Warden

I'm all for (working, non-explitable) security cameras with additional functions (beyond a "live feed only" such as recording, perhaps depending on how much energy or 'recording space' you can provide in-game and so on), but the bot thing sounds a bit odd to me so far.

Hm...
 
Perhaps with less blame-shifting or aggression against Vekta, the Helghan people might get something lasting done for their homeworld. Alternatively a war with backlash might risk its integrity and maybe turn it into rubble.
 
'Tis or 'tat.
 
E: Welcome to the community!

To summarize or generalize, I personally still think that in many people's heads, there is an abstract wild fear about PVP, being "griefed", ganked, taken advantage of, etc.
 
Now I realize I might have it easy or be potentially biased: I'm no hardcore PvP fan by default or through playstyle. I don't actively look for the confrontation or need it all the time. I don't intend to hold people up, rob them, ruthlessly destroy their creations, etc.
 
But at the same time I do not hide and shy away from a fight. Defend myself or fight back if need be. I'm currently playing on a DayZRP community that goes with its own lore and setting.
 
And boy, it's a blast!
 
But why? It's the conflict, the survival, the unclear encounters. Anything can happen and at the same time, various factions formed that fight for power, influence and control over the region you play in. From government forces to remnants, to anarchists, communists (secessionists, in a nutshell), to psychopath groups or people and groups with their own agendas - so many interactions, so much to do. And at the same time, despite or due to the conflict, plenty to do for people who may not want to actively fight. Logistics, helping others, moving things back and forth in the war, obtaining intelligence.
 
It's just an example from another game, and while DayZ may not be completely or very comparable to DU, some things remain pretty much universal in conflicts. As someone neither totally fond but not totally averse to PvP either, I can only suggest to look past potentially abstract fears for the future and embrace the possibilities you have in a potentially war-torn or always politically and economically contested universe.
 
Don't let your fears control you and embrace the vast options that unfold before you, and you shall truly go through an immersive or epic experience with ups and downs. And when you look back one time, you will know it was worth the time investment. I want you all to eventually look back and say:
 
"...and boy, has it been a blast!"
 
Even if that means you stayed in safe zones most of the time. But that's fine. Unlike in DayZ and other comparable games, here, we have hard, actual or fully safe zones. Really, make the best of that instead of fearing what could happen. And if even that may be "too much" for you, then maybe DU might not be a game for you. For all it's compromises, there's still risk once you go into certain areas. That's just what it is.
 
 

 
 
As for rank structures and taking orders...
 
...how would you define taking orders? What would be the averse factor, the thing that bugs you there?
 
I'd generalize and say: (Almost) No matter what group you join, you (are expected to) integrate somehow and contribute in some way or form. I think "taking orders" is simply a measure of sharing duties or contributions or managing them. It boils down to the same: You do certain things in the organization or contribute somehow, in whatever pace, in whatever form. My point is, it's likely just "how" the group is organized, but in the end it's still a very much social or collective approach.
 
Less abstract and out of curiosity: What bugs you more? That you are expected to contribute in general or that someone gives you an order or task (with emphasis on how)?
 

Hi everyone.
 
As some of you may wonder why this topic has been locked, here are some clarifications:
As much as it is unacceptable to spam/derail an org recruitment thread just to taunt/harass the one who posted the said thread, it's also unacceptable to start a forum thread with the global idea of "You don't know what PvP is, let me teach you" (because this is how it can be interpreted). It's a highly provocative way of starting a discussion (whether it's intentional or not), and it clearly does not invite to constructive replies.
 
@Daphne Jones
You should really have stick to your point 1 (explaining what is your vision of PvP is totally understandable) and refrain of posting your point 2 (even if you put "imo").
PvP vision varies from one player to another. You have a vision of PvP. Other players may have a different one. Don't put all PvP Combat players in the same bag and give them the nastiest intentions they don't necessarily have, or it will become a self fulfilling prophecy: if you put everyone in the same bag, why would they act differently as you already put them in the same category? If you want to unify them against you, you're indeed using the best manner to achieve this goal. If it's not your goal, now is probably the time to reconsider how you communicate with them. Furthermore, we already asked you to stop provocating PvP players by calling them "sociopaths". Calling them "mentally ill" fall in the same category. It's just as provocative as PvP players calling "Carebears" those who are not interested in PvP. 
 
This is a the second warning (for people from both sides). Next time, we will start give temporary forum bans (and permanent ones if a temporary ban doesn't prove to be enough to some people involved). 
 
We are totally aware that on some other game forums, it's something normal to taunt each other, and "bathing in carebear tears" is a common activity. This might be a deliberate choice and/or became one goal of those forums. We won't judge or comment on this topic here. It's a choice like any other and the dev teams are entitled to manage their platforms as they see fit.
 
That's why we will give here a clear reminder of what is exactly the current goal of the official Dual Universe forum:
As stated in the forum rules, you're not supposed to be provocative, meaning: this forum is a neutral ground. This is a platform to have constructive discussions to help improving the game, not to impose one's vision and/or denigrating others' visions. You are free to expose your vision, of course, but not to attempt enforcing it by denigrating the others.
 
You may also have some (in-character or out-of-character) grudges with some community members, but if this is the case you're expected to leave all this at the forum's doorstep. If it's too difficult, just ignore the people you don't like and don't reply to their topics. Don't start provocations or add oil on an already existing fire, or you might be affected by moderation actions (even if you're not the one who started the trouble).
 
We hope you'll understand Novaquark's stance on this matter.
 
One final note regarding the narrative that "PvP Players will hunt players who are completely unprepared" is kind of a biased way of presenting the real situation: 
Players not interested in PvP will have safe zones where they will be able to have various activities without risking being bothered by PvP Combat players. If they want to explore outside of the safe zones, they are implicitly accepting the risks and should prepare accordingly. If they don't, and get caught, it's on them. If they don't want to take any risk of being engaged in PvP, then they shouldn't go outside of the safe zones. On the opposite, if they're taking risks and prepare accordingly, bigger rewards will await for them. In the end, it's their choice, and the choice they made comes with consequences. Because players will have a choice, it's not accurate here to say that PvP Combat will be "non-consensual". On that topic, Dual Universe is already far more Non-PvP friendly than games like EVE Online (where you have to explore space even to mine the most basic ore, and where you can be attacked).
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

There should always be limits. Even if a game encourages "competition and creativity" on many levels, some things are universal and not necessarily bound to game mechanics. Like the "meta game". At the latest, there, some should see some limits eventually.
 
But the thing is, different people define this differently.
 
 

ABOUT US

          The Contractual Cooperative Peace Accord is a multi-organizational union that aims to provide a strong up-building environment for its partners while giving them the ability to retain full control over their sovereignty and freedom of choice, as well as providing options for political, territorial, and economic growth. In no such way will the CCPA interfere with a member organization’s laws or form of government. We also ensure the security of each of our members, by giving them the option to call upon the combined forces of every other member organization.

          We achieve this balance by having each member organization appoint a representative or representatives to be the voice for their specific organization. These representatives interact with other members in order to forge new, modify existing, or remove old policy. This is achieved by a simple voting system based around a simple majority vote.

For more information feel free to check out our full document: CCPA Pact Briefing
 
 
OUR STRUCTURE
 
           The CCPA structure was designed with efficiency in mind. There are only three ranks that are assignable. These ranks are described below:
 
Representatives: The individuals who have this rank are chosen by their respective organization leaders. Their purpose is to voice their ideas and concerns, as well as guiding the development of the CCPA by proposing new, modifying existing, and removing old guidelines. Ultimately, they are the ones that shape the direction that the CCPA follows. Mediators: These are individuals assigned from the pool of representatives to serve in more of an administrative function; in that they are to manage the website, moderate the discord server, and assist the community as a whole. They are chosen by a majority vote by the council of representatives. Organization Leaders: These are individuals who lead organizations that are current members of the pact. Their purpose is to assign the representative or representatives that they want to voice the ideas and concerns of their organization.  
 
MISSION STATEMENT

           The CCPA’s whole purpose is to provide an environment that is safe from the influences of negative forces within the community that ultimately would hinder the development of our separate communities. We know that as a combined force, working together in unison, we will have more opportunities to build up or infrastructure, develop laws, build fleets, collect resources, and evolve our economies than if we tried to do so separately. Ultimately, the Contractual Cooperative Peace Accord objective is to combine our strengths, while using our specialized fields of operation to boost our individual weaknesses. We aim to provide an environment of peace, equality, and economic strength.  

           In signing, you are ensuring your security, as well as others. It is our unity that will ultimately lead us to great things, however, none of this can be achieved without your support…
 
 
HOW TO APPLY

           If you’re interested in becoming a member of the CCPA then it’s all you have to do is go to our website, or join our discord server.
 
           Once you have applied your application will be processed by one of our representatives in order to make sure everything is filled out correctly. If it is, then it will be passed on to a vote. The voting process takes up to three business days. If your organization is accepted into the CCPA you will receive a message from a mediator on how to proceed. If your organization is not accepted, a mediator will contact you and explain why your application was denied, and if there is anything you can do to correct your application. 
 
 
REFERENCES
 
Our Community Page
Our Website
Our Discord
Applications
 

In the long run I still see no issue in having NPCs of some sort. Before anyone rams their fist on the table and yells BUT SINGLE SHARD PLAYER DRIVEN [...] (I get that, been here long enough :D), I don't necessarily mean like in Star Citizen for example, where they actively plan NPCs not just to populate the verse and as friends foes and bystanders, and I don't mean like crew you can hire for your ships including turrets, repairs, etc.
 
I rather mean some kind of decorative function perhaps or really limited tasks. Of course a lot would have to be revised and considered later once more crucial aspects of the game are no longer under construction.
 
 
 
Random thoughts:
 
- decorative
have them sit in your houses or businesses, chatter, clean, do random or specific animations
 
- vendor and more
Have them serve as shopkeepers or traders where players can buy / sell, not just from a terminal. This can make player shops more ... diverse or lively, opposed to a bunch of terminals standing there
 
- limited support functions
The most controversial or perhaps initially ruled out, fill roles on a ship, maybe not necesasrily relating to active combat but maybe repairs or managing systems. But this is for the far future, if at all.
 
- classic NPC roles from other games (PVE)
Populate the universe with certain NPCs who patrol, possibly have limited settlements somewhere as factions that can be wiped (or rebuilt?) by players or themselves and of course pirates in some areas, who attack anything. Since this is tied to a certain work effort development wise and was ruled out (afaik) due to the concept and pitch of the game, it's unlikely. But not necessarily ruled out for eternity, maybe it might change years down the line and it's simply thrown in here for the sake of completion. Just saying it might make some areas feel or be populated. We don't have to expect huge simulated growing and dying NPC factions by no means, but a few fluff trade ships or patrols around Alioth and towards the moons and planets and then maybe some pirates in fringe regions would not hurt anyone ... game concept wise I mean. Roughly think of EvE Online.

I see we served in the same unit:
 

I see we served in the same unit:
 

Hello all,
 
I am fairly new to DU, as I just got Alpha access and have only one real test session under my belt. I have been following the game for years, however, intrigued by the possibilities it offers. As I have been thinking more and more about the game and what role I want to play in it, I have come to the realization that there is so much more to build in DU than just ships and bases, and one of the things that DU will let us build is a society, with its own culture and unique characteristics.
 
Many people have already started to build those intangible elements that make up a society or culture. There are religious organizations, political organizations, etc. These are things that have a structure you can't see, and yet are just as important to a society as cities and space ships. We all know this game will force us to cooperate, and these kinds of "social constructs" will provide a way to do this.
 
What I want to build is similar, but different in some ways. It will be an organization dedicated to not politics or religion, but to philosophy. I am a practicing Stoic (stoicism is a branch of hellenistic philosophy, originating in Athens 300 B.C), and as such have a strong interest in philosophy, especially Stoicism. Stoicism is a philosophy whose adherents believe that nothing is within their control except their own actions and reactions, and that such actions and reactions should be carried out with courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice. Stoics also believe that all things are connected, especially all people, and therefore all people should be treated well. Lastly, Stoicism teaches that to live a good life, you must accept what is not in your control and strive to live virtuously regardless of external circumstances or events.
 
In ancient times, philosophers would have physical schools of philosophy to teach their philosophy of life to students. With the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, those schools became obsolete as the Church dictated how people should live instead.
 
I want to bring the school of Stoic philosophy into DU.
 
This is how I want to do this: 
 
First of all, I am not a philosopher, but a student of philosophy, therefore I will defer to the ancient and modern Stoic philosophers to do the actual teaching. Otherwise, I want to build a mecca of philosophy in the DU world. It will be a non-religious temple dedicated to philosophy, if that makes sense. This place will have monuments to the great philosophers as well as resources for those wanting to learn. I imagine screens lit up with stoic wisdom everywhere you turn and some amazing architecture to make the place a tourist destination. It will become a cultural phenomenon and touchstone, even help define the culture inside DU just as the schools of philosophy defined the culture of Ancient Rome. At worst it will be a spectacle that travelers will come to see, and at best it will help spread wisdom throughout the DU population.
 
In order to build such a structure, I will need help. I will need miners, architects, builders, ship builders, and more. I will need people to help flesh out this vision, too. If anyone is interested in joining me on this venture, or joining an organization dedicated to philosophy and stoicism, please respond. I haven't created the org yet, but I will as soon as I see that there is enough interest.
 
Cheers,
Zephos
 
 
 

Greetings and hello to the community!:
 
I wanted to play the game for a while before I posted anything.

I want to first thank Novaquark for an incredible game and their welcoming and grateful attitudes expressed in so many ways to this growing community. I've played many games before and was, in all honesty, surprised by these attitudes. I felt valued and welcomed as a  customer and I want to personally express my thanks for all the effort Novaquark does in recognizing the community in these positive manners that in my opinion will build a solid community and solid relationships.
 
One of the first observations I made before I even logged in the first time was the awareness by the developers that the game needed to be immersive but not to complicated and to keep the game as simple as possible so that folks could enjoy the gameplay without having to spend an inordinate amount of time with a massive learning curve or system. This has been accomplished quite well with what I have seen so far.

As for the gameplay itself, I have waited for just under 40 years for a game like this. Other games have attempted to achieve this but limited themselves in size, to many static objects or limiting parameters.
 
Dual Universe had me within the first hour!

It has been a long time since I have been so excited about a game! So much potential and so equally balanced! I like limited inventories versus what is built to contain them and I like inventories that don't follow a pilot wherever they go unless containers are made to tranp[or them. This is much more realistic. The crating and blueprinting in this game is another fantastic approach. No more static ships! Organizations will really have a great time creating ships/equipment designs that can be sold on the markets providing even yet another way for these organizations to make a name for themselves and a stronger and better in-game economy.
 
I absolutely believe in the success of this game and can hardly wait for the universe to come!!

So much more to say but will sum it up by saying thank you again for giving us this game that many of us have hoped for, for so long!

Dear Community Members,
 
As some of the Novaquark recent moderation and sanction actions haven’t been clearly understood by some, here are some explanations and clarifications. We are aware that members from “Dark Star Imperium” (DSI) and “New Genesis” think that the decisions taken by Novaquark have been unfair and/or feel like a punishment. It’s not a punishment and we limited the inconvenience to the minimum possible by just resetting the member list of the Organization. This has been done to remove all ghost accounts and make the involved Organizations restart on a healthier basis.
 
We also made sure that at least one person in each of the involved Organizations can re-invite real members in the Organization:
- CN_Firestorm for “Dark Star Imperium”
- Chipfromearth/SpaceKitty for “New Genesis” (until the end of TMA’s ban)
 
You are more than welcome to contact them to join theses Orgs again if you wish to do so.
Keeping in mind that besides the cleaning of ghost accounts, nothing else has been removed. All community work/content related to these Organizations have been left untouched. We are also going to send an email to all ex-members to inform about the member list reset and offer them to join their former organization again.
 
Regarding the ban of the leaders of these Organizations:

We understand that seeing your leader banned might be frustrating. However, we want to make it clear that being at the head of a big Org does not give a free pass on toxic behavior and/or bad practices that could damage the Community as a whole. Being passionate, being young, creating quality content is no free pass for such things either. That’s why all the permanent bans decided recently are final. We are not giving such heavy sanctions with a light heart or on a whim. In more than four years, the number of community members who have been banned permanently from the community can still be counted on the fingers of one hand. We think it speaks volume... Some recent rumors say that the bans may be reversed or canceled. There is no ground to such rumor. It’s just disinformation. The fact that a banned member will “not tolerate that” has no weight either. It’s the Novaquark team’s call and the Novaquark team alone.
 
Now, we want to give a fair warning to anyone wanting to challenge Novaquark’s decisions openly, directly or indirectly. If a community member has been permanently banned from the Community, he’s excluded from the game, which means he shouldn’t be in any Organization anymore. Reinviting or keeping a community member banned permanently could have serious consequences (such as Organization disbanding but not limited to that, as this could trigger other sanctions for those actively supporting banned members).

Now to address some specific questions/rumors:

We exceptionally give some details to the Community to show that we are not banning randomly or without a serious reason. We do it only because some banned members try to take advantage of the confidentiality policy to enforce their own narrative and play the victim, and attempt to misinform other players. Don’t expect the Novaquark team to give anymore information on this case or the possible future ones.
 
“Banning Sakej99 was a mistake. He’s a different person from FullSend/Lime”.
The Novaquark team is aware that Sakej99 and FullSend/Lime are different persons. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the permanent ban affects FullSend/Lime will also affect accounts he may have access to (by account sharing, which is forbidden in our EULA). This is one of the main reasons why we are so serious about forbidding account sharing. If someone sanctioned got access to your account, the sanction can be extended to the said account even if you haven’t done anything wrong.
 
“FullSend/Lime has been unfairly banned, with no prior warning.”
First, for the infraction this community member has committed, there will never be a warning as it was obviously utterly wrong: if a false report is sent to the Customer Support in an attempt to make another community member banned, the one getting the ban is the one who sent the false report. And in this case, indeed, there is no prior warning.

Second, FullSend/Lime is probably the person in the community who would deserve multiple permanent bans (if it was possible), due to previous infractions in addition to the most recent one. Playing the card “no prior warning” is just complete dishonesty and denial of assuming the consequences of his actions during the past couple of years. Here is a short list of the infractions he has done in the past:
- Asking members of one of his former organization to give login and password of their accounts to him.
- Using accounts of other players.
- Creating ghost accounts.
- Using a loophole in the organization management system on the Community Portal in an attempt to sabotage/destroy an organization by using the account of another player.
- Participating in a doxxing attempt.
- Always denying the facts or trying to minimize them, to the point of reaching self-absolving, to avoid dealing with the consequences (a practice reiterated with his last infraction).
Due to the history of this community member, there was no reason for “prior warning” with his last infraction. He has been warned too many times already. Mistakes are not erased just because it happened “long ago”.
 
By default, Organisations where FullSend was the founder have their ownership transmitted to the oldest member with the ability to create an organization, which gave the following results:
- CN_Firestorm becomes the new owner of “Dual Insider”.
- Gravetender becomes the new owner of “Project Azimuth”.
If you are a member of one of these organisations and you want to discuss these changes, please contact the new owner of the Organization.
 
(About DSI) “There has been a total wipe of the parties to kill the conflict”     
Wrong. If that was the case, we would have dismantled “DSI” directly and ban both DSI leaders, which would have included CN_Firestorm. You can assume that if it’s not the case, this is precisely because there is a difference between CN_Firestorm and Primarch. This sanction wasn’t against DSI. The sanction was against Primarch.
 
Some of the banned members may say “They will be back”.
It’s up to them. However, if we catch them, they will be banned without further notice.
 
Best regards,
The Novaquark team.
 

I'm not quite sure how to best tackle some of the questions beyond a simple "depends", but I think a good comparison is real life. Can you do well or accomplish things alone or with a small group?
 
Under the right conditions, with luck, skill, etc. yes. Certainly. But can you alone against an international, huge corporation or a government on your own? Let's say you do activity or have skill X. Would you easily if not at all be able to compete against a group doing the same?
 
Certain activities will always be more rewarded or easier in a collective effort. Universal law I'd say.
 
However, do not get me wrong. I am certain you can do your own thing even if that thing, whatever it may be, may be easier to obtain or do in a (big) group. Especially designing, among other activities, may be a good niche or way to do things with fewer people or alone.
 
What I want to say is you can likely do a lot alone. Just expect that to be easier in a larger group. But you can be your own master.
 
I don't think you necessarily need to join big groups or know Lua scripting language; but utilizing those may help in some situations. Remember, if you can't do it you can always ask or hire someone who can.
 
Hope it helps a bit, even if I mostly mentioned universal things.

And fauna? I mean I'm just trying to imagine Conan Exiles, Minecraft etc. with no "critters" and similar at all.
 
You could argue that it's not fully comparable because obviously, those worlds usually
 
1) rely on classic servers with limited player slots and
2) also intend to offer some sort of possible singleplayer or offline experience (not all, but many)
 
So those might "need" it. While Dual Universe will aim for huge player numbers. I'd say "Yes, perhaps correct".
 
I still think having environmental or local hazards such as fauna may be more interesting in the DU setting than not having that at all. I realize it's more work to design the creatures or whatever it may be, and then work to implement AI. But assuming it's not terribly impossible or hard in the given framework and assuming it is later possible because resources are freed up, it should be considered by the devs.
 
I'm not talking about humanoid NPCs now, but creatures that may have developed on some worlds that would logically allow it. I wouldn't mind some humanoid NPCs either to simulate some of the background factions in DU or people from other Ark ships, though.
 
TL;DR: I understand, it is no secret that the focus for DU appears to be on players, less so much on NPCs or even a potential "PVE" NPCs would bring. Then again, I would welcome certain critters and whatnot to spice things up on some planets. Having those doesn't hurt PVPers or anyone who doesn't mind an absence of NPCs or creatures. I'd say at the bottom line and on an abstract level, more people benefit or enjoy such potential adversaries than not having them.
 
The only practical obstacle I see is the effort and time required to implement those things in the game, next to a potential "vision". I'd assume that eventually a point would come where core mechanics are in and where the devs can focus on other aspects, such as more content for players. And maybe even PVE content. You can leave out more complex adversaries like other humans (as NPCs). But creatures or other life forms might be nice.
 
 

And fauna? I mean I'm just trying to imagine Conan Exiles, Minecraft etc. with no "critters" and similar at all.
 
You could argue that it's not fully comparable because obviously, those worlds usually
 
1) rely on classic servers with limited player slots and
2) also intend to offer some sort of possible singleplayer or offline experience (not all, but many)
 
So those might "need" it. While Dual Universe will aim for huge player numbers. I'd say "Yes, perhaps correct".
 
I still think having environmental or local hazards such as fauna may be more interesting in the DU setting than not having that at all. I realize it's more work to design the creatures or whatever it may be, and then work to implement AI. But assuming it's not terribly impossible or hard in the given framework and assuming it is later possible because resources are freed up, it should be considered by the devs.
 
I'm not talking about humanoid NPCs now, but creatures that may have developed on some worlds that would logically allow it. I wouldn't mind some humanoid NPCs either to simulate some of the background factions in DU or people from other Ark ships, though.
 
TL;DR: I understand, it is no secret that the focus for DU appears to be on players, less so much on NPCs or even a potential "PVE" NPCs would bring. Then again, I would welcome certain critters and whatnot to spice things up on some planets. Having those doesn't hurt PVPers or anyone who doesn't mind an absence of NPCs or creatures. I'd say at the bottom line and on an abstract level, more people benefit or enjoy such potential adversaries than not having them.
 
The only practical obstacle I see is the effort and time required to implement those things in the game, next to a potential "vision". I'd assume that eventually a point would come where core mechanics are in and where the devs can focus on other aspects, such as more content for players. And maybe even PVE content. You can leave out more complex adversaries like other humans (as NPCs). But creatures or other life forms might be nice.
 
 

I see we served in the same unit:
 

For some reason necroposting on a post about necroposting sounds fully legit.

A little foreword
 
 
Hello there,
 
The following is likely rather nitpicky. Since people can (mis?)judge purely written communication in different ways I'd also like to add this isn't a huge concern for me. It's simply something I noticed and that could be potentially be improved sooner than later. I also thought about mentioning it via PM to NQ first but on the other hand I think there can be sufficient public interest and input to this, while NQ is of course free to set the rules as they deem necessary. But if public input can perhaps improve or clarify, then why not?
 
Last but not least, since rules are mentioned it is not only something we have to keep in mind and follow as community members; it would also be some kind of "procedure book" for moderators that have to enforce the rules after all. So while there might be bigger problems and more interesting (game related) suggestions to consider, it's something perhaps not completely trivial either. But I let you decide now.
 
»Short summary of suggestion and solution
1) Recap
Change / reword a current forum rule to allow what is now technically considered "necroposting" in some situations that would be deemed widely acceptable however. Further info and reasoning below.
 
2) Suggested solution/s
Reword or add a clause that allows this in specific situations or exclude situations where it would not be necroposting. Here's suggestions, highlighted in blue:
 
(III) Following actionsa re prohibited:
 
[...] Necroposting on old threads (unpinned threads in which the last reply is older than 2 months) with the exception of player organization and on-going idea threads. Necroposting on old threads (unpinned threads in which the last reply is older than 2 months). Moderation can see to exceptions or enforcement on a case-by-case basis depending on the topic. Necroposting on old threads (unpinned threads in which the last reply is older than 2 months). An old thread can be considered as an exhausted or completed topic. Posting in old exhausted threads that have not seen activity in 2 months; exceptions can apply to certain threads including player organizations or projects and game suggestions [...]  
Other suggestions from the community for an "improved wording"
 
(None at this time)  
 
 
 
 
Further explanation or reasoning aka: "Okay, what the heck are you talking about now?"
 

Rule snippet as of 11th August 2018 - mostly referring to bulletin point 2 and 3
 
The recent posting in the "DU real life" thread referred to a not so old rule addition regarding necro posts. Granted, it makes sense. But in some situations it could ironically conflict with the rule following afterwards, specifically sentence nr. 2.
 
Long story short, it's this: Sometimes necro'ing old threads doesn't make sense and should not be done or forbidden or rewarded with a lock. But sometimes it should be formally and practically okay. Ironically following that particular rule could in a wider sense sometimes conflict with "creating multiple discussions on the same topic [...]" - if you cannot strictly necropost because 2 months have passed, then you have to kinda recreate threads, which clutter the forums however and is generally frowned upon anyway, when the alternative could just be posting even after 2 months since the last reply have passed. So we either have gaps exceeding 2 months between some posts or we have multiple threads on a subject if 2 months have passed between replies at one point. Or we let a topic die indeed, but some topics are on-going, and especially in an early game stage may not see regular posts all the time not exceeding 2 month gaps.
 
Again, it is likely trivial or obvious when it is okay and not to some but let's put it this way: With a mild edit in rewording it could, for the far future, set things formally or technically right and perhaps not confuse some people who read the forum rules and take them at face value, as you kinda or often have to anyway. A mild change or elaboration would also prevent rather nitpicky players possibly reporting others for technical rule violations that are completely tolerated or accepted things however. In short, with a very mild amount of work now in rephrasing or elaborating, you can probably save yourself a bit of more work in the long run while making it apparent when moderators (or players) have to act or not. The community and mods might be at ease (or have clarity). Win/win.
 
To keep it short and to get to a closing note, here's an example of what might be technically a necro posting but should be widely accepted - or is likely widely accepted, but technically breaking rules:
 
Posting in your organization or player project thread (after 2 months) Posting in an idea thread or similar that revolves around a specific aspect (after 2 months; instead of creating a new thread then) Off-topic threads regarding other specific games, tv shows, technology and other topics (health, preferences, etc, comedy such as DU centered 'memes', etc.) Likely other scenarios  
On a last note I also understand there is a certain disclaimer that says: "IMPORTANT: Forum content is moderated at Novaquark's sole discretion, and content may be modified, removed, or otherwise restricted by Novaquark employees and/or moderators." meaning it allows exceptions or actions at the discretion already, but in this case I think it's good to mention it in the specific rule to have that rule be more clear.
 
I also understand you could now start various discussion or suggestion threads about all kinds of other rules and ask for elaboration. But for me that is kind of stretching the goal here. So for now this is all about necro posting.
 
 
I guess that sums it up. If I oversaw any flaws or aspects or if you want to rant about it being (insert whatever here), I guess you can do so here
 
Thanks for consideration
 
 
 
 
 

I personally see player character persistence as "off-putting factor" in the larger picture or on an abstract level.
 
On one hand, I never had much experience with it. But by just looking at the concept it seems clear to me that it would be off-putting to people who are not into some sort of hardcore PVP or survival mindset including "sleeping characters" when you are offline. Your base and assets being out there any time? That's normal for most games. The character remaining and being attackable? Not so common.
 
All in all, I doubt we get to see this, at least not applied to all. So far my assessment, purely based on gut feeling, is that NQ would possibly lose players and the "abstract damage" might not justify the "pleased crowd". I also do not know what the impact on server load might be in the grand scheme of things.
 
The risk averse crowd might decide to purely be restricted to safe zones, any more casual oriented players in either gameplay approach or time investment frame might shit their pants at work or wherever, wondering if they char is still up if they somehow had to play and log out beyond safe zones. The limited safe zones might get potentially packed or be 'abused' in the sense of people just logging out there, making them untouchable, if any of those are within reach.
 
Since someone mentioned combat logging, a compromise would be a timer applied to your character. Whether you wait for it to go down or log out immediately, your character will persist for that time.

If I remember how such debates were sometimes held on an abstract level and if I read between the lines, I sometimes get the subjective impression that people - subconsciously or not - always slightly exaggerate no matter what side they're on. Proving a point is okay based on your preferences, but there could be a fine line sometimes where (according to my feeling) I think that sometimes people try to see their own preferences 'enforced' while considering anything else "wrong".
 
Simplified: PVPers argue in their way, strict non-PVPers do the same and eventually some mini-debates turn into repetitions of preferences. I mean, you're probably all arguing "past each other" if that makes sense. To my knowledge, we get hard safe zones on the starting planet, then on some moon(s) and then you get tiles any faction can claim, which do not translate to classic safe zones however and are contestable. I will try to pull up the according articles or sources in the next post when I have a bit more time at hands.
 
What I basically want to say to all sides is: relax a tad, you all will get your way. And I think that is awesome. Unite the builders, the creative people, the hardened, the vicious, the artists, whatever you can think of. Everyone will have some place in this universe.
 
However, if you (subconsciously or not) keep arguing in a way that your primary preference should be the leading example or focus of general gameplay, you'll naturally see others do the same for their viewpoints and it potentially ends in a repeating back and forth.
 
Not saying "stop debating here", just saying "try to keep this in mind here and there".
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
I'd also not advise trying to downplay "the other side" depending on what side you are on, even if it might sometimes be hard. To those it might concern: Not everyone who is not into full risk and PVP at any time is a "carebear", their interests and strenghts might simply lie in other areas and you could even benefit from that somehow. The next ship you use in your Empire might be built by someone a hardcore PVPer might consider "carebear" because they prefer to work away in some safe zone without abstract or real interruptions, to give an example.
 
At the same time, one who prefers to avoid conflict should not assume it's automatically total anarchy and a 'gank fest' beyond any hard-coded safe zone borders. Or that someone who is generally open to attacking others is a bloodthirsty monster - some simply have other motivations or reasoning behind their attacks or actions. Chances are in the long run many spaces that cannot be claimed by a hardcoded safe zone device, but maybe by normal 'tile claimers' might be relatively or very safe since they get policed by the organizations and empires who run the space. Those might also want business and stability to make money and attract people, so they have people patrol. And even then... hey, in the end, abstract risk remains and isn't that somewhat exciting if you don't know what happens and who you could run into? If you transport something vital at the same time and have to go out, work together and get friends to help you transport things or hire a player group that offers this as service.
 
Or maybe TL;DR: It won't be that bad. See for yourself in the future and re-assess. But all kinds of players will have a place in this game and I like it. It will likely attract more people that way and we all benefit from a big community that interacts with each other on various levels.

If I remember how such debates were sometimes held on an abstract level and if I read between the lines, I sometimes get the subjective impression that people - subconsciously or not - always slightly exaggerate no matter what side they're on. Proving a point is okay based on your preferences, but there could be a fine line sometimes where (according to my feeling) I think that sometimes people try to see their own preferences 'enforced' while considering anything else "wrong".
 
Simplified: PVPers argue in their way, strict non-PVPers do the same and eventually some mini-debates turn into repetitions of preferences. I mean, you're probably all arguing "past each other" if that makes sense. To my knowledge, we get hard safe zones on the starting planet, then on some moon(s) and then you get tiles any faction can claim, which do not translate to classic safe zones however and are contestable. I will try to pull up the according articles or sources in the next post when I have a bit more time at hands.
 
What I basically want to say to all sides is: relax a tad, you all will get your way. And I think that is awesome. Unite the builders, the creative people, the hardened, the vicious, the artists, whatever you can think of. Everyone will have some place in this universe.
 
However, if you (subconsciously or not) keep arguing in a way that your primary preference should be the leading example or focus of general gameplay, you'll naturally see others do the same for their viewpoints and it potentially ends in a repeating back and forth.
 
Not saying "stop debating here", just saying "try to keep this in mind here and there".
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
I'd also not advise trying to downplay "the other side" depending on what side you are on, even if it might sometimes be hard. To those it might concern: Not everyone who is not into full risk and PVP at any time is a "carebear", their interests and strenghts might simply lie in other areas and you could even benefit from that somehow. The next ship you use in your Empire might be built by someone a hardcore PVPer might consider "carebear" because they prefer to work away in some safe zone without abstract or real interruptions, to give an example.
 
At the same time, one who prefers to avoid conflict should not assume it's automatically total anarchy and a 'gank fest' beyond any hard-coded safe zone borders. Or that someone who is generally open to attacking others is a bloodthirsty monster - some simply have other motivations or reasoning behind their attacks or actions. Chances are in the long run many spaces that cannot be claimed by a hardcoded safe zone device, but maybe by normal 'tile claimers' might be relatively or very safe since they get policed by the organizations and empires who run the space. Those might also want business and stability to make money and attract people, so they have people patrol. And even then... hey, in the end, abstract risk remains and isn't that somewhat exciting if you don't know what happens and who you could run into? If you transport something vital at the same time and have to go out, work together and get friends to help you transport things or hire a player group that offers this as service.
 
Or maybe TL;DR: It won't be that bad. See for yourself in the future and re-assess. But all kinds of players will have a place in this game and I like it. It will likely attract more people that way and we all benefit from a big community that interacts with each other on various levels.

If I remember how such debates were sometimes held on an abstract level and if I read between the lines, I sometimes get the subjective impression that people - subconsciously or not - always slightly exaggerate no matter what side they're on. Proving a point is okay based on your preferences, but there could be a fine line sometimes where (according to my feeling) I think that sometimes people try to see their own preferences 'enforced' while considering anything else "wrong".
 
Simplified: PVPers argue in their way, strict non-PVPers do the same and eventually some mini-debates turn into repetitions of preferences. I mean, you're probably all arguing "past each other" if that makes sense. To my knowledge, we get hard safe zones on the starting planet, then on some moon(s) and then you get tiles any faction can claim, which do not translate to classic safe zones however and are contestable. I will try to pull up the according articles or sources in the next post when I have a bit more time at hands.
 
What I basically want to say to all sides is: relax a tad, you all will get your way. And I think that is awesome. Unite the builders, the creative people, the hardened, the vicious, the artists, whatever you can think of. Everyone will have some place in this universe.
 
However, if you (subconsciously or not) keep arguing in a way that your primary preference should be the leading example or focus of general gameplay, you'll naturally see others do the same for their viewpoints and it potentially ends in a repeating back and forth.
 
Not saying "stop debating here", just saying "try to keep this in mind here and there".
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
I'd also not advise trying to downplay "the other side" depending on what side you are on, even if it might sometimes be hard. To those it might concern: Not everyone who is not into full risk and PVP at any time is a "carebear", their interests and strenghts might simply lie in other areas and you could even benefit from that somehow. The next ship you use in your Empire might be built by someone a hardcore PVPer might consider "carebear" because they prefer to work away in some safe zone without abstract or real interruptions, to give an example.
 
At the same time, one who prefers to avoid conflict should not assume it's automatically total anarchy and a 'gank fest' beyond any hard-coded safe zone borders. Or that someone who is generally open to attacking others is a bloodthirsty monster - some simply have other motivations or reasoning behind their attacks or actions. Chances are in the long run many spaces that cannot be claimed by a hardcoded safe zone device, but maybe by normal 'tile claimers' might be relatively or very safe since they get policed by the organizations and empires who run the space. Those might also want business and stability to make money and attract people, so they have people patrol. And even then... hey, in the end, abstract risk remains and isn't that somewhat exciting if you don't know what happens and who you could run into? If you transport something vital at the same time and have to go out, work together and get friends to help you transport things or hire a player group that offers this as service.
 
Or maybe TL;DR: It won't be that bad. See for yourself in the future and re-assess. But all kinds of players will have a place in this game and I like it. It will likely attract more people that way and we all benefit from a big community that interacts with each other on various levels.

You miss they point, they make it hard to read so you just sign it

If I remember how such debates were sometimes held on an abstract level and if I read between the lines, I sometimes get the subjective impression that people - subconsciously or not - always slightly exaggerate no matter what side they're on. Proving a point is okay based on your preferences, but there could be a fine line sometimes where (according to my feeling) I think that sometimes people try to see their own preferences 'enforced' while considering anything else "wrong".
 
Simplified: PVPers argue in their way, strict non-PVPers do the same and eventually some mini-debates turn into repetitions of preferences. I mean, you're probably all arguing "past each other" if that makes sense. To my knowledge, we get hard safe zones on the starting planet, then on some moon(s) and then you get tiles any faction can claim, which do not translate to classic safe zones however and are contestable. I will try to pull up the according articles or sources in the next post when I have a bit more time at hands.
 
What I basically want to say to all sides is: relax a tad, you all will get your way. And I think that is awesome. Unite the builders, the creative people, the hardened, the vicious, the artists, whatever you can think of. Everyone will have some place in this universe.
 
However, if you (subconsciously or not) keep arguing in a way that your primary preference should be the leading example or focus of general gameplay, you'll naturally see others do the same for their viewpoints and it potentially ends in a repeating back and forth.
 
Not saying "stop debating here", just saying "try to keep this in mind here and there".
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
I'd also not advise trying to downplay "the other side" depending on what side you are on, even if it might sometimes be hard. To those it might concern: Not everyone who is not into full risk and PVP at any time is a "carebear", their interests and strenghts might simply lie in other areas and you could even benefit from that somehow. The next ship you use in your Empire might be built by someone a hardcore PVPer might consider "carebear" because they prefer to work away in some safe zone without abstract or real interruptions, to give an example.
 
At the same time, one who prefers to avoid conflict should not assume it's automatically total anarchy and a 'gank fest' beyond any hard-coded safe zone borders. Or that someone who is generally open to attacking others is a bloodthirsty monster - some simply have other motivations or reasoning behind their attacks or actions. Chances are in the long run many spaces that cannot be claimed by a hardcoded safe zone device, but maybe by normal 'tile claimers' might be relatively or very safe since they get policed by the organizations and empires who run the space. Those might also want business and stability to make money and attract people, so they have people patrol. And even then... hey, in the end, abstract risk remains and isn't that somewhat exciting if you don't know what happens and who you could run into? If you transport something vital at the same time and have to go out, work together and get friends to help you transport things or hire a player group that offers this as service.
 
Or maybe TL;DR: It won't be that bad. See for yourself in the future and re-assess. But all kinds of players will have a place in this game and I like it. It will likely attract more people that way and we all benefit from a big community that interacts with each other on various levels.