Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum Rules & Announcements
    • Forum Rules & Guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Patch Notes
  • New Player Landing Zone
    • New Player Help
    • FAQ & Information Desk
    • Gameplay Tutorials
    • Player Introductions
  • General (EN)
    • General Discussions
    • Lua Forum
    • Builder Forum
    • Industry Forum
    • PvP Forum
    • Public Test Server Feedback
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • Idea Box
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • General (DE)
    • Allgemeine Diskussionen
  • General (FR)
    • Discussions générales
  • Social Corner
    • Org Updates & Announcements
    • Roleplay & Lore
    • Fan Art

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL









  1. I know the game has a built-in replace voxel tool, it works somewhat okay, but still has a few limitations: Sometimes the voxels get completely messed up when you replace them; You can only ever select voxels in a rectangular shape; It doesn't work very nicely with offset voxels; The amount of honeycomb isn't very accurate, sometimes it will fail saying you don't have enough of it, since it's calculating the entire rectangle volume instead of actual voxels; With those above in mind, what I wanted to suggest is something similar to the paint tool in games like SE. It would work similar to the Repair tool, you would equip it and select the voxel you want to use (in place of scrap) and point to the voxel you want to replace. It would then use a raycast to detect the right voxel and also optionally select connected voxels of the same type, and show a preview before replacing. So for example, let's say you have a ship with decorative panels, made out of offset white plastic, and you wanted to paint them with gold. You would simply select that tool, select the gold honeycomb, point to the panel and it would detect all the voxels composing that panel and show you a preview on what it would look like. After clicking, it would apply the voxel replacement. This would be a MASSIVE quality of life improvement, not only for builders but anyone who buys a ship token and wants to customize it in some way.
  2. Essentially, Instead of adding new gameplay loops I would improve the ones we already have by adding more layers to Dual Universe's current gameplay progression. If I was part of the NQ dev/design team, I would do either/all of this: Give a sense of direction and provide long term goals to new players e.g. 'build a massive freight ship' Place new players in 2 rival starter factions, and create events such as xs core pvp, mining challenges or time-competitive missions weekly, daily, or perhaps even automatically for the two factions to fight between. reverse dispensers / player missions that you can auto-create or refresh using LUA. Adds so much depth with barely any effort required. make surface rocks able to be mined faster with ship equipment, to give a layer of progression for early game players who do not want to wait around with the AFK with auto harvesters. If NQ wants to go a step further, place larger surface ores in hard-to reach locations such as Thades or vast void of space itself to encourage mining expeditons. Related to (#4), Make it easier for new players to get started mining space asteroids, either by option #2 or by making a cheap, mini, safe zone only version of the DSAT. Give more options for ships to engage in and mitigate PvP encounters by for example implementing directional, slow, long range (60SU+) space radars to encourage pirates to intercept freight ships, as well as some sort of 'getaway device' that is only really viable for freight ships such as to use such as rocket engines (see #7). another note on rockets - Rockets need balancing, they run out of fuel too fast for their 'faster than max speed' feature to be practical. Rockets should act more like EvE onlines Micro Warp Drive, MUCH more fuel efficient and powerful, able to be sustained for long periods of time, but is extremely heavy and/or debuffs thrust output in such a way that using it only practical on non-combat ships that don't need a high acceleration. This gives freight ships a counter to PvP vessels by being able to speed out of danger to almost warp drive speeds, but also means that you need to use more gas and larger engines to move your stuff around the universe. Should you play safe and pay the extra cost hauling Xenon fuel, or be a bit more risky and go without rocket engines for the allure of saving your quanta and beating the market prices? It is simple changes like THIS which are vital to the games integrity, NQ has to do nothing more than change a few values for a few elements and already the game has a lot more depth. All of these ideas will probably gonna go under NQ's radar, but perhaps this could give ideas for what you guys want NQ should do to this game as well.
  3. Move some of the high-end missions to aegis station. If you introduce NPC pirates to kill form quanta bounty then place the best missions closer to AEGIS. This would move the main market and give the other planets and equal opportunity to become inhabited versus alioth
  4. -What if you got some of the rocks that you find while surface mining, made them larger & richer in resources, and then just put them around some asteroid rings in space? free, cheap and easy PvE content, and it probably wouldn't even need a major patch to be implemented. You could even go a step further, by getting a laser emitter, making it larger, and making it able to damage/mine rocks when it comes into contact with one (that might take a bit longer though). -what if you added a radar, that can see 2-4x the normal radar range, but also takes up capacity of an entire gunner chair, helping to encourage crewed ships/working together in PvP? -what if you added an industry unit that can craft any element without needing schematics (low tiers only) but needs double the resources, and takes thrice as long to craft? Essentially, a crafting table for all the people who want to play completely solo. Whether you think these are good or not though, point is, there are a lot of easy changes NQ could realistically make in the short timeframe and budget they have, to make the game much better and fleshed out before the release window. No need to add and fancy new elements with completely new functionality like a DSAT etc, all of these changes could be made using what NQ already has, without taking much dev time.
  5. playing $10 per month to play this game is a huge turn off for many people. Obviously I can see why NQ has it, but now that your stuff deletes itself when you're offline for too long, I think it's a good idea for people be able to play this game for 'free' as long as you grind long enough for that sweet quanta. It may not seem like a cost effective idea short term, but adding a FTP option is a huge incentive for new players to join. ...which means a larger playerbase, which means more people know about it+ likely to share the game with friends, which means eventually more money will be going into NQ's pockets, especially if subbing has large benefits eg lower taxes, higher skill point gain et cetera. what's more it's a money sink, which is something this game needs more of.
  6. By this I mean actual water physics, water core units to make floating constructs easier to build, ships being able to actually float and sail around on the water, or dive and traverse around like a submarine, swimming, maybe even fish/coral, etc. As an aquatic player myself I would love a water based update, and it would give Jago, y’know, a reason to exist.
  7. So I'm weird and actually prefer 1st person view when driving my constructs, though I know most people prefer 3rd view, hence the recent change. Rather than have one group constantly having to push insert to get to their view every time, I propose having a Settings Option, perhaps under controls, that allows us to choose our Default Piloting View/Camera for flying constructs.
  8. I believe that the nebula skybox should be replaced with a realistic, dark and starry skybox, akin to the old one prior to Alpha 3. Here are my arguments, The nebula was originally introduced as an immersive way to increase ambient lighting in Dual Universe, making it easier to see at night. This is mentioned in NQ's Dev Diary on YouTube. However, this was nullified in 0.24 with the reduction of ambient light brightness. This is personal preference however I believe many will agree; the ambient light level does not have to match the skybox's brightness. For example, take this image of Pre-Alpha Thades. Its dark side is heavily illuminated, as I'm sure it would look on the surface as well. You'd be able to see. Compared to current Thades, I think most of us can agree that it still looks far better, and it could be taken down a notch if it's too bright. Additionally, with the introduction of the nebula, the atmospheres were changed to the same blue color we're all used to. I'm guessing this was done as a result of a technical limitation relating to the new skybox. So, think; If I'm right about this, we could have a Thades that looks like this, for example: Current Thades, for comparison: You see where I'm coming from? The way I see it, removing the nebula would provide so much in the way of fidelity, immersion and polish. It wouldn't affect gameplay either. Furthermore, I believe this change would solve many, many of DU's lighting glitches and "rough spots," at the very least making them look far better, and would provide much more polished lighting, both on ground and on a planetary scale. I simply don't see what the nebula adds other than style, but it sacrifices fidelity in a lot of key areas. Unfortunately I don't have any screenshots to back up that claim, so you're gonna have to take my word for it as an Alpha 1 player who knows how lighting used to interact with the old skybox. The nebula may be beautiful to some, but honestly, changing it would add so much in the way of polish — which I believe is far more important and is what this game needs right now. Not to mention, many people were dismayed at the release of this nebula, and I'm taking a wild guess by saying that most players would like this change. I know my friends and I would. Please consider this, Novaquark. Similar post by Mjrlun
  9. I think the title itself explains a lot but the idea is having a second type of Landing Gear elements that have wheels and are more geared towards gravity landing and takeoff. Their main use would be to keep the ship at some height from the ground while still moving forward but without enough lift to keep it flying, which would be useful when taking off or landing with large amounts of cargo, and would require a landing strip to properly land, similar to real planes. In terms of implementation, the retractable part of it could be borrowed from existing landing gears and the physics part could be similar to these of a hover engine, the wheels would not provide any thrust, just maybe a very small braking force, but mainly sustentation/suspension for the ship when they are in contact with the ground, so the ship would still need to brake by itself.
  10. We need folders. under map, the bookmarks section needs folders we can create and move things into Under map, the constructs section we need folders Under RDMS, the tags need folders Under RDMS, the profiles need folders. Would make things look so much more tidy and be easy to find.
  11. I'm not sure if the server takes more resources to constantly update all the tunnels as we fly by or what the deal is server side BUT I think that tunnels in the terrain on tiles that are NOT own should 'cave in' after a week or so. And have the OPTION that on my territory that within a certain distance of a construct that no voxels will cave in. (so buildings don't get filled in with dirt) Or no caves ins on claimed territory. So basically Only claimed territories will still keep their tunnels if the player chooses. I fly around looking for ore and there are tunnels EVERYWHERE which is cool... but not very useful. I just think if saving server resources is an issue maybe this might help as hardly anyone is going to go down a tunnel and just dig their own... And as a side note maybe ores can respawn after a YEAR or so... I know that's not planned but as this game grows new players WILL find it hard to get a foot hold because all the easy ore is completely gone. I'm getting a LOT of scans coming up with nothing but tier one ores... now either that is by design or it's all being mined out. If it's really disappearing that fast it will be a problem in the long run... But that's a side issue that can be addressed later.
  12. My idea is landing pads that would be detected by the ship and you would land automatically after pressing a key when you are near of it and there would be different landing pad size for each dynamic core size it would work like in No man's Sky that would prevent landing bugs at market when a ship appears out of the blue and hit your ship because the game doesn't load fast enough even if you have the latest specs rtx 3000 series etc. it would be useful for space station also and would give the opportunity for no landing zone feature to works for example you have to pay a fee to land or example you need an authorization to land! that would add a cool aspect to the game for logistic. ** Landing pad would have a direction so you would not go through objects and would need free space around it and over it and that would require the minimum size of the core limits of your ship.
  13. Heyho Novark Builders, I’ve got a little problem and I cannot find a good answer, so I would like to suggest a little something: This topic is not about core alignment, but about rotating cores. To be more precise, the rotation function where you hold R and Scroll with your mouse-wheel is far to unprecise. As far as I can judge this, equipping a Static Core will show you were you are able to place the core on your plot. This position is not “loose”, which means you can not rotate it by changing the direction your character is looking, but it is simply fixed. And sadly, it is not aligned with any of the plots six sides. Unequipping the Core and reequipping it does also not change the fixed position. Of course, you can rotate the core by holding R and using your mouse-wheel. However, this will rotate the core by a fixed amount of… dunno, 5 degree or so? This means you cannot properly align your building space to your territory’s walls no matter what, as holding R and scrolling rotates the core just by too much of a degree. I get that this might be not a point of concern for most of you out there, but I do think this is an issue that should be talked about. A possible solution and my personal suggestion is the following: The player should be able to rotate the core freely when holding down R and moving the mouse left and right (horizontally, of course!). Edit: Another possible solution would be a feature to snap on the borders of a core to the territorys borders. I have not found a thread with this topic, so if there is one or if you have a solution, please show me the way ^^
  14. • Lighting. Add an option to enable "global" lighting that evenly lights the entire construct area, instead of using the world lighting. • Mirroring. Add a "mirror" tool that lets users add one or more planes to the construct area that mirror elements and voxels placed on one side of the plane. • Copy/Cut & Paste Elements. Allow copying/cutting elements and pasting them. Also allow copying/cutting & pasting voxels and elements simultaneously. • No Clip. Add an option to enable "no clip" while in build mode. • All-axis rotation. Allow the rotation of elements around all axes; a number of elements only allow rotation around one or two axes. • Vertex editing. Add mode that allows moving individual vertices on voxels. Also allow the selection and movement of multiple vertices at once. • Groups. Allow the ability to assign elements and voxels to "groups". A group can then be moved, rotated, copied/cut, deleted, etc. • Blueprints w/o cores. Allow users to create blueprints from voxels and elements they have selected, but do not include the core. They can then paste those to other constructs. • Wireframe option. Add an option when using the link tool to have all voxels displayed as wireframes to make it easier to see connections between elements that go through walls, floors, etc.
  15. Organizing a large industrie is a heavy task. Due to the limitations of container connections the transfere unit helps a lot, but is far away from perfect. It would be nice if we could have multiple items transfered by one transfere unit. This would help automating without touching the container node limits. With this extension we could do the following example: Having a container L as main input for ores. -> transfere unit 1 moves all T1 ores to a T1 container -> transfere unit 2 moves all T2 ores to a T2 container T1 container feeds T1 refinaries T2 container feeds T2 refinaries
  16. Just a suggestion, and I hope that it might be considered for addition into the game at some point. Containers and linking to industry. On the surface a pretty simple thing but once you start upscaling it can grow real complicated, real fast. (at least for my teeny tiny anyhows ?) Though I guess going into a build with all the stuff needed and a solid plan is the best way to go at it, building a frame structure only, dumping down all the industry where you want, being able to clearly see where all the lines are going etc. But, if your new at it, or enlarging an industry in an already built structure, then you are going to have issues tracing those lines, not because you didn't name all your containers and industry (if you didn't then good luck sorting out that hot mess) but because more often than not you cant see where those links are going, a problem compounded more with multiple floors. Anyhow, to the suggestion....... In containers and industry, under the containers tab, wouldn't it great to be able to select Input / Output links via a dropdown searchable list of all the constructs linkable elements. Even better if we could see how many links are used/available on each one of those elements. And Even Better if we could also see to which elements they are currently (if any) linked to. Please, for the sake of my sanity and mental well being , make this happen ? Cheers in advance ?
  17. I want to be able to select a voxel construction with the selection tool and save this selection permanently as a blueprint for further use. This way you can construct your individual elements like "a voxel bottle" or "a voxel chair" and place it everywhere you like using the blueprint. Currently you can only save a complete core construction, but not single voxel elements.
  18. Consumable devices that opens small text fields for the player to make and share notes. I would love a full rich-text based editor with maybe even pictures. But a simple text editor to make quick notes like routes through your mining tunnels so my friends (and myself) won't become lost would be awesome.
  19. By using the link element tool in a large factory you loose the overview of all that connections very fast. An improvement could be: If you select an element as smart target all connections with this element are colored, all others are grayed out. Input and output connections should have different colors, so you can recognize the direction of connection faster then watching the nicly animated arrows. I just added a screenshot that you know what i am talking about.
  20. Hello. I'm here to suggest a thing that should have been done from the beginning. Now we have the most inconvenient interface for radar and guns in our constructions. We can get some data from the radar API and can try to create custom widgets and interfaces for this. But all this is completely useless, because we do not have the ability to identify and capture the target and can not shoot without using the standard UI. I understand Novaquark can't allow us to do these things through a script. This would not be fair and it would give an advantage to those who know how to create scripts. The only alternative I could think of was using hotkeys to identify and capture targets and to fire guns. I think this is a very important thing now that we are in beta and the game world is starting to evolve. What do you think about it?
  21. My friend and I have been playing for a about a week now, and today by accident I discovered that CTRL-Double Left Click within the inventory does a select all function in containers/nanopacks. I couldn't find this in any ingame tooltips, we've actually been annoyed thinking this didn't exist and have been manually selecting via CTRL+Left Click 1 by 1 to drag multiple items around. This is mostly a "Newbie Help" item, to add it to the context menu where I see there is room left for more tool-tips. Please see screen capture for my suggestion to add this tool-tip. -Neoki
  22. This post is about the experience of crafting using industry in the early game. I am fully aware that as you build resources these concerns decrease, but .. this still leaves us with a less than ideal early game experience - which is the issue I want to address. So, early game, you're building things in your nanocrafter and you're starting your industry... You build the parts for the Assembly Line S (skipping the XS as it's useless initially), then you build the parts and Assembly Line M, then you build the parts and a Smelter, Refiner, Electronics, Metalwork, 3D Printer, and containers galore. The progression here is fine, the issue is that because you have to use the nanocrafter to produce the parts required (typically into a linked container as input to the assemblies), and because you have to manually alter the recipe each time, you're essentially tied to your base, for long periods of time, doing "nothing". Sure, you could be building the base .. but.. typically you've used all your starting honeycomb and don't want to make more, yet, as it would slow down your industry creation. Sure, you could run off and mine.. but then your nanocrafter queue will put the current output in the wrong place (because you leave the linked container range) and then it will stall (as all the inputs are in the linked container, now out of range). So.. instead, you sit with your thumb up your .. doing "nothing". This is a "not much fun" gameplay loop which I would like to see improved. I think the solution is to add queues to industry units. What I mean by this is that we ought to be able to queue a "make X of Y" request, just as we can in the nanocrafter. I am not suggesting we queue "make infinite" or "maintain X, and Y, and Z" or anything like that. So, industry units can either be processing a queue of make X of Y OR doing one of those other things, not both. So, lets start by listing and attempting to refute the common objections to this: 1) this would make large factories redundant If you can build everything with 1 electronics, why have more? Because one electronics can only do 1 thing at a time. So, if you want to produce something with 5 ingredients, you would have to wait for one electronics to produce all the input, one ingredient at a time, and your "factory" (of 2 units) would be super slow and inefficient. Given this, you still need large factories, especially once you reach the scale where you want to "maintain" a range of input ingredients to keep your factory production constant and efficient. Queues have to be queued manually, so they're not appropriate for a fully automated factory. In short, queues won't change how large factories operate, so they will still exist just as they do today. 2) this would reduce the "value" / "cost" of items in the game, and "ruin" the market. If things are too easy to build, who would buy items from the market. Yes, this will make it easier for new players to build the smallest, cheapest, T1 elements in the game. But, doing so will still take them quite some time (see point #1 above) even if they have a few industry units, so they might prefer to buy these items some of the time. For higher tier items, with more ingredients and longer build times for those ingredients and the item itself.. those players are going to have an ever better reason to buy the items instead of making them. Another way to look at this; even late game players might prefer to simply buy, in bulk, lower tier items. If crafting these is easier for new players, then they may even be selling on the market. This is actually a net positive for the market, even if the price per unit is lower, there will be more items being bought and sold. In short, queues may have an effect on the low end of the market (positive and negative), but very little effect on T2 and above. 3) Any other objections? If you have any, please let me know, keeping in mind the points made in response to objections #1 and #2 above (as I can think of some potential objections which these points refute). This is not just my complaint I am not the only person who has issue with this gameplay loop. I recently watched this video where they express the same concerns about crafting speed and having to sit round doing "nothing".
  23. Hi. When you click a recipe that is in the queue of your crafting window, open the recipe with the queued quantity in the middle window. To allow the user to not have to manually re-enter the amount when they want to look up the item requirements Change the "Missing Ingredients" marker in the queue indicational (Red if missing items, Yellow if it's item requirement is dependent on other queued recipes before it) To provide a clean graphical indication of the queue status and requirements Placing artificial voxel removes dirt voxel within x distance of it. To allow for cleaner builds that move into the dirt. Enable users to see their trade history. To give overview of a player's trades. Even though they can do this manually, it would be easy to see where you bought items and how many at what price Enable users to filter the order lists on market This could be a ticker list, categorized by planets, or perhaps even with a set distance range, perhaps a "Show Local Only" ticker Extend the Harvest tool/Mine tool hud with a contextual infobox To contain the material you are looking at, the refined version of it, and how much of it you have in your inventory Implement the ability to "Favorite" recipies To provide an easy way for users to find often-crafted recipes Allow for an option to take missing dirt from the inventory when flattening the ground. To allow for users to line firt up nicely with built structures
  24. Have a limited amount of items to be placed around the world without the use of a core. Think of lightning/signage in a mine or maybe even cargo boxes. You could limited it to only owned territory (personal and other territory with build rights) to reduce the spamming of these things in public spaces. I am thinking of items like: Signs - snaps to voxels to indicate paths or closed corridors in mines. maybe even decorative once like safety signs. Lights - Can be standing lights or lights snapped to voxels. Can be used to indicate paths or light the dark mining shafts. can also be made with batteries or that you have to link them to a reactor on a static core. Small items like cups - So I can decorate my office. I envision the cargo boxes in 4 sizes mostly because I think the act of loading and unloading cargo would be so much more immersive. Small box - Hand held. Can easily move around while holding. but has only a very small amount of storage capability. Medium box - Roughly 2x2x2 the size of a small box and will limit the player movement. Large box - Needs a vehicle (forklift designs will be booming) to move and comes in different shapes. roughly 3 times larger than a medium box. Extra large box - basically a shipping container.
  25. I noticed that the foliage is in low-poly and there are so much possibilities with Low-poly I don't understand how DU can't get better looking foliage and trees .. Also the ground terrain on Du is a nightmare it's scary it's a nightmare!! It looks like honeycomb or a closeup picture dropped on the floor.
  • Create New...