothbrush. While not the same as Elias' script, I made my own and just published the incomplete version in the lua chat. I didn't use any outside editors at all.

It would have been open source apparently if he had time to finish it.

If it was in safe zone to start with, then he should get his construct back. He's not going to pay the 300 million. Edit: no one should be banned, however, since no real exploit seemed to be involved.

Well, I think those "special characters" would be removed once it was completel.

I'd say it improved pretty dramatically both visually and performance-wise compared to that pre-alpha video. The beta trailer did what every game trailer, in my opinion, will always do: glamorize everything. I take all trailers with a grain of salt. Especially the action-packed stuff. Anything that looks "movie-like" is probably just fiction. No one's going around and walking about a small-sized factory with 10 other people. It's just unnecessary usage of time. Also, considering the scale of the game, even if you have 20,000 players connected at once, it wouldn't be like you would see people on every single planet and every single market you might go to. I suspect for that to happen, you'd need more like 100,000. Well, that's just my two cents. Finally, someone seems to get it. xD Yes, it's a multiplayer game.

????????????????????????? My dude... You're confused. I showed the definition of "Luminous" This is the definition of Luminescent. It isn't very specific, but it's not meant to be bright... xD Look up the wikipage and you'll see plenty of examples where it doesn't look very bright.

My second thing I wanted to point out was that some/a lot the textures seem to have been reduced to like 128x128 textures... Those are meant to be "wood", but the texture looks like it's been scaled up massively. Might just be me though. (Max Settings btw)

It isn't a realism simulator. But that doesn't change the fact that it probably was never intended to give off large amounts of light. That's what lights are for. That's the (approximate) definition of a luminous... Not sure where you got that definition from. No... actually the current name makes sense.