Velenka

i'd say that functional elements (generators, thrusters, weapons, etc) have a limited "maintainance" point count.
this point count goes down naturally over time (with or without use) with a slow rate.
the maintainance bar can be refilled by using some tools and resources.
 
maintainance needs go up with usage of the device (output power x runtime or discrete uses for devices where it applies).
so the older a device and the more it has been used the more its maintainance bar has been depleted.
 
a ship just being stored in a hangar would still need upkeep, albeit less than an actively used ship.
requiring regular attention and resource input.
 
as a bit of mitigation it would be possible to "mothball" individual functionals (or just the whole ship, but thats just mothballing all the functionals of the ship)
this would take some time and resources and reduce the maintainance decay strongly (or even to zero) but deactivate the component untill it gets taken out of mothballing again (again taking resouces and time).
 
this would discourage massive ship stockpiling as every ship thats in a flyable state is taking manpower and resources.
and the ships that arent taking a lot of resources are either not built yet or in a state where they arent readily flyable.
putting some strategy and thinking into what ships you build and keep flyable, not to speak active.

Just crossed my mind - figured I would bring it up - but do you think shields need to be invisible when on - only to show a "shield impact effect / animation" when they are hit by something to cause damage, or should they always appear on?

what would definitely bring forward sectioned shields would be to have shield projectors not generate closed bubbles but only single polygons of shield "plates".
 
a single projector would generate a corner/vertex of a shield and it has to connect to other projectors to provide the other vertices for plates/bubbles.
the projection distance could be configured per projector to make the system a bit more flexible.
 
single projector -> point (pretty useless)
two projectors -> line (a bit less useless, but people are creative)
three projectors -> a closed triangular sufrace that provides protection against projectiles that would cross it.
 
four or more projectors could completely enclose a volume.
 
every projector could be part of multiple polygons to generate closed bubbles without gaps.
 
this would enable custom shield forms for any form of ship in a relatively easy to understand fashion.
(the whole wireframe shield bubble could be smoothed over afterwards to provide more pleasing shield shapes, if so desired)
and would also provide sectioned shields for localised damage modeling on shields.
in addition forcefield doors, shield domes and other uses with custom shapes would come for free with the system.
 
damage/power needs could be distributed per shield projector or maybe to shield generators by which the projectors have to be supplied from.

I imagine it would work as either you stated or possibly with a different spin, 
You have a first and last name, you can use the same last name as people but not the same first (seen this used multiple times).

But, the good old ArmA method, without seeing it works; 
i.e,
Anasasi
Anasasi (1)
etc,
etc.

As for the forum names being your final name? I doubt the forums going to have much crossover when it comes to naming unless you want to call yourself the same as your forum name.

Whatever communication method is used, please for the love of Ice Cream put in some kind of spam block function from the word go, one that preferably is editable so you can block phrases, words, account age etc. This is always left out in games releases.

While you have ap oint on ships, you won't be piloting a ship and firing a gun to need a 3rd person view, at least not a battleship or battlecruiser sized ship. In those ships, your gunnery sergeants will deal with the weapons,you are only there to drive the ship in an intercept course and make the jukes to avoid being hit by the enemy cones of fire.
 
 
A starifighter jet, would need to do the first person thing as well for firing the weapons, while having a 3rd person view for a look-around. 
 
 
Having the ability to look-around as a battleship driver though, it owuld negate the need for a radars officer or specialist on the bridge of the ship and it would make the game one specialisation less deep as of gameplay.
 
 
Plus, First Person is much more immersive.
 
 
Having an operations' officer calling out damge done on the enemy ship in a recent engagement is like, the epitomy of a sci-fi immersion in a  game
 

And a drop pod built from voxels cant fulfil your criteria... why?

I like this idea. But what's to prevent players from setting all parameters (damage, rpm, range, efficiency) at the maximum settings? I think that there should be pairings of these parameters, such that when you increase one, another decreases. IE, pair damage and efficiency, range and rpm. Setting the pairs at either 0 or 100% would set one parameter to its max value, and the other to its min value and vice versa. Default would be 50%. Skills/tech research/whatever could increase the max and min values of the parameters.

Regardless: in terms of the OP's idea:
 
Maybe all elements could be generated based on rules and the parameters being tweaked by the player (with the magnitude of modification determined by player skills and used materials).
 
Kinda like the face/body editor from the sims, but for engines, weapons, etc.
 
With the model not being hardcoded but generated with parametric modeling and the stats being affected by the parameter tweaking as well.
 
 
For example a gauß cannon could have the amount of coils, the number of windings in each coil, barrel diameter, space dedicated to the loading systems (how fast it can be reloaded with projectiles), space dedicated to its capacitor systems (maximum energy stored), dimensions of its connector block (and thus volume available to caps and loading system), space for power electronics (how fast the caps can ideally recharge) and so on.
 
When done with enough tweakability a fighter rapid fire cannon and a capital artillery cannon could be the same "part" but with differently tweaked numbers.
 
No dedicated modeling tool needed for individualised parts, no multipart system either but it allows players to adapt equipment to their needs/preferences and would also allow visual identification of "custom" parts.

Suggestions for effects:
Reduced sensor/comms range in a rainstorm
Reduced efficiency of machines/elements in a sandstorm+reduced visibility
Severe decrease in temperature in snowstorm+reduced visibility
Very small chance of causing machines/elements to shut down for a short time in a thunder storm

I think for the most part I agree depending on what your definition of a physical connection is. I think you should have containers/ship container elements. There must be a connection to move resources from one to the other but I think that interaction should be mostly done via physical interaction or a panel. If i want to move stuff from my inventory to my ship I should have to touch my ship. However, if I land my ship on my station I should be able to access a panel on the station/in my ship that allows me to transfer from my ship inventory to my station inventory or place items on the market (depending on how market storage works). I do not think you should have to touch one container and carry it to another. This should be controlled by an element that allows a linked inventory, be it a docking element or some very short range teleporter.
 
In general I don't think inventory management is something that needs to be heavily modified. The inventory systems in other games do a good enough job for DU's needs. Making inventory management too cumbersome and tedious is very bad in my eyes and will drive people away from the game. The system needs to be easily used and simple while still maintaining the physical connection that puts resources at risk and adds a dimension of danger to transporting inventory.

I would hope that when you use the hologram, it then shows you the screen like you are referring to.  just a fancy terminal that might also show some important information on the hologram.

There are two assumptions that have been in this thread that I disagree with. The first is that choke points can't exist in space without stargates. That's like saying that they can't exist on planets without roads. Stargates (and roads) obviously contribute to the creation of choke points but they are only one small piece of the puzzle. Choke points on land are created primarily by natural geographical features. Others are created by artificial features - I.e. cities, bridges, roads, mines, houses, etc.
 
If you expect stargates to be the only type of choke point in space then you are setting your sights far too low. There are a plethora of natural features that could be added to space to create choke points and interesting terrain. Some examples:
 
- black holes - anything within a certain distance of the hole needs to maintain a minimum speed/mass ratio or else it is pulled in. This distance and ratio can be determined by the size of the hole but could be really large, potentially encompassing multiple nearby star systems.
 
- a region of space that is dense in tiny rock formations, ships passing through take damage. Maybe the amount of damage taken can be reduced by having dedicated scanners that detect them, and/or by traveling slowly.
 
- nebulae / molecular clouds, the effects of these could vary depending on the type, but sensors and visibility could be drastically reduced in effectiveness.
 
- ionised regions of space could have adverse effects on certain types of electronic equipment and/or DPUs
 
- fresh supernovas could make large regions of space completely impassable for scifi-ey reasons
 
- black holes eating stars spew out streams of plasma. Exaggerate the effect so that there are streams of plasma flying through space (maybe I'm getting carried away with that one...)
 
Now imagine these in all shapes and sizes (any of these can be on the scale of a battlefield, on the scale of multiple star systems or anything in between), many overlapping and interacting with one another. Now you have real terrain in space and real choke points. And these are just a few things I came up with while sitting on the train to work, I'm sure there are plenty of other things people could come up with both real and imagined. Then throw in artificial structures - colonies/cities/settlements, stargates, trade routes - the things the players will make. These create strategic points of contention to be fought over. And what you build and where is all the more important when the environment is alive with features.
 
The other point I saw made is that "free" travel somehow makes the greater force always win, while stargates-only travel makes things more strategic. I'm convinced I've misunderstood this because it is blatantly obvious that, if anything, the opposite is true. Needing to actually travel to an enemy site opens up all kinds of interesting strategic options and difficult decisions. It allows for interceptions, ambushes, diversionary tactics, splitting or concentrating forces, misdirection, and lots of other exciting possibilities. Stargate-only travel on the other hand means you know exactly where the enemy is going to be. So you put everything you've got there and slog it out.
 
If it was "free" instantaneous travel that was being referred to then I completely agree. That would completely remove all interesting and strategic options. What I'm talking about is real travel that takes time and effort and can be intercepted, not instantaneous travel.

$60?  thats how much a good single player game goes for, that if you halfheartedly play, will beat, and be done playing in 2 months or less.  This game is not a single player game, or one that the vast majority of the players will be done with after 2 months.  So for a one time fee idea, I would want you to pay, $540.....
Thats $15 a month for 3 years.  No i don't need to break it down as a math problem either. 
 
I would love to know, what computer you are going to play this game on, living on a limited budget.  If you really had a limited budget, you would have spent computer money on food, and other necessities of life.  please don't portray yourself as something you are not.  This game IF $15 a month, is the same as giving up going out to eat once or twice a month, or a couple of trips to a starbucks.  Or giving up Coke, and switching to drinking water.
 
I for one, am glad its going to be Pay to play, and will send in that cash every month if this game is as good as it looks.  Not only that but if my kids want to play it, I will give them their own accounts as well.  AND yes I live by a very strict budget, and am willing to make a SMALL sacrifice for a great game that I love to play.  It will not hurt the company to lose people to cheap to pay, because I bet you are here on launch day like the rest of us.

You guys are getting too bogged down in real science here. This is a game. It doesn't have to satisfy real science, otherwise, this game would take place on Earth with current 2016 technologies. The point here is that it's fun and entertaining, not accurate.
 
Zero point energy may in reality be unfeasible, but I would want that in the game anyway. Cold fusion might be unfeasible, but we can have that too. Recall from the short story that we may be using magic maple syrup to power our ships.

I'd be happy with simple weather textures and particle effects. No need to go all apocalypse with earthquakes and volcanoes. Maybe some light or heavy rain. Perhaps clear/lightly cloudy/storm clouds. DU doesn't need to be Weather Simulator 2016.

Yeah I can see two paths for mining logistics: ground and space based. It's certainly more efficient for ground based vehicles to either be small, or use ground based movement (hover engines?). As for space based, yes, that ought to be more efficient outright.
 
I do like the idea of a nanoformer turret, and to add to this, there should be a larger, fixed, forward mounted type too.

I like this idea quite a bit. I have been thinking about a planet dedicated solely for shenanigans and tournaments for a little while. Arena's, race tracks, bumper ships...... Jenga. 

"A good idea, but it will have to be created by players, not Dual Universe. All in all, it will provide a good chance for shipbuilders and craft builders to showcase their creations and allow for a good get-together. Brilliant idea! Let's hear what the others have to say."

you dont need a phd to play factorio either and that is more confusing when you look at an already established factory
 
factorio is also a good example of how building complex production chains should feel.
perfectly fine and logical when you do it yourself.
gigantic, confusing and a messy when you look at it as an outsider because of its complexity and size

Disappearing constructs is a very unfair mechanic for an organization which goes around capturing derelicts. The arkship will provide a safezone for protecting players and their creations. There is probably also going to be a Virtual Reality where you can design and test in a completely secure environment.
 
Space is a real danger, and there shouldn't be protections everywhere from those who want to play with malicious intent, which is a completely valid strategy. DU is intended to be a game with emergent organizations, and therein lies the true protection. Pirates will be scared away by the police organization. There would presumably be some sort of infrastructure associated with you and your constructs, and that too would give a kind of protection. If not, then you really should worry about where to log off since you have no recourse if your stuff does get destroyed/stolen.
 
Automatic shutdown is a good idea, cloak your ship as much as possible. But it's still not invulnerable or unreachable.

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

So I have been wondering about wreckage. It seems clear that battles are going to take place, so it's very probable that wreckage will be left behind. Wreckage that perhaps the previous owner will come to reclaim, but perhaps not.
How will salvaging wreckage work? It should be balanced enough that either the salvage shop or the previous owner will have a fair chance to claim it.

So here is my suggestion. Whoever wishes to salvage the wreckage will have to "claim" it. The wreckage will remain in a "claiming" state for X amount of time. After that, all rights within the wreckage will transfer to the claiming player. Should another player interrupt the claim with a competing claim, the countdown will restart with a new claim in the name of the interrupting player. The amount of time X would depend on the amount of voxels in the construct: bigger constructs take longer to claim.

This shouldn't be limited to wreckage. An abandoned, but functional construct should be a valid target for a claiming system. It's a naval tradition. You found it first, crew's gone or dead, so it's yours.

This would allow for interesting interactions. Either the two opposing players could sit next to the wreckage, claiming it back and forth until one player loses patience and abandons the wreck. One player could initiate combat to either scare away or kill the other player.

But what about abusing this claiming system on an occupied or fully functional construct? The owners/right-holders could put an anti-claim on the construct for Y time that prevents claims from finishing, starting, or continuing.

"But what about griefers abusing this system too?" Well first, it should only work outside the Arkship safety area. Second, claiming should have to be done in very close proximity to the construct. Third, the entire construct should glow or do something to let anyone in the surroundings know that it's being claimed. Fourth, if you don't want to be bothered, weapons are ideal. Constructs that aren't protected are easy targets.

While on the topic of wreckage, wrecks tend to be adrift. So what about some sort of tractor beam device and/or a magnetic harpoon which would allow wreckage to be towed out of dangerous areas. Other things could be towed too, like mostly intact ships with missing thrusters, or a modular piece of construction for a space station. A towing mechanism would go hand in hand with the role of a salvage yard.

There's also the issue of servers and load. A huge wreck after a big battle might leave wrecks and pieces floating everywhere, so after a certain time, the server should delete them. It should be a fairly long timer to allow players to recover/salvage what's left.

But this presents the problem of what is a wreckage and what isn't? It might be easy to say as a human, but not so much for a server. An abandoned or unpowered ship might simply be awaiting repairs in the shipyard. Or a strangely shaped construct might be doing what it was intended to do. Or a base might just be so simple that it has no elements to speak of. A completely functional ship could be treated as garbage if the owner decided to quit playing the game and leave it floating in space.

So what do you guys think?

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?

On the realism front there really isn't any known method that will give us something like scifi shields, at least as far as acting like a barrier generated in empty space outside your vehicle (or whatever you're trying to protect).  There simply is no real-world process which will replicate the effects.  A magnetic field might offer some protection against particle radiation (potentially including particle beam weapons) but that's about it; they would be useless against projectile weapons and lasers.  It might interfere with missile guidance but then missiles will be designed with that in mind anyway and launch a dumb projectile from a greater distance or just follow the magnets.  But hey, DU has some weird space/time geometry compression going on, artificial gravity and FTL travel.
 
As far as the DU version is concerned I figure a shield's "hit points" could be explained as a charge in a capacitor bank.  The shield isn't on all the time, it flickers on only when it sees an incoming projectile, stays on long enough to block it and shuts off the rest of the time, waiting to intercept the next bullet.  This both explains why the shield demands more power when under fire and why it does not stop outgoing weapons.  The shield draws power faster than most power plants can supply it so if you hit it enough times in a row the capacitor gets depleted and the shield won't have enough energy available to stop the next shot.  Give it a chance to recharge and it's back to full strength.  This way the shield is really three different components: The power supply, the shield generator and the capacitor bank.  The type and placement of generator affects the shield geometry, how strong of an attack it can actually prevent, whether it is more efficient against strong or weak attacks and how much of your construct is actually protected.  The capacitor bank affects how many hit points that shield has.  The power plant determines how quickly the capacitor bank can be recharged.
 
The capacitors open up another element of design strategy in general since railguns, coilguns, pulse lasers and particle beams will also need capacitors to supply power.  You might have one big capacitor bank that can run everything, giving you more flexibility, but then firing your railguns eats your shield HP.  Alternately you might compartmentalize, giving dedicated weapon and shield banks so one won't interfere with the other.  Crafty designers might install a switch between the two banks so they are normally isolated but you can occasionally tap your shield reserves for several rapid shots or shut off weapons to extend your shield's HP.