Velenka

I would love to see this kind of action. But I am worried it won't be possible. The devs have chosen to go with a lock on form of ship-ship combat in order to avoid using physics and calculating trajectories for bullets. I could also see them choosing to do the same kind of thing with collisions. Ships and constructs would just "bounce" off of each other like a pair of billiards balls. Hopefully they wouldn't do that, but you never know.

Which can be done with or without FTL. Certainly FTL should be limited to slower distances for the scope of DU. The devs have stated: So since it would be intended to be used on an interplanetary level, it could be used to cross interstellar distances over a long period of time. So it could be IRL days or weeks for FTL ships to make it from one system to another. To have the community at large explore up to 1000 or more systems should take years of runtime. Besides, that wouldn't cause much strain on the servers since they only record the changes made to procedurally generated planets. Secondly, they don't state that they intend to make FTL only available for super large ships, only that it's a "central element of a large ship." As Cornflakes said, FTL doesn't effect the continuous single shard server element at all. You also seem overly obsessed about borders. Why do there need to be borders? An organization can protect its assets without borders. The scale of space is incredible, so talking about borders is insane. Extremely advanced technology should be the only thing to establish a bonafide border. If you rely only on a border to protect you, you're gonna have a bad time. As for all your "Freedom of Ganking," griefers will do what they do, no matter the form of FTL. If you want to be absolutely safe, then there is a 20km safe zone around the arkship just for you, possibly elsewhere. After all, space is a dangerous place; without risk there is no reward.

I do believe angled slopes are already in the voxel building system. You can read the dev blog here for more information.

Alien relics, great stuff. Though I would add that tech shouldn't be locked entirely away behind alien discoveries, but rather can speed up the research process.

I'd say you worry too much CptT. I wonder if you bothered to comprehend what I was saying or just went off on a rant after you saw the words "Star Trek." I'm advocating for an FTL drive that works exactly like Sublight movement. You only get to go faster, that's all. No surprise teleporting. No jumping of any kind. Movement through space at FTL speed. Everything else is the same. True, but this has no bearing on this discussion of DU's FTL. Go watch DS9. What is the problem with no steering? Seems like balance for the FTL ability. How? Why? And why wouldn't this happen anyway? I think Nyz said somewhere that FTL was going to be a major ship's system so it may turn out only larger ships can have an FTL drive. Chaotic and daunting? Says who? You? It simply increases the scope of the playable universe, that's all. Again, why wouldn't this normally happen? I would also mention that without the ability to travel freely - in terms of software limits, not emergent gameplay - defeats the purpose of a sandbox game. Without the ability to travel freely, NQ might have to uncheck that box for DU.

I'd say make FTL similar to Star Trek or Star Wars. You aren't invincible and you aren't teleporting. It would be a lot slower than stargates (of course) but is a necessary first step in creating a stargate network. How else would you get stargates in other systems?

I'm not saying that physical balancing is bad, I'm just adding that defensive-offensive balancing needs to be considered as well. Add on defensive physical balancing and you have the trifecta. Each of those three areas would need to all be equally balanced, with each other and internally. And I'm not suggesting that there should be massive advantages in the "rock paper scissors" scheme, nor too little, but just right. Balanced. Also I am not a fan of this "space jousting" I keep hearing you talk about. Just because you want it, doesn't mean that's the way to go. If the DU ends up not needing jousting, that's no problem. If by all this "space jousting" you mean to imply that moving targets are harder to hit, then there are certainly better ways to go about it. Jousting would be one of the worst ways to avoid being hit, since you aren't moving much at all relative to your opponent, only appearing to grow in size.

You made sense, but I don't see where that precludes my idea from being implemented. Admittedly Nyzaltar said that they intend to have basic skill from which to branch, so maybe those should work differently to what I suggested. But everything above those skills could be made to use the system I described. Also, in my system, to get to the "top" you are limited by how quickly you can replenish the draining XP. So yes it would matter how you got XP since that would be how the maximum is established. Example: If I'm a master miner, with a super fast mining time, then my mining skill would be decreasing rather quickly if I'm not doing anything. If I'm in the middle of mining, then the decrease would halt, and reverse and I would begin to regain XP. The maximum would be determined by where rate of loss=rate of gain of XP. As for your example, I agree that you can't have a jack of all trades. I specifically mentioned that when describing how my XP system would work and that it would prevent that by forcing you to divide your time between multiple actions/ implant trainings.

It seems you are worried about min/maxing skills, as am I. So let me suggest the following as a more natural form of skill limitation. Suppose that for all skills, the following mechanic works more or less the same way: Every time an action is taken, its appropriate skill gains some amount of XP. In the lore there is some kind of implant which "teaches" you over time, so every time it ticks you would also get XP in that skill. Once over a certain threshold, the XP will decrease over time, proportional to the amount of XP that is over the threshold. The constant should be very low, causing very low skill loss even at higher XP. The decrease could stop for a short period, every time an action gives XP to that skill. Thus someone who uses a certain skill's actions tends to have a high skill amount. Those who don't train their skills periodically will find that their skills will slip back down to "mediocrity." Also, you could choose to set your implant on a certain skill and it would maintain that skill at a higher amount than the normal threshold. This would allow for a "jack of all trades vs a master of one" type mechanic. I would be able to use everything, but not as well as someone else (the master) could. Perhaps I could be great at 3 or 4 skills and be very close to the master of one, but not quite. Optionally, a death death mechanic could be implemented to remove a certain number of XP from that skill. Notice that I have refrained from using the word "level" as much as possible. I'm also thinking that skills should be represented by a much more "tightly packed" number than 1,2,3. Think more like 10,000 to 1,000,000 as the operating standard. Whatever actions benefit from a higher "level" can do so from XP instead which is much less jagged than traditional "skill levels." As far as what form these skills will take, well it seems everyone has an opinion. Lock-on times was mentioned by CptT. Perhaps faster mining, building, deconstructing. Perhaps faster FTL, faster guns, efficient reactors, somehow.

I really don't know how easy it is to create settings where performance can scale from very high to very low. But I would suggest this since this is an MMO, you want as many people to play as possible, and not repel too many players with very high system requirements. Only after that was achieved should porting even be considered. If it could be ported without any effects on PC players would I go along with it. DU shouldn't be gimped by the low-performance consoles.

That really isn't what I meant. "Space Station" isn't really a type of element that you can place to negate a certain weapon. I was thinking more along the lines of placing different types of armor to resist certain weapons. Or choosing a different weapon based on the defensive capabilities. The point of my suggestion was not cost vs utility but rather balanced gameplay.

If player-made voxel blocks are going to be affected by physics, then entire constructs would be too. Of course with thrusters and such, you can affect the physics. If a piece of your ship detaches, it ought to continue moving at a constant velocity, determined by the circumstances at the time of detachment. I can see simplified Newtonian physics being implemented fairly easily, but not relativity since it involves time dilation. Time has to move forward at the same pace for everyone. Unless they implement slo-mo for time dilation effects. But that's slo-mo not time dilation. As a person (or a server), I see that time passes the same, no matter what. For static structures, there should be the same kind of voxel station mechanic that SE uses. I think this was demonstrated briefly in the recent gameplay footage. Third Person First paragraph

I like all of these. I'd like to see a large variety of weapon types, each with their pros and cons. They should all participate in a balancing regime such that one type of offensive is fairly effective against a particular type of defense, and conversely, there would be one type of defense that is fairly effective against a particular offensive. Like a big game of rock paper scissors.

Welcome and have fun!

Kind of like Space Engineers? I like it, but I don't see how it's going to solve the intellectual property problem. To build that construct you need those materials anyway, regardless of how they are listed.

I think that estimate is entirely far too optimistic. Scales in DU will be much larger than any construction game before. I would like to see you be able to completely decompile the 8km long station as seen in the gameplay footage in mere days. But of course there will be smaller constructs, and of course they will be decompiled. But others and myself have suggested that the solution lies in the emergent gameplay. I mentioned the following as the actual permanent solution: "a possible a "Patent Regulator" organization which would attempt to stop plagiarism, which is another nice emergent mechanic. The "Patent Regulators" would hire the "Police" to "arrest" offending parties." Adding on to this, the builders would pay some kind of regular payments to the Patent Regulators as a form of intellectual protection. These Patent Regulators would have their own enforcers or could contact the police to "arrest" the offenders. The Patent Regulators would also be involved in reputable trading stations where blueprints are sold. They could identify those plagiarized blueprints and remove them from the market. So in the end, copying someone else's work would be time-consuming and illegal, which could prompt actions taken against you.

70%? Where did you hear that? The most recent I've heard is that it was not determined: Nyz in the Ask us anything thread: Also 70% of planet material means a reduction to .669 of original radius. So a 33 km depth on a 100km radius planet.

I would say yes it's possible. But you should be able to get a lot more use out of systems if there were dedicated crew to help in the functioning of the ship. I've suggested before that in the realm of combat and targeting, you should be able to mark specific points for turrets to shoot at. Otherwise, they would just target some other random point that is less useful. Or as for sensors, a person could be continuously running scans, targeting specific areas of space. Perhaps there could be some sort of minigame which increases sensitivity. And as for comms, well I will just say, don't text and drive. You never know what planet you might crash into. And so on for any other kind of ship's system.

But but but if there's no floating cities, where would I go to capture rebels and attempt to persuade my long lost son to help me conquer the galaxy???? In all seriousness, sure you could do it. Whether it's worth it, or you have the in-game capability to do so is another matter entirely. (talking about power/thrust requirements Ghezra mentioned above.)

Quote from Nyz in Voxel Tools: Pre-Alpha game design thread The answer is: unfortunately, no. And it won't change any time soon. If you dig under some voxels, they will stay at their place. This seems to indicate that voxels will not be able to move at all. In fact, he's also stated that the devs are thinking about limiting voxel depth in planets to some figure.

I'd agree that this falls in the realm of the emergent politics of the game, being completely player dependent. As far as advice to that effect, it really depends on the situation. You could have an empire which has simply over exerted use of its forces in expanding its sovereignty, so it should consider shrinking its borders. Or there could be a power struggle in which a general challenges the ruler for control of the empire, possibly resulting in a split of control if one side does not completely dominate the other. Or the empire could be entrenched in a war with a rival. It should probably get its head in the game in this case. But this isn't something the devs should do anything to either develop or prevent. It will simply happen on its own.

^ this x 1000. I'm all for naturally emergent gameplay here. Especially when we can be more creative.

Correct. But this is just reverse-engineering as an emergent mechanic. And it would only work for constructs that are small in size. Maybe you would spend months reverse-engineering a capital ship, but most won't. This kind of thing happens in real life too. We have regulations and laws and courts to deal with it. And so DU would have need of a "Patent Regulator" organization which would attempt to stop plagiarism, which is another nice emergent mechanic. The "Patent Regulators" would hire the "Police" to "arrest" offending parties.

Blueprint-able should be a right. If that right is not included in ships created from ships sold in a blueprint, then others would not be able to "bootleg" it. Anything that attaches to, or detaches from this construct would also inherit the blueprint-able right, or lack thereof. I say attach or detach in the sense of SE's grid system and its merge blocks. If you want to use a docking element, this would not count as attaching or detaching. Two docked constructs would not be attached, and therefore the blueprint-able right would not transfer or change.

In addition, AM should only be created from hydrogen, which you would get from mining. You would also get oxygen too. This works great if a survival mechanic is included because then you get precious oxygen in addition to your fuel. Perhaps we don't actually have that much energy since the mass inverter actually uses a quantum state syncronizer, which will convert your matter at a fraction of the cost!