Jump to content

DUAL ACCESS COUPONS - STATUS UPDATE - discussion thread


NQ-Wanderer
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pleione said:

I'd say that would have had purpose, and given that NQ just announced their own (so much for a player made infrastructure), not a bad idea.  Hardly "no purpose/function", which I find insulting to be assumed.

So here is my point of view:
A trading station totally makes sense. But some trading station in space? Without any means to do a player market at all?

Using dispensers for trading for me feels like a workaround. Given that Aphelia already has trading stations.

So you probably were planning to have a lot of dispencers for people to buy stuff.

On the other end. If people could simply create player markets which would be really important from my perspective.

Given the way NQ does things, all you would need for a trading station, IF player owned trading stations did exists.

All you probably need is 1 trading interface and that is it. Maybe a landing platform. But most of the "nice" stuff would probably have no purpose.

For example if you would have to create an actual dock which has an atmosphere which is protected by forcefields. That would be nice. But in DU everything is so safe and boring that you simply fly somewhere and do whatever you want without having to think at all.

Edited by PleiJades
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, PleiJades said:

So here is my point of view:
A trading station totally makes sense. But some trading station in space? Without any means to do a player market at all?

Using dispensers for trading for me feels like a workaround. Given that Aphelia already has trading stations.

Player owned Marketplaces were (are?) one of the things promised for DU.  The dispensers were simply a poor, temporary, work around - our small corp was planning on paying players for raw ore by hand until those marketplaces came into existence.  It took THOUSANDS of man hours to get the station to where it is - we were not going to wait until the marketplaces became reality before we got started.  Remember... all this effort was before 0.23... it was the best we had to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pleione said:

Player owned Marketplaces were (are?) one of the things promised for DU.  The dispensers were simply a poor, temporary, work around 

 

I'm still expecting NQ to spin the dispensers as what was always intended. They have in several instances tried to "sell" workarounds as what they actually planned to do or changed mechanics from "initial implementation which will change" to "this is how it was always meeant to work".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

I'm still expecting NQ to spin the dispensers as what was always intended. They have in several instances tried to "sell" workarounds as what they actually planned to do or changed mechanics from "initial implementation which will change" to "this is how it was always meeant to work".

Yes sadly true. But we must keep pressure on NQ not to forget promises.

Breaking Kick starter promises makes harm to whole industry, because Kick starter is important source for early funding. Breaking Kick starter promises takes credibility away from KS projects

 

Here is how Player markets were described in Kick starter. For me this was one of most important promises to make decision to become Kick starter Backer.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg/posts/1692359

 

They even sent this by email to us. Player markets were in Road map for end of 2020. Then they were mowed to post launch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NQ has removed the mention of player markets entirel from their narrative.. Obviously that wil lnt mean we, as community will forget their commitment an dpromises with regards to markets.

 

I do think the M15 debacle expsosed some serious issues with markets which I can see NQ has not actually addressed yet. In what we saw at that time it's quite clear markets are very vulnerable and fragile in their design and fairly easily broken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

I do think the M15 debacle expsosed some serious issues with markets which I can see NQ has not actually addressed yet. In what we saw at that time it's quite clear markets are very vulnerable and fragile in their design and fairly easily broken

 

Yep. It were RDMS issue. This brings me to other big missing feature. D=Duties part of RDMS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kulkija said:

Yes sadly true. But we must keep pressure on NQ not to forget promises.

Breaking Kick starter promises makes harm to whole industry, because Kick starter is important source for early funding. Breaking Kick starter promises takes credibility away from KS projects

 

Here is how Player markets were described in Kick starter. For me this was one of most important promises to make decision to become Kick starter Backer.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg/posts/1692359

 

They even sent this by email to us. Player markets were in Road map for end of 2020. Then they were mowed to post launch.

Kickstarters are always a bit of a punt though aren't they?  Nobody expects to get 100% of what they backed every time and everyone is aware that when they back a kickstarter it might or might not ever get to the end of the project.  Particularly in software engineering -- software engineers are notoriously bad at knowing in advance how much effort is actually required to make something.

 

It should be obvious to everyone that whatever kickstarter money DU had is gone now.  We can stamp our feet and quote the letter of the promises as much as we like, but if the money is gone then the money is gone.  NQ devs can't just say 'oh yes, you are right, we won't pay ourselves any more and will work for free to make that'.  What we have now is what you got for your kickstarter money.  You might not like it, you might quote the original words from 6 years ago, but the money has been spent and this is what you got for it.

 

Space markets would be cool, but I think the game would need to change quite a bit to enable them (not having all markets in one list, for example, and also answer questions about people being excluded from key player run markets without the recourse of being able to destroy them).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, blazemonger said:

 

I'm still expecting NQ to spin the dispensers as what was always intended. They have in several instances tried to "sell" workarounds as what they actually planned to do or changed mechanics from "initial implementation which will change" to "this is how it was always meeant to work".

 

Yeah... what really annoyed me is them creating a bot-free marketplace instead of allowing players to create marketplaces.

 

What happened to the long promised (as in due 1st half of 2019 as part of Alpha 2 per first roadmap):  "Markets:  set-up your own markets and trading centers, become a mogul and build a trade empire".  

 

The later roadmap (Release in 2021 version) still has "Player-Made Markets" with the same description.  Admittedly that has been pushed to release, but why institutionalize NQ alternatives? 

 

That feature is what the team I was on was working towards.  We sincerely hope they pull this new bot-free market out of the game when it releases - its direct competition to player made markets and demotivating for those of us whom were headed in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zeddrick said:

Space markets would be cool, but I think the game would need to change quite a bit to enable them (not having all markets in one list, for example, and also answer questions about people being excluded from key player run markets without the recourse of being able to destroy them).

 

 

 

That's a great point.  It was always our intention to blacklist any pirates that destroyed any of our members ships, with the intention of removing them from the blacklist if they appropriately compensated us for the destruction (accidents happen when your a pirate).  Of course, we were simply hoping we would have that capability - but at least building the trade station within the safe zone at least gave the station protection.  e.g.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Pleione said:

 

That's a great point.  It was always our intention to blacklist any pirates that destroyed any of our members ships, with the intention of removing them from the blacklist if they appropriately compensated us for the destruction (accidents happen when your a pirate).  Of course, we were simply hoping we would have that capability - but at least building the trade station within the safe zone at least gave the station protection.  e.g.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you...

Blacklisting pirates is a great feature (although it doesn't work too well because of alts), but there does have to be the opposite feature -- if you blacklist pirates they have to have the option to be able to destroy your station or in some way interfere with what you're doing.  Otherwise you can mess up their game and they can't mess up yours, which is not how an MMO should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Zeddrick said:

Blacklisting pirates is a great feature (although it doesn't work too well because of alts), but there does have to be the opposite feature -- if you blacklist pirates they have to have the option to be able to destroy your station or in some way interfere with what you're doing.  Otherwise you can mess up their game and they can't mess up yours, which is not how an MMO should work.

 

I understand that in principle.  Its complicated.  On the one hand, denying access to someone to the services rendered in a station isn't directly messing with them - they didn't have those services before they were put online - however it may give their opponents an advantage over them.  Fair?  idk.  Probably is if your a Law and Order type, but not if your an Anarchist.

 

It gets really complicated if they dynamically lose that access after storing things at the station - kind of like Putins' assets in the USA (to use a current real world example).  In that scenario, I would definitely be messing up their game.  Again a question of fair or not based on their behavior.   But behavior is observation based and open to interpretation.  For instance, could we block somebody because they were a trade competitor?  It would be a way towards creating player based factions!  We could extend the example by asking if I would have the right to sell their assets in order to rebuild the ships they destroyed?  Who would moderate such activity?  NQ?  Not a headache they would want I'm sure.

 

Another concern is RDMS.  What if I, as the station owner, decided a marketplace was too much work and wanted to shut it down (or simply steal everything)?  Could I simply remove the marketplace unit and then mystically own everything everyone had deposited in the marketplace containers?  

 

Who would be responsible for marketplace bug issues - like items placed for sale disappearing, or funds not be deposited correctly?  I can virtually guarantee people will at least CLAIM such things are happening.  Will players have to sign an EULA to not hold the station owner responsible?

 

Also, and not a trivial issue:  Last time I was into construction, one was limited to hub'ing together 10 Large containers.  If that is what a marketplace used, it would be a trivial amount of storage.  Our station has over 50 Large containers just for ore storage (a series of independent hubs - larger for common ores, and just a single Large container for tier 5 ores - but over 50 in total).  I suspect they would need to come up with some type of "Market container" that cost a fortune to build and took up a floor or two of large core area, or perhaps a "Market core" or something.  Shame they didn't figure this out when they build the original marketplaces so that they could extend it to player control later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pleione said:

 

I understand that in principle.  Its complicated.  On the one hand, denying access to someone to the services rendered in a station isn't directly messing with them - they didn't have those services before they were put online - however it may give their opponents an advantage over them.  Fair?  idk.  Probably is if your a Law and Order type, but not if your an Anarchist.

 

That's not completely true though, because generally there will be a small number of marketplaces that everyone actually uses.  Various people will be competing to be the one which everyone uses, and being able to blacklist people (or just offer them lower taxes like you can in eve so they can undercut people) is a really valuable thing.  But anything like that is a form of PvP.  And just like blacklisting, etc could be used to counter actual spaceship violence, the opposite also needs to be true, so spaceship violence can be a counter to blacklisting.

 

eve online actually has most of the answers you need here -- it has a (mostly) balanced way of dealing with the ability to take town a market you don't like while also forcing you to put some skin in the game (yes, it could be better but the idea is good).  It also has a way of dealing with things listed on the market so you don't lose your stuff when a market explodes and the market owner can't steal it.  But it took the game years to evolve all of that and I don't think DU is really ready for it.  They haven't even managed dispensers which give money and take an item yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2022 at 11:29 AM, Pleione said:

 

That was the promise.

I was getting 12 dacs before the price decrease, now I will be getting double that or 24 DACS. So Yes you will have more DACS After the Release of the game. So for me I will have 2 yrs of Free play. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NQ has yet to announce anything about how they will handle the devaluation of pledges due to the lower than expected subscription cost @Damian_Firecaster

 

Having said that, NQ always implied that DAC were similar to PLEX for EVE and as such, they do not translate 1:1 in cost vs a direct playtime subscription. NQ pitched DAC at a retail value of $18 and at the time pitched gametime at around $15 for 30 days..

 

That means your 12 DAC would come out more like 18 when compensating 1:1 which probably will not happen anyway.

 

And I can see NQ bring sub cost up to the originally expect level anyway at release, which may be why they never addressed this in the 2 years since beta started. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CptLoRes said:

or... They will just hand out the original amount of DAC's and pretend everything is fine and never respond to any of the feedback.

 

This is what they'll do. The KS said you get X DACs, that's the number you're getting and there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

 

The value stated in the KS is completely arbitrary, as Blaze mentioned, these aren't a 1:1 value compared to subs because they can be traded for quanta. That makes the "value" stated in the KS very abstract, especially if NQ never gets to the point where they sell them. 

 

I don't see why 12 months of free play matters vs. 24 months -- it's such a long-shot that the game will survive 24 months post-launch, anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blundertwink said:

This is what they'll do. The KS said you get X DACs, that's the number you're getting and there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

 

The pledge cost were directly based on the value the DAC added to the packs. NQ has devaluated this value by quite abit and this they will have to compensate. If they do not, they effectively are in breach of the KS T&C by not delivering the promised goods (not talking perks here, talking what the pledge represents).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

The pledge cost were directly based on the value the DAC added to the packs. NQ has devaluated this value by quite abit and this they will have to compensate. If they do not, they effectively are in breach of the KS T&C by not delivering the promised goods (not talking perks here, talking what the pledge represents).

 

Exactly how are they in breach, though...?

 

The KS T&Cs say they have to try to deliver what they promised, and they promised and delivered X DACs.

 

It doesn't matter if the value of the items they promise in each tier change over time, the terms simply don't cover that.

 

It doesn't matter if someone paid $10,000 to get some special digital item that is sold for $20 a few years later...tough luck, but that's part of how KickStarter works and nothing in the terms protects against that sort of activity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/18/2022 at 10:05 PM, Pleione said:

 

Exactly what they talked about doing back when the price drop was announced.

saying is one thing , promises we have seen many , doing is something else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 5/18/2022 at 10:21 AM, NQ-Wanderer said:

Hello, dear Noveans!

 

Let us know below your thoughts on the DAC status update!

 

Were DAC amounts from backers pledge packs Doubled because of the drop in subscription price ($18 to $9)??? my pledge pack has 12 DACs, so since the price drop does that mean I will get 24 DACS at launch ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Damian_Firecaster said:

Were DAC amounts from backers pledge packs Doubled because of the drop in subscription price ($18 to $9)??? my pledge pack has 12 DACs, so since the price drop does that mean I will get 24 DACS at launch ????

 

Great question!  At one point, like 2ish years ago, they said "Yes".  Today?  Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Damian_Firecaster said:

Were DAC amounts from backers pledge packs Doubled because of the drop in subscription price ($18 to $9)??? my pledge pack has 12 DACs, so since the price drop does that mean I will get 24 DACS at launch ????

I'm not sure why anyone seriously believes this. We will receive the number of DAC in the packs that we purchased rather than via any notional adjustment due to value. Yes JC made some vague hand-wavy comment once about "compensation" but really, we all know that's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Distinct Mint said:

I'm not sure why anyone seriously believes this. We will receive the number of DAC in the packs that we purchased rather than via any notional adjustment due to value. Yes JC made some vague hand-wavy comment once about "compensation" but really, we all know that's not going to happen.

 

i paid the $120 on one of my alpha accounds back in alpha 1.  but when i log in the website it says i only get 1 DAC, but im sure it was promised more. because in alpha 1 the min to even log in and play under NDA was the 120 package.  Are we getting screwed on our DACS owed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CousinSal said:

 

i paid the $120 on one of my alpha accounds back in alpha 1.  but when i log in the website it says i only get 1 DAC, but im sure it was promised more. because in alpha 1 the min to even log in and play under NDA was the 120 package.  Are we getting screwed on our DACS owed?

Our backer DACs are not in our accounts yet, so don't worry about that. What you can see is 1 "Summer DAC" which NQ created to test the DAC system (you can gift it to a new account for 1 month play before launch only). So everything is still ok there, and we expect the backer DACs to appear on launch day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Distinct Mint said:

Our backer DACs are not in our accounts yet, so don't worry about that. What you can see is 1 "Summer DAC" which NQ created to test the DAC system (you can gift it to a new account for 1 month play before launch only). So everything is still ok there, and we expect the backer DACs to appear on launch day.

 

ok that works then, as i looked up my package and am owed 7 more DACs. obv doesnt matter as long as they are there for release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...