Pantydraco

I really don't see how it can work with travel costs that has been implied. From what I heard, gates are extremely expensive. If normal free-travel is affordable, there will be no reason to invest in gate. So free-travel has to be at least a little frustrating. And big groups will maybe construct gates to counteract it. But they for sure won't open it to public in that case, because there already is 'free' public option.
 
On the other hand, if gates ARE needed, extreme community preassure will be put on groups to open them. No group is strong enough to stand against half a server. Can you provide examples of player groups monopolising esentials in mmo's? Closest to evil player empire I can think of is CFC/Imperium controlling lucrative Null space in EVE, and renting it to small corporations. Thing is, this space was in no way esential, many small corps live in less rich null space. Even so, hatred for this empire has grown so large that half of Null-sec alliances formed coalition do destroy them, with many independents droping in. As of right now, Imperium is still alive, but half as large player-wise, and controls no territory.
 
Funiest bit about this story? CFC itself came into power after destroying (not just defeating) previous mega-alliance, BoB, that was said to be unbeatable. Since then CFC had its ups and downs, and only a year ago were also 'unbeatable'.

One thing we can't get around, if a game can have survival elements, especially food, many would ask for it. It's quite a cycle.
 
I will be brief here. It's simple depth\complexity issue. What is exactly food system giving us and at what cost? First, it boggles new player experience. It punishes players from the start with hunger, is first mechanic to learn, and so bloats what player must learn quickly. And what does it give? After initial food problem is settled, player is periodically bothered by something that doesn't have a lot of gameplay decision making. Just eat anything and be fine. And if eating is big part of immersion... well, that's sad news. If you are not feeling immersed, unless your avatar bothers you periodically with biological needs... you get me, we have a problem. Food should offer concrete advantages to the gameplay to exist, and especially periodical hunger. DU is already shaping up to be one of the most complex MMOs (more so than infamous EvE), there should be damn good reasons to bloat mechanics.
 
With that said, CaptainTwerkomotor idea about medicine making is quite excellent (yes, he also has excellent ideas). One thing we can expend it into is manufacturing, make special organic materials with unique properties. Manufacturing those would involve biology study, and exploration of different ecosystems to build proper bio manufacture process. It is awesome way to involve players with planets biospheres and is very original sci-fi element. Maybe I will do a thread about how I imagine it later...
 

for those who don't understand what I'm talking about and why I don't want food.
 
Cheers!
 
I hate this forum on mobile....

"What is order for a spider, is chaos for a fly". Everybody has they own style of gameplay and what is for you is "ruin" for other people can be "best fun". MMO stands for "MASSIVE" game, so devs try to create something to satisfy a very vast spectrum of playing needs. And we, as future players, should rather carve our own niche, than forbid others having fun in different ways.
 
In infinite universe any style of play will not be some else problem - you can always can just change planet

Balancing for different player types.
 
In spirit of "balanced pvp destruction system"
https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/835-balanced-pvp-destruction-system/page-5#entry9398
Important: parts 1 - 3 is purely theoretical game design nonsense. 4 is game mechanics thoughts. 5 is whole thing conceptually summed up
First, some important notes:
1) Very little reasoning of 'why?' will be given. Generally, "all successful mmos do this" will applicable, and they have their reasons. Most  of those reasons also apply to DU.
NOTE: or so I wrote initially... in practice it turned out to be a 'why?' behind my previous posts. Oops...
2) The ultimate goal of this nonsense is "Maximize player count while maintaining intended creative direction."
 
With this out of the way, lets get started.
 
Part 1: abstract nonsense
(2) means players of vastly different type and behaviors are target audience.
Each of their very different experiences must be built to be enjoyable and complete.
 
Many gameplay systems involve having "negative outcome" for some of the participants.
Possibility of failure is natural part of 'game' concept, and is usual way of how sustained 'excitement' is achieved.  
With that said, there are many things to be aware of:
1) Actual negative outcome generates negative feeling in player. While impact of abstract 'you lose' is very small, actual loss of time causes big frustration.
2) Excitement generated by negative outcome comes solely from 'possibility' of it, this means:
    -negative outcome must not guaranteed.  
    -it is beneficial if player is involved in the process, and outcome is determined by his actions.
        -well designed feedback loop is desired in such case. Self-improvement is one of the ways long-term engagement is maintained.
3) Highest excitement doesn't equal best experience. Exciting gameplay should be balanced with relaxing gameplay. Another note, this balance is different for different players.
.
.
Part 2: different player types.
 
Obvious conflicting player archetypes:
PvE <-> PvP
Group <-> Solo
New <-> Experienced*
...
These archetypes do not describe game-mechanics, but player outlook. Same mechanic can be experienced and will be different to different archetypes.
Those archetypes are not binary, players often enjoy mix of outlooks. Again, balance varies by person.
 
PvE outlooks are mostly interested in game-world interaction. This in different proportions involves interest in:
-exploration of game world (which may come in many forms, sometimes unexpected, like politics)
-creativity (again, many forms)
-amassing in-game possessions
 
PvP outlook on the other hand finds npc game-world boring, and gets most enjoyment of challenging other people. It may come in many forms, and players can make pretty much anything competitive.
-most common PvP activity is player-vs-player battles, in which both sides risk losing in-game possessions
    - is one of the players was not willing participant, his previous gameplay is interrupted(bad), and in case of loss that gameplay cannot be resumed (very bad).
        -above does not apply if danger and risk are important part of the gameplay experience. Such experience is not desirable for many (arguably most) players, but it does open new possibilities.
-PvP outlook is not interested in earning assets PvE way, and PvP itself is asset sink.
 
Group outlook enjoys communicating, and by extension cooperating with other players during gameplay.
 
Solo outlook on the other hand does not enjoy mixing player-communication with gameplay, or more commonly people who want to experience game through their own strength and knowledge.
 
*While not a personality trait, player skill largely remains more or less constant during play session, and has arguably the most impact. That's why it should also be designed around.
 
Part 3: Archetype balance.
What was said above together with common sense (Ha! more like me not wanting to explain myself) translates into:
    -PvE players should be able to engage in desired PvE gameplay with minimal PvP risk. This should be true for any player skill level and group preference
    
    -PvE players may instead choose different, risky option that has bigger in-game reward. This should be true for both solo and group players
    
    -most of in-game possessions of PvE players should be protected, and have reasonable progression. Independent of player skill level and group preference
 
    -some in-game possessions should be contestable, and also give reasonable benefit. Both solo and group players should have contestable possessions. Player skill should greatly determine safety.
 
    -PvP players should have expected PvP activity points, where there is constant PvP action. This applies to both groups and solos of all skill levels.
 
    -PvP players should have a way to earn valuables via PvP activity. This should apply to both groups and solo, but is dependent of skill, as all such valuables come from other players.
 
    -It is desirable that most of those points come from flexible and not binary system, in order to suit most players.
 
    -Losing possessions without owner's involvement and chance to defend is pure negative
 
    -Group play should reward reasonable material benefits. It is because of inefficency that comes with groups, as well as extra effort, time and risk required to set it up
    
 
Applying those arguably universal (in MMO sense) points to Dual Universe creative design, that's what I came up with:
 
Part 4: Actually sensible stuff
 
I - Safe zones must exist and be readily available, where:
Assets in liquid form (materials) should be mostly untouchable.
Small ships should be mostly untouchable online, and fully untouchable during normal offline period.
Players can build small structures and ships in relative safety without hiding.
 
Big assets should be touchable when offline to keep universe coherency. Defenders should also be given enough time to respond, so that confrontation is actual PvP. Delayed systems similar to EvE reinforce timers or vulnerability windows are proposed. Safe zone should make it more lax
    All those things should also apply to new and solo players.
 
With all that said, I propose a system be put in place that generates safe zones based on player activity and gives benefits to all players inside(dynamic anonymous player cities, if you will), and also the one that pushes organised territory owners to extend benefits to anonymous players. Very rough ideas: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/835-balanced-pvp-destruction-system/page-5#entry9515
 
II - PvE activity should cover whole spectrum from safe to risky.
example: mining
    -safest place to mine is within core systems, but benefit is also smallest there. These system require minimum investment, and danger is absolute minimal.
    -secondly, there are many many random uninhabited systems nearby, that scans say are not really rich. Going there should cost non-trivial amount of fuel, as well as risking the ship.
In order to catch you, pirates must either track you there, or must have had scanning satellites there themselves. On the other hand, you can also notice their approach and pre-emptively escape. This should be contest of player skill, with no way one side is guaranteed victory. If you escape, both sides lose because of fuel.
Those systems should be numerous enough that player attacks are really unlikely. On the other hand, losing a ship is also non-trivial matter. Average long term will depend on player skill in those rare instances.
    -thirdly, there is establishing outpost in random system. You can base from there, as well as do basic refining, which will greatly increase profit. On the other hand, this is great investment of time and money, as well as presents bigger risk someone will stumble upon it.
    -then, there are really rich systems in local cluster, that everyone wants to mine. They are few and rich, and also default area for pirates, organised mining groups, really skillful solos, and player organisations. Those system provide a lot bigger profit, but also guarantee a high risk.
    -and lastly, there are universe wide honeypots. Recently discovered regions of great economical importance. They hold previously scarce materials in great quantities. Because of them, price now and half a year from or before now will differ greatly. All biggest political players want and fight for them, with numerous smaller entities also in the chaos. True gold rush, with insane risk and payoffs
NOTE: this built solely upon 3 things: number of systems, their payoff, and investment amount. All those things could be very finely balanced and tweaked with actual testing.
NOTE: this is based upon travel model https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/933-am-i-alone-in-thinking-that-stargate-probes-are-a-bad-idea/page-5#entry9459
 
III - PvP activity should be varied, engaging, and challenging. Pure "I win" mechanics benefit none in the long run.
Just in the above example, hunters have variety of possibilities: pure combat and ambushes of local riches; tracking and stealth of no-name miners, with possibility of siege; high excitement rush of honeypots. Plus mercenary work to counter all of it
Group combat has all of it and beyond, with assaulting and defending territory and static assets getting bigger role.
    Important part is, in every situation, outcome is dependent on skill of both hunter and prey. Even numbers are not "I win", in most of those, detection plays a key rule, so bringing bigger force is automatically detriment to the attacker. On the other hand, it is also not guaranteed win for defender. Stealth is their biggest asset, and a single enemy is enough to ruin it. Sure, hunters get delayed, and miners have a second chance to notice a second approach, but solo pirate still benefits of selling convoy's location.
 
Part 5: Closure & TLDR
In short, what I call for is segregation of player base based on preferences. Players should be given an option of playing safe or risky. Players should be given an option of playing smart or easy. Risky or less profitable. Solo or group. PvE or PvP. And in every case gameplay should accommodate them. Building should be a right, not a privilege. As should be attacking structures. Solos should be protected from group abuse. Groups should be protected from solo trolling. The gamedesign grail lies not in making a single person dream game, but making a dream game of every player.
P.S. Version 1.01 - added important note because I wasn't clear

This is absolutely correct. Solo players are not just ones who don't enjoy communication. Usual reason people play is because they want to experience game solely through their own strength and knowledge.    

There are 2 problems I see with Arki zones, from how they were presented. -They are very rare and expensive
-They cover relatively small area
From what I got, primarily use for those zones is building. Things like mining, other resource gathering, and pretty much all PvE will happen outside them.

Game balance does not happen randomly. If it is left to be decided 'organically', most likely outcome is that it will be heavily weighted to one side. Infrastracture and investment may be too expensive and restricted. That means people will 'have' to play in groups. Or maybe costs are manageable, but combat heavily favors attacker. In that case, staying anywhere close to society will be negative, and only biggest player groups will be able to progress.   Game design is about acounting for such cases, thats why I'm talking about how exactly to do this

Example please. I will gladly study it. 
I am not talking about FORCED segregation (why is everyone getting this idea? Whole point of DU is sandbox MMO, which means FORCED things should not exist if there is any other way)
Segregation I'm talking about is the one that happens 'on it's own'. Like my example of Call of Duty, hardcore multiplayer players and casuals do not interject. Because they do not mix. Hardcores hate playing with n00bs and casual hate getting constantly pwned by l33ts. Forcing (Ha!) them together is terrible idea.
 
Cheers!

1: This a poor description of the solo outlook. Solo simply refers to players who don't like to rely primarily on a group to accomplish game objectives. Solo players may -and often do- enjoy communicating with and interacting with other players.
Soloers are especially unlikely to join a group for combat purposes.
 
 
 
The segregation we will have will rely on Arkification.
We start the game in an area that is immune to PvP combat - and players will have opportunities to create more areas that are immune to PvP combat.
That allows the possibility for everyone to migrate to areas of interest according to their mood. And also motivates players to actively support their interests - either by creating or protecting safe zones or by taking control of safe zones.
 
Solo vs group will occur organically since players can create their own content and decide for themselves whether their goals can be achieved solo or with a group.
I'm not really sure what "group abuse" means, but individual players can create their own safe havens from groups - whether that's an underground lair, a stealth scout ship or a personal lab on a multi-crew ship.

Important point, thats is being ignored here is that release is only small part of the game. Most of the playtime will be in established world, where all of the discoveries have already been made. Research should be designed also for such people.
 
Pseudo-physics engine, that will make differently crafted items different based on input, may sound wonderful but has big set of problems. Thousands upon thousands of players will be playing this game. No matter how obscure mechanic is, it will be decoded. And even if not, statisticly optimal cases will be found. Such and only such recipes will be used for crafting afterwards, making whole system pretty much nonexistant.
 
System that I have in mind is vaguely based on one in EVE, with "blueprint originals" that can only be copied into one-time "blueprint copies". Industry players will either do research themselves, or buy copies from market. Another possible feature is having some parameters in blueprint, that can be modified when creating a copy, boosting one parameter at cost of another. Such feature will make it so market has popular blueprints, but if you want specific different one-time version, you will have  to talk to researcher.
 
Now on the topic of getting blueprint originals. Thematically, researcher job is just between manufacturer and explorer. Both have reason to be reasearchers: manufacturers to make items, and explorers are digging around in valuable stuff, reaserch should also suit them. One way (maybe boring, but at least working) of doing research is virtually same as manufacture with timer. Such way would involve puting different, maybe extreme, requirements for manufacturing system, with unusual input, that will yield original blueprint of an item at the next step of tech tree. For explorers system can be similar, with special laboratories that can be constructed on dig sites, that will provide BPO with far more ease, but require such  one-time site. 
 
Now unto how to make such system more fun. I propose integrating normal manufacture proggression, as well as explorer progression there, and then doing some semi-randomisation of tech tree for each player. For example, player John who is progressing through manufacture doesnt know which metal, A, B or C will be avaiable for him next, but every one of them opens different construction(and reserach) possibilities with different requirements. After John has mastered metal B, he has to reassess all his knowledge of how to put B to best use. All 3 of metals were expensive to research, and gave him different sizable benifits. Next time it may be A, C, or D, for example.
Explorers could use similar system, with semirandom perks giving bonus to certain exploration. When Sarah was exploring ancient ruins, she had no idea if her next destination would be desert planet, or some abandoned station, or Jungle full of life.
 
Important thing here is when another player goes through progression, semi-random tree will give him different experience. While players guides would still be spoilerish, they would not hurt as much, and players who havent read them won't be at such a disadvantage.
Another important thing is to make sure RNG is not hindering player progression. 2 players would take the same(more or less) time and effort to research everything(looong time), and RNG would only influence path somewhat. It would not screw one player with no discoveries, while other gets it on the first try, and neither will it keep very important early tech from player. If there is specific tech player wants, he should be prepared to go through a number of randoms, but
1) this number is strictly capped
2) this number is nowhere close to total tech count
 
This may not always apply to "end-game" tech. Some could be restrictively rare, and getting one may define corporation future for a long time. Another may require esoteric laboratory to be researched, which may require efforts of dozens of people. However such things should be 'bonus' and not mandatory, so they not hurt John experience of being private researcher.
 
Cheers!

My point is that if they make the various systems in the game more complex than a standard MMO, then specializations will emerge naturally in the player base. Thus rendering a standard skill system obsolete.
 
Take your sniper example. If the game's idea of ranged combat is just 'point the shooty end at the enemy' then everyone could be a sniper. But if they make shooting a bit more complex by giving different guns and ammo properties that affect accuracy at different ranges then suddenly it gets a bit harder. Throw in some environmental effects as well, like wind, smoke etc and hitting that person 3k away requires some serious practice.
 
A player that has spent the hours to be able to do that every time has become a sniper.
 
Say they decide they've mastered that so they'll go into ship building. They open up the build menu and are confronted by a list of a couple of hundred machine parts ranging from light bulbs and power cells to transmat coils and plasma condensors. They'll have no clue how to build an engine let alone an orbital spacecraft. They'll have to study up on what goes with what to make each device their ship needs. They'll have to learn through experimentation and reverse engineering the optimal configurations for everything. They'll have to learn how to cut down on unnecessary weight and somehow make something that looks cool if they want it to sell.

A player that does that will become an engineer, with a specialization in small orbital ships. If they want to build freighters they'll need to do a whole lot more research and experimentation. If they want to build large warships they'll need to do even more.

And this is assuming they have access to the resource collection, refining, and manufacturing infrastructure they need. Otherwise they'll have to learn how to do that passably well or pay for the services of someone who can.

Done correctly player specialization is about learning how to play the game well. Not learning which skill to train next.

I don't expect any kind of universal central government to emerge, so most of the universe will be in anarchy.
 
With that said, many there will be many small player groups, and several of them (Goons, no way they won't invade this game) will be large enough to be considered nations. But not big enough to dictate gameplay on universe scale though. Closest political structure such groups have is Empire I guess. Certainly not any kind of democratical structure.

i find it hard to see anything positive coming from being able to take slaves or prisoners. im pretty sure the people who got captured would just log off until after they where released.
 
in the end any mechanic that makes the player feel like logging off is the most entertaining option might not be the wisest choice to make.
 
also now that im thinking about it, being enslaved or put in prison by the players might just feel like a worse punishment than just getting a ban from the GM. and we all know that we cannot trust the gamer population as a whole with that type of power, some of the worst humans alive are within our ranks.

Information disclosed by developers of EvE online which is one of the most hardcore PvP games, with full destruction/loot upon kill and possibility of PvP all over the universe (including high security sectors, just with harsher consequences for attacker) showed that only 13,8 % of players (bit more,  than one in each ten) are involved in PvP during their ordinary game session (you can see the report http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68738/1/activity.16.png ) All other players do trade, PvE missions, exploration and so on, sometimes unintentionally getting caught by PvP as they are jumped by pirates. So we can assume that those who intentionally go for PvP are even less than 10 %. And you want to have even more PvP oriented game? Then it will be just pure shooter without any economy and any production/construction at all as noone will waste their time on other things if they’ll be jumped over from each corner and won’t have any security anywhere. And yes, player base will be limited to those 10-14 % who are interested in PvP – the rest will go for other games where they can do other things too.

@Kiklix

Dude, Wolves battle for who is the Alpha-douchebag. Wolves who lose ragequit. Then the Wolves go for the Sheep. Look thourhghout history what armies that lose wars do. They go for the civilians to make up for their damaged ego. This extends to MMOs. While we call them RAIDERS in real life , the losers that is who go for civilians, in MMOs we call them Griefers. 


And war... war never changes.


So yeah, I'm probably gonna set up a nice, cozy Black Ops group that makes wolves ragequit. How many? As many as I can until they dox me and I quit the game and restart under a new account (and possibly under a new identity , cause haters gonna hate ).

In order for Dual to become successful (make money for continued development) it is going to need to appeal to both PVE'ers and PVP'ers. In a single shard universe this will be a design challenge no doubt, but it is doable.
 
If you remove the PVE aspect from people who just want to PVE, it automatically becomes PVP...It's sad that I have to point this out but that simple concept is being overlooked a LOT of people in this thread. STOP treating the PVE community like a bunch of care bears and start treating them like the team mates YOU are going to need to be successful in pvp.
 
There is no need for "dogs" to protect "sheep" from "wolves". There will be PLENTY of "Wolf vs Wolf" faction action going on to satisfy your desires and when you get your bottom handed to you in PVP and your ship is blown to hell, you are going to be buddying up to those PVE'ers pretty fast for the latest designs as the game will be ever evolving. Now if PVE'ers step out of that safety zone, then they might need protection. PVP'ers should willingly protect them. The smartest organizations will have both PVP and PVE players.
 
I am a PVP'er first and foremost. I have spent 95% of my 18 years playing online games or MMO's as a PVP'er. Whether it was BF 1941 DC Mod (I was god mode in the Iraqi Hind) or World/Battlegroud/Arena combat on my High Warlord in wow (old school high warlord, not the easy mode one) or storming the front lines on my OP as hell Black Orc in Warhammer. One thing I have learned in every MMO I have played is that the strongest communities are PVE based because the alpha mindset of PVPers causes rifts within guilds and they eventually dissolve and I say this from the alpha player PVP mindset.
 
The bottom line, is that in order for Dual to succeed it is going to need to cater to both PVP gameplay and PVE gameplay, but as I already stated if you FORCE PVE'ers into PVP, you just removed the PVE from the game and most likely the player, along with their wallet and their ship designs.
 
So, you have a choice. Continue to promote PVP only game play that disregards the interest of the LARGEST portion of the MMO community, or welcome them as brothers who are going to be helping YOU win wars with their designs.
 
Who knows, treating that PVE guys with respect might actually make them a PVP convert once they get a taste of blood in their mouth, but it's gonna need ot happen on their terms, not yours.

One can argue in favor or against them endlessly, I suppose.
 
I'm generally in favor of some kind of safe zone or similar mechanic to protect various areas. It doesn't even have to hinder PVP, it could complement it (compare to Minecraft Faction Plugin and how player factions worked there for example).
 
Doesn't mean you can magically protect everything and just pick the easy way out, but I feel some level of being able to utilize safe or protected zone allows creations to last more and perhaps to serve as possible new trade hubs where players of all (virtual) walks of life can meet and engage without clubbing their heads in.
 
Some may argue that only that should persist what players can actively manage but this automatically excludes a majority of factions or at least a lot due to lack of manpower. Even moderate groups may have trouble if the enemy can just wait and "raid the city at night when no one is there" - lame. "But defenses"... that would resort in turret spam or similar all over.
 
I get that there should be certain risks involved, but at the same time there should be some incentive to create, not purely destroy. If you put a lot of effort into trying to make some city over weeks and within a day a bunch of random people destroys it or significantly damages it so that weeks are lost, chances are you won't try the same again.
 
I'm sure there is some middle grounds. How? That is the biggest question. It could be tied to certain factions or areas in space, it could be tied to faction (man)power, or perhaps to certain technology you have to obtain.

Some kind of "slavery" - very unjust and hard to break dependency - can be created using very simple economic tools or political/military power. In Eve for example are peoples/groups called "renters" or "pets", in many cases totally depended on big slliances, without possibilty to fight with them. It is achieved only by diplomatic games and ability to project neccessary power across controlled area.
 
I doubt need to create individual mechanic for that if you can recreated same effect by "conventional" means.

One thing we can't get around, if a game can have survival elements, especially food, many would ask for it. It's quite a cycle.
 
I will be brief here. It's simple depth\complexity issue. What is exactly food system giving us and at what cost? First, it boggles new player experience. It punishes players from the start with hunger, is first mechanic to learn, and so bloats what player must learn quickly. And what does it give? After initial food problem is settled, player is periodically bothered by something that doesn't have a lot of gameplay decision making. Just eat anything and be fine. And if eating is big part of immersion... well, that's sad news. If you are not feeling immersed, unless your avatar bothers you periodically with biological needs... you get me, we have a problem. Food should offer concrete advantages to the gameplay to exist, and especially periodical hunger. DU is already shaping up to be one of the most complex MMOs (more so than infamous EvE), there should be damn good reasons to bloat mechanics.
 
With that said, CaptainTwerkomotor idea about medicine making is quite excellent (yes, he also has excellent ideas). One thing we can expend it into is manufacturing, make special organic materials with unique properties. Manufacturing those would involve biology study, and exploration of different ecosystems to build proper bio manufacture process. It is awesome way to involve players with planets biospheres and is very original sci-fi element. Maybe I will do a thread about how I imagine it later...
 

for those who don't understand what I'm talking about and why I don't want food.
 
Cheers!
 
I hate this forum on mobile....

It is quite funny, but the food to survive question comes up in nearly every early stage of a MMORPG. Everytime there are enthusiasts voting for it and (nearly) every time it will be cancelled or ignored because of a simple fact: it generates frustration and offers nothing. It is a sci-fi game which will - as we currently know - play more on planets than in space. You will spend more time struggling to get back to space, defending your properties or attacking other peoples stuff than cruising harmlessly around picking flowers and cook a meal.
 
This is not picknick in space, it is a fully blown all against all anarchy universe. It would be as vylqun said: only a chore without benefit. Which is the reason almost every game skipped it during development.
 
Most games use food to buff you in some way, but it is not necessary to play. Food could make you faster, more effective while harvesting stuff, clever food makes you research harder or something. But don't ever make it a necessity.

the language is becoming a little bit toxic here, heated arguments are great, but pls avoid direct insults like "some asshole" etc.
agriculture for medizin/catalysators etc. is great, but ofc. not in connection with a food mechanic.
 
Even if some may find it appealing to have to eat every few hours, most voxelbuilders and general mmo players will find it annoying, and thus it's something not desireable for a mmo which aims to have more than 100players online at the same time, thus no matter what the people in the forum say, the devs wouldn't be so ... "optimistic" to implement something like that. I think that topic was mentioned often enough and doesn't need further discussion for now ^^

Producing botanical gardens to create components for medical itens, YES. THAT is an industry. THAT is fun gameplay mechanics.


You know what is not fun? Playing Tamagotchi ... in SPAAAAAAAAAACE.


Stop asking for a better version of Empyrion please and let Dual Universe become its own niche in the market. 


The Devs aim for 100000 players in a server. You know what doesn't sell? SURVIVAL MMOs.


You want an MMO with thousand of players online, or Space Tamagotchi with 50 people in the server?

If you want the latter, you are either a hipster of MMOs or a moron. Pick your poison.

I have made my point and stand by it. Those for whom it is intended will see it, and don't see any reason to further argue it in format current discussion has taken.
As I have mentioned in my first post, I don't see how full open no-rules PvP can work in mainstream MMO for reasons given there. And yes, neither do I want game to be such even if it was viable. 
 
And for the record, I don't expect ground combat to be something fundamentally different from space. If space is based around EvE-like lock-on system that is easier to implement and doesnt cost much network and processing, so will the ground. Ground combat is ALWAYS more complex than space in implementation. If they made ground combat as something realtime twitch based, there would be no reason not to make space as such. And I respect positives it brings (not being twitch based...) along with negatives.
 
Cheers!

To be as honest as possible the subscription model helps keep masses of unwanted trash players, that will never spend 1.00$ on the game, out of the game.
 
NovaQuark should not use the Titanic game model that has been going ever since WoW took over the MMO market.
 
Can anyone name me a memorable free to play / cash shop game that they have stuck with and played for any length of time? They don't exist.
 
Planetside 1 in its time was vastly more fun than Planetside 2 will ever hope to be.
 
TOR, Wildstar and all the others that start as pay 2 play and go free to play is because they overhype and break the ship in half. There's nothing wrong with their games staying pay to play, but they don't want to put any effort into making the game better so they cop out ditch the sub and put in a cash shop.
Nobody is happy with 50,000 to 300,000 active subscribers anymore its laughable that the industry thinks the gold standard is reaching 1 million active sub's minimum to keep a game alive.
 
WoW and EV.E are the only successful games out there, though both of them are bordering dangerously close to failure with their cash shop's.
 
If you overtap your playerbase for money they'll burn through the content and ditch the game, sure you get a quick buck, but eventually your' game becomes lost in the wind of all the other free to fail games.
 
Once you start putting shares, quarterly revenue reports, and stockholder opinions above the quality of your' game you've lost, you aren't a game anymore.
All they care about is hyping stuff up in order to drive "traffic" into the game, and subjecting them to the highest degree of advertising and pressure to buy garbage from the cash shops.
 
If you like the sound of this game, if you want a community, if you want content, support the developers in their quest to return the glory of subscription's.

Got this in an email from NQ. Just to answer any questions on the matter of wheeled vehicles

The combat system is still under development and there is very limited information on it so far. What we do know is that FPS style gameplay will not be possible because this game aims to make it possible for thousands of players to participate in a single battle simultaneously. To make this possible, some kind of target locking mechanism is required to minimise the strain on the server. This goes for any kind of combat whether it is in space, in the air, on the ground, in vehicles or not. 
Beyond that we can only give ideas, and wait for more information from the devs.

Those Jump Points the way i realise it are the "direct end of the line" between two systesm, where the gravity of the two stars pulling on one another is more balanced. Technically you can engage an Alcubierre drive wherever you want, but you know, fuel efficiency and safety.
 
Warp works by shortening space in front of you and expanding space behind you. It's essentially riding a cable car from one system to the other , while always having a "descending" boost towards a star. Don't ask how "spending energy to climb higher works" and the sources to that. 
 
Which is why binary systems are also an issue when it comes to Warping. Two stars means more math and gravitational spots that can be messed up due to the nature of those systems.
 
Plus, the reason you can't simply warp anywhere in the real world, is the fact you EXPAND THE UNIVERSE BEHIND YOU. 
 
The classic shot of the Enterprise going to warp while being near Earth, literally means the Earth was blown to smithereens from the dark energy distorting space, dark energy being the stuff that pushes galaxies and stars apart, an allegorical "negative gravity" if you will. Which circles back to the part of the jump points. 
 
A good example would be why astronauts don't take off from ANYWHERE on planet Earth but select spots, like Cape Canaveral  (spoiler alert, the 9.8 m/s^2 gravity of earth is an approximation, not an absolute, also check the Olympics place that most world records have been broken when it comes to pole vaulting and other jumpy games, you'll get the idea). The same reason applies to ships going to warp. You need that sweet spot to pull it off efficiently, less you get stranded in space by overshooting a system. Jump gates are the logical byproduct of that and as I said, it's why ROADS exist. Safety and ease of travel.

"Star Wars Episove 7 : Attack of the Bogush Science" aside, there's not any possible chance of moving a moon with any kind of propulsion. And I don't mean that in game it won't be possible,  I mean in real life. Such a strainous application of force would have to be spread out in a ratio of 30 to 45% of one hemisphere of the moon's surface to do so and then, you got random things like tectonic plates shifting at the wrong angle, SHREDDING the moon apart. Sure, if you want to see the world burn go for it, if it's a moon and you break it you probably destroyed the planet below via raging thunderstorms and high tides.
 
 
I'm talking Sharknado levels of destruction here.