Jump to content



Recommended Posts

We need to find a compromise, it's look that NQ need to reduce the numbers of core on the server to keep decent performance. But it's still interesting to see some builder making large city

Let's add more skill like :

basic core manager : +2 core per level

uncommon core manager : +5 core per level

advanced core manager : + 10 core per level


with prerequisite level 5 from the lower tier talent so it's physically possible to have a large amount of organisation core, but it very expensive in talents point so player will invest so much talent point for serious project only


and basic player will have to limit them self that will make everyone happy

-for NQ : that will reduce the amount of core in the game

-for players : it's still possible to build lage city, large PVP fleet etc... but at a significant talent points cost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Verliezer said:

I think spot on. Adding to this maybe they can setup a few 'player journeys'. Ask a decent number of player how they play the game and what their needs are. How do people play the game and what are the needs beloning to those 'player journeys'. NQ can then make al of their decissions based on those 'approved' journeys.

* player journey = basicly a case decription on a certain kind of game play, what people do in the game. Not everybody is doing everything but most of us do combine certain play elelements. It is interesting to find out which different game play types there are and then based on this design your game.

It will show that players do many things. On the one hand, to find variety for themselves and, on the other hand, because some of the content they want to play has other content as part of it. The game now consists of dependencies.

Player A wants to build an industry because he likes industrial plants.
- So he has to get quanta, because industry requires expensive schematics.
- He must therefore also skill according to the industry in order to be competitive.
- He needs raw materials
- he needs quanta for taxes

Means he "must" do things to be able to play what he wants in the end.

I'll take "me" as an example.

I came into this game for one reason: I want to build something. (A Borg-style city) I didn't need any quanta, no schematics...I just had to collect some ores, convert them into voxels in the nanocrafter and start building. I decided how much ore to mine and when. I could continue building accordingly.

Quite one-sided, but I planned on needing at least 10-15 years in the game to reach my goal.

In general, however, there are also many players who are very divided. Today they want to build, tomorrow they want to do PvP, the day after tomorrow they'd rather do a dungeon and on the weekend something completely different again. So players' interests vary, once individually and once depending on the game content.

DualUniverse is very badly positioned in this respect, because it can simply satisfy too few interest groups and there is no symbiosis between the interest groups. One could argue that DualUniverse only appeals to a small, very specific target group, but still tries to achieve goals that should attract a large mass. For me, this is a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a ship builder (like many others) and many of my cores are tied up in display ships.  It would be great if NQ could design a new element that can be placed on a static core.  this element can have BP loaded into it, so when a buyer comes to the shop then can use this element to see a list of all loaded bp.  they can then select a bp and the element will spawn in a demo version of the ship on the static core which automatically despawns after a set amount of time.  So instead of me having to have 20-30 cores tied up into demos of my ships that buyers can walk around in, I can instead use only 1 core

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Aranol said:

We need to find a compromise, it's look that NQ need to reduce the numbers of core on the server to keep decent performance. But it's still interesting to see some builder making large city

Let's add more skill like :

basic core manager : +2 core per level

uncommon core manager : +5 core per level

advanced core manager : + 10 core per level


with prerequisite level 5 from the lower tier talent so it's physically possible to have a large amount of organisation core, but it very expensive in talents point so player will invest so much talent point for serious project only


and basic player will have to limit them self that will make everyone happy

-for NQ : that will reduce the amount of core in the game

-for players : it's still possible to build lage city, large PVP fleet etc... but at a significant talent points cost


But it does not solve the problem that a player then creates an organisation for himself. Why do they want to introduce these skills for an organisation? If a player needs more core spaces of his own, these extensions must be made possible for the character, not for the organisation.

In the theme itself, we have several problems that need to be solved at the same time. we should always keep that in mind.

- Players who want to build (for themselves)
- Players who want to build together (as an organisation)
- Players who create organisations even though they don't need one, just to get coreslots.
- Players who join organisations and leave them again (according to the new system, they can cause damage).
- Players and organisations that build so much that it becomes a financial aspect (real money)
- Performance of too many constructs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wokka1 said:

The best / easiest way to fix the issue with number of cores is to go with your original thoughts.  Limit number of orgs a single toon can be a super legate of, and just turn off any ability to nest.  I realize this will hurt a lot of large orgs, but it would create a limit and stop the talents of  a single toon in maxing out multiple orgs.


Simply turn off the nesting and limit a toon to being a super legate of one org.


SL has nothing to do with maxing out multiple orgs. Many of us adjusted our SL assignments months ago (a year?) after they proposed the restriction that you could only be SL of one org. And that each org required a unique SL. And then they changed their minds.

But one character can still, and has always been able to, provide their buffs to multiple orgs. As a legate, not a SL.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey NQ,


why is it you seem to wanna erase every single bit of creativ input to this game from Players? 

Let´s not even start going with the Shematic thing first ... First you did us good with you "awesome" Tax idea to kill major player City´s or Market´s. At the same time you did a brake change that scarad the living crap out of every one.

Now you forcing us to single out Constructs we build for other´s and make us delte them to create new ones. That is takeing away a huge Part from the Game. That DU Creators site, you basicly killing it. All the Discort player markets, killing em two. Over all creativ share with the Community? Yap RIP for that as well.
And to top it off you bringing out a Building Tool that no one of us creators can use properly because you don´t give us Core slots to work with any more. 

For me as a creator and single player i need those Core slots. Without it, i cant:


- Build more Ships. Constructs or be part of Player City´s
- run miners do earn money
- Make people happy with new creations

- get my creativ Energy out in a way i love, in Game i love



If you want to kill the abillity of One Account beeng able to join every Part of the game to figure out want you want to do with your time here, then pls say it so i can get the [filtered] out of here and don´t waste my time. The same goes for your stupit dumb way of anouncing new shit in your cryptic way´s in that you can´t find a sigle defenetive Info but plenty of room for speculations. 



Over all, that is hugely negativ post of mine. And that totally sucks because i love this game and the way i can play it. But with you lighting it on fire for no reason it is hart to not be agressive. 


I hope you find another way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we are very active at Seraph Design Studio, but we are only a hand full of player. So now we need to go from door to door and beg for Org-Slots to keep our MU, Showroom, Displayships and Buildingsinfrastruktur. 

Sorry, but i dont will create and pay for 3 to 4 alt accounts, just to keep nice looking streets. 


Changes are needed - ok. This concept is again not as good as it maybe sounds, cause to very different play styles. 


Showrooms, spacestations will be reduced and a bare core with lots of screens with pictures of "may be ships".


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder :

- NQ say that there won't be a core XL for several years because it will be too expensive and that we will use XL instead of L.
What I understand is that the bigger a core unit is, the less NQ likes it because it costs more to maintain.

- Now we're going to have a pretty hard limit of X core per player. This will therefore push people to have mostly L cores to optimize large constructions.

So what is it really? Is the number of cores the problem or is their size?

If that's the number, you have to quickly unlock the XL cores.
If it is the size of the cores, then it must be integrated into the counter and let the player choose what he uses.
(Example: Core XS: 1 pts / Core S: 8 pts / Core M: 64 pts / Core L: 512 pts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On itself I find these limits too restrictive to enjoy building, but that is not what is pissing me off about this post.

What it is is the total disrespect for their player base, especially loyal daily players like me:

  • With the Demeter release we where all encouraged to place cores and mining units everywhere. I spend 8 full weeks building mining bases, logistic station with warp beacons and elevators. Then they do a post telling us that we are not allowed to put down so many cores and I have to take it all down again... I can't believe they didn't knew this was coming when releasing Demeter.
  • If the problem is that there are too many cores on the server they could have easily fixed that by removing >90% of them by not automatically placing headquarters on players that left the game. They are so desperate for old players to come back to the game that they screw over the loyal player base that remained.
  • If removing those would not have been enough they could have introduced new limits excluding existing cores. But they don't seem to care. I think NQ underestimates how much builders hate breaking down builds.

The style of the post doesn't help: trying to sell a severe limitation as a max increase: they really must think we are stupid.

Personally I cancelled all my M6 industry- and ore-buying orders and going into hibernation as a player. How this release pans out will determine if I resume or need to go look for another game. I am certainly not motivated to keep building at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Megabosslord said:

~5 of my ships are throwing the stacking error now when all I ever did was place with arrow keys. Either something is wrong with the algorithm, or NQ did a sneaky change to element hitboxes. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it is so freaking weirred what they doing. On one side they remove VR Missions to make a huge plus for multi accounting go away - the next update they pushing multi accounting through the roof with Mining Charges and Core Slot´s. 
It is like 3 indipendend mentaly disabled Bosses running this Game in 3 different way´s and every major Patch another Boss can decide what to do next to [filtered] over what the one before did. But they all have kid´s that are only playing PVP so that is fine and gets more buffes with every patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OrionSteed said:

To help out with the MU changes, maybe the TU comes with a build core, not a part of the core limit, where you're free to build a elevated structure for them?  That way it would be tied to the TU, which you're already paying taxes on.

I really like that idea, but I would like it to be implemented such that you link up to 1 core to your TU. Otherwise I would have to tear down and redeploy literally all but one of my tiles in the game, in order to control where the MU are located.


If the TU got a  build box, like a normal core, I would have to move everything. If you could link up to 1 core to the TU, most mining setups just need to be linked, and job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would help everyone if NQ knew what the game was missing by playing it themselves with the community. The players would be helped if they now knew what they are waiting for, what perspectives are intended for the finished game, how do they want to achieve that?
What of the advertising promises is still valid at the moment? Which red thread of the development is followed? To check whether the goals can be implemented. Or to declare the XY problems that are currently simple and clear.
There are so many very good suggestions from the community why is there no feedback from the game design / vision team for us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't participated in the kickstarter campaign and see the DU only in the beta lifetime and every next patch is just one simple thing: NQ and development team cannot support their false advertising.


Infinite world of possibilities? - Yes, but you have to freaking sit in a shaft for hours to buy things to build things.

Wanna become industry maniac? - Yes, but you have to pay for every sneeze.

Let's build planets worth of cool things - Yes, but you can build only one shed 10*10*10m.


Every next patch kills the last bits of creativity that can be put into this game. For anyone who comes here to fly in space, build nice things and so on you create obstacle by obstacle. In the early days of beta I was actively advertising the game to my friends who could spare some time to look at a new project, but now - you don't get a single worthy feature. Everything is gone.


You don't log in - your items are gone. You don't pay - items are gone. You want to build a city - FNQK YOU you can build a shed and be happy with it.



Limit is ridiculous first of all. If your famous single shard database cannot support the advertised features, stop advertising it at all. This game is a capitalist maniac ruining creativity simulator for NQ and every player is just a victim.


With mining gone and MUs introduced you need AT LEAST 20 constructs to have steady supply of some ores. Add base or two, shuttle and hauler and your limit is gone. The count before the patch was reasonable - you could build things and not really bother the count, want a new ship - sure, pop a core and go on. Wanna show off - sure, put another core and build a n X-wing, death star, battlestar galactica.

With new limit, you just put your MUs, build two brick-shaped haulers and a cubic base. Or just pack it up, dump into a sanctuary (in false hopes they won't take that from you as well).


I honestly hate the whole idea of taxes but putting the infinite number of constructs behind a tax would make SOME sense. Hard limit is just jckilling the game all over again. not much left to kill now, probably worth asking legal to prepare the company liquidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I think most players do not use many cores.


Another large part (I am with these) will use these changes as an opportunity to streamline their core-usage - as well as game time invested towards doing redundant or ineffective things: compact mining unit configurations is a big thing there. Maybe people start to really, really consider if they need THIS much ore ore even more quanta for.. uh.. stockpiling. 


That leaves a small - yet important - group of players, which also has a a big role in promoting this game: builders.


  • Maybe there can be an option to have a longer-than-30-day "reliable lease" of construct slots for orgs.
  • Or DU could award outstanding and showcased builders with reward-slots for their builder-org.
  • Providing a single XL or XXL static or space core slot per org could also be an idea.





Link to comment
Share on other sites


Have you even considered the fact that by recalibrating your game to your technical/ financial needs, you're also recalibrating our projects and our dreams ? Sure, you're faced with hard limits - straight from the board room, I'd wager - but could you please at least show some tact in your communication, spare a little mercy to your playerbase, show some empathy for our efforts ? Another radical Alpha-level change in a Beta state designed to ease the server load, this org core limit exposes leaders and designers to the whim of their members with a two weeks notice, random core abandonment, no fast-tear-down system and an incomplete RDMS, while cores are now mandatory for ressource gathering.


After promising us the new Oasis, back in the days where you needed our support, you took the Dual Universe away from us: every step you've made since Beta shows this world firmly belongs to you, not us. And you know what ? FINE, I get it, it is what it is, JC's Grandiose Vision was too expensive, welcome to Abu's Discount Metaverse.


But please be more careful as you thread on our dreams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the following:

The French gave the statue of liberty as a gift to NY. A large object with no particular use, which is beautiful, a marvel of engineering, and has become iconic to anyone knowing about NY or the USA. Such structures have a purpose, only therefore, and to inspire and let others know that which is feasible or can be accomplished. Paris is full of mostly empty "useless" buildings, like musea, yet they are preserved because they look nice and contain nice things.


Now watch what would happen to all such places, if the general public would need to invest, by own choice, directly and actively to maintain those buildings and places, and in doing so by handing over the freedom they could otherwise have used to move in themselves.


IF the amount of constructs is something that needs balancing, then balance it?

WHY don't you guys tax on constructs instead (like in the real world)?

That together with a tax on territories would allow you to finetune a lot.


And then anyone keeping alive some large construct will be forced to pay taxes and thus either find other people to help support that tax or focus his gameplay to accomplishing just that, since there is now a real trade-of to consider. You see, in this way it would come down to the same principle of needing contribution. It will be more flexible too from the player point of view. Just consider a number of scenarios with a miner, or a ship builder, or anyone really needing to make choices based on such a trade-of.


You would accomplish exactly the same thing as a hard limit, but wouldn't need to impose it everyone in the same way, some will be below that limit, few above.

This is not to say that the current proposed limits are ridiculous, so please don't think of a tax to reflect that. Your game attracks bright people, that have minds which need some room to express themselves.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the changes affect me in the short term, no. But they do curtail longer term plans. I'm more worried about some of the incredible builds that exist in the game. Freeport, for example, or Pure Velocity Raceway / Anvilworks Speedway / Obsidian Race Center, etc. These are huge complexes with history and high core counts. In the case of the raceways those cores are required for gates, pit hangars and public racers, not to mention all of the other associated stuff.


Maybe upping the number of available core slots will help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Emma Roid said:

What it is is the total disrespect for their player base, especially loyal daily players like me:


they never respected the time of their players, just remember what happened before demeter. They confirmed in a dev video that old scans would carry over, making many players spend 2+ weeks scanning tiles, just to flip flop later on without any compensation for those wasted days.


As for me, when they don't change their core limitation plans i'm out, and its final this time. I have ~40 cores in MUs, ~10 in constructs for different uses (race car, market hauler, atmos hauler atmos/space haulers etc.). My race track desert oasis uses 100+ cores and then there are some smaller bases on other planets which i could probably scrap. But even tho, thats at least 150 cores, and if i have to delete even only 10% of them, my racetrack will be gone, and so will be I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I slept on this overnight. I am more upset today than yesterday.  What keeps a playerbase in an MMO? Content and carrots.  Think of the original EQ (still going). A huge carrot. I inspect his armor- Oh I want that. Oh look at that raid mob, I am going to grind and get into that guild.


After all of the other changes to date, some of the carrots are: Utopia, crazy ship show rooms, personal player markets, race tracks.  My org was just starting on a large base/station project. Poof gone. With a modest amount of mining units, a base that is 60ish cores but like an airport meaning a lot of floor area.


You have to keep the carrot or there will not be any desire to play. Utopia, Hude Station., IC Spaceport to name a few.  You have to allow people/orgs who have not built a project like that to have cores to do so.


Sure there needs to be a core cap but it must be much higher with other steps taken first. 


- Cleanup the old abandoned junk first

- After a period of time for an unsubscribed account (3 months?) remove the HQ designation then poof the core

- 100 cores per individual (many people would never hit this but here is the carrot to dream big) and long term play

- 50 or 75 cores to donate to org.


This maintains the carrot but also sets a hard limit.  


If the player core count is not materially raised people will hesitate to donate their precious cores to an org they are just a member of.


Have you thought about the grieifing that can happen to orgs?


From mining units to now there have been so many material changes and very little PTS time the partial talents reset is not hitting the mark.  So much material changes have happened,.  I strongly feel there should be a total talent reset.


FInally,  raise the sub price if needed to not stifle and potentially cripple the games future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SuperMinha said:

Basically this change would be a wipe in disguise.

The Tax changes and this will wipe more than 50% of constructs?


And likely more than 50% of the player base along with it. We’re already down 90% what’s another 5%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn’t they make it data limited rather than core limited?


ie. You are limited to 10Gb or something? That way roads floors and cubes don’t eat up your quota as much as super intricate check boards. 


Then a way to reduce data would be to make prefabs. Create a prefab. Once it’s complete you can blueprint it and then if you duplicate the unit it is a complete replica of the entire first item. That way you could cache parts used 1000 times and only have to download the part once. 

min effect the parts become elements, immutable. 

this would obviously only 100% efficiently work on static structures. 
on dynamic structures where voxel damage can occur it could get tricky. 

imagine train tracks, roads, runways, fences and walls. Heck, even Hangar walls. All low variation assets would benefit massively from prefabbing. 

if we were limited by data, we would find ways to make things more data efficiently, win win scenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thx that you guys are trying to further improve the game, and thx that you are stronger listening to the community.

After some, not to wisely chosen changes, the player base is shrinking. I think most of the remaining players are builders, designers and collectors like me. 

The approach you are using to regulate the core usage is not bad, but the amount of cores a single player and the orgs can reach a far to low.

We are talking about a sandbox game where everything has to be build by players.


So if you regulate the core usage such hard you are regulating game content!!!


You have to think the amount of cores over, otherwise the game is becoming dead.


A second point is the amount of components that are going to be sold. The economy struggles hard due to the last changes you made. More materials on the market without any need to get new stuff will kill the economy completely.


It would be more important you finally get a system in place where the items are loosing quality under usage, we must get a demand into the market!! 


So please, dont kill this game completely, i love it and play so many hours because i still hope you get the right direction in your decisions.


Thx and kind regards


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Been a heavy (6 hours/day) solo player since day 1 of beta.  25 Cores per player per org is absurd. This will kill the game for me. I need at least 81 cores to not lose anything. And, how many core a the player can have (talent maxed)?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...