SLG-Dennis

I mean it's not a stream solely on the Marketplace, but it's there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NxDXp6hUu4

Migration between Update 10 and 11 should work fine in most cases.

We have a feedback tracker for that: https://feedback.play.eco

That depends a lot on the settings and how well they are adjusted to the participants of a server. But yes, more disasters of different types are something we'd like to do - though they'd not primarily be any sort of "endgame goal", but rather variety in challenges that players need to deal with on the way there (or after).

I usually try to target around ~ 15 CE(S)T for releases since I'm responsible for them, but this release requires staff from multiple areas to work together due to the deployment of fully new backend services (plus website) - hence I'm not able to commit to a clear goal time for this specific update. It's more of a it goes out when everything looks good, which makes the time a bit flexible. I'd guess anywhere between 15 and 21 CE(S)T.

White Tiger actually only serves as civics, technical and stress test - given the server is modded (and gets things during release builds that may make it into the next game update), it's not suitable for all cases of game mechanics testing - it's also a very concepted server, but the popularity resulting from that makes it the perfect choice to find as many bugs and issues as any possible that any server could stumble over when doing whatever we didn't forsee.

While the marketplace is specifically targeted towards existing players wishing to support the game, I can assure you that the feedback on it was just as mixed as everywhere else - though that was expected to begin with.

Eco revolves around playing with a large amount of players and also friends - the only way to reliably prevent players from placing blocks for others would be to disallow them to do so on any property that they don't own (and transferring any property they own) - which isn't viable and detrimental to the play experience. We also want players to be able to share their cosmetics with friends, as it is usual in other sandbox games - like Space Engineers. That is especially relevant for the share of coop players, but no less on multiplayer servers.

When we talk about gameplay advantages the scope naturally is always only the game mechanics. Eco doesn't revolve around any competetive artistic aspects as you mentioned, such activity results from personal player goals and interests of formed communities, but is not relevant to success in regard to the game goals, as such there is no gameplay advantage. Players can also have extremely different personal goals - not rarely such that...

Yes, of course, it was reported in playtest and already addressed in a PR yesterday.

Block shapes are made specifically per blockset, so they already have differences for most base sets. The introduction of paid skinned variants of base blocksets also doesn't mean we wouldn't add some shapes to base sets every now and then, as we have done in the past.

It is correct that we do consider these variants to be cosmetic. The gameplay value in the building mechanics is created by the economic and tier value of the base sets and the necessary requirements of having a specific tier and the linked material cost. Paid blocksets will always be variants of a base set with identical properties - not introducing any form of new crafting material or having a different tier - they are hence mechanically identical. How they look or how many shapes they have is not relevant to the gameplay loop, but solely cosmetic.

We had no plans to introduce additional blocksets to the game without them following a function, given that is their actual purpose and for the current g...

That should not be the case, the setting is just for allowing using items you have - but do not own the blue print for.