Volkier

It's ok, don't worry. I've got a google diploma and run my own cult, so I'm legit / qualified and whatnot. Your children are safe with me.....

Skimming over the thread, I can safely say that I would be pulling my pledge and boycotting the game if it turns into a censored SJW shithole to "protect the feelings" of degenerates whose sole purpose in life is to try and find things to be offended by.
 
That said, I can completely understand and support reasonable rules that ruin the gameplay on an immersive level for majority of the people, because one person decided to be a troll. An example of this would be naming policies in older MMOs back in the 1990s / 2000s, where names like "qwertyuio1234" or "Aragorn513" were not allowed for the sake of creating a living, realistic and immersive world for the playerbase. In context of DU, I can completely understand and support them not wanting planets that consist fully of dick pics drawn all over them as an example.
 
But to go back to the point, in game conflict is part of the game - regardless of whether that conflict originated from in game politics of one organisation to another, or a group of players encroaching on someone else's in-game property. RL politics and censorship that has zero relation to the gameplay or immersion value of the game, has no place in it whatsoever.
 
As for people who cannot differentiate between reality and an online MMO, or who try to bring their personal real world issues into the development and structure of an online game, need to piss off and crawl back to under whatever rock they feel "oppresses" them.
 
EDIT: Fixed a typo and split a paragraph.

It's ok, don't worry. I've got a google diploma and run my own cult, so I'm legit / qualified and whatnot. Your children are safe with me.....

Skimming over the thread, I can safely say that I would be pulling my pledge and boycotting the game if it turns into a censored SJW shithole to "protect the feelings" of degenerates whose sole purpose in life is to try and find things to be offended by.
 
That said, I can completely understand and support reasonable rules that ruin the gameplay on an immersive level for majority of the people, because one person decided to be a troll. An example of this would be naming policies in older MMOs back in the 1990s / 2000s, where names like "qwertyuio1234" or "Aragorn513" were not allowed for the sake of creating a living, realistic and immersive world for the playerbase. In context of DU, I can completely understand and support them not wanting planets that consist fully of dick pics drawn all over them as an example.
 
But to go back to the point, in game conflict is part of the game - regardless of whether that conflict originated from in game politics of one organisation to another, or a group of players encroaching on someone else's in-game property. RL politics and censorship that has zero relation to the gameplay or immersion value of the game, has no place in it whatsoever.
 
As for people who cannot differentiate between reality and an online MMO, or who try to bring their personal real world issues into the development and structure of an online game, need to piss off and crawl back to under whatever rock they feel "oppresses" them.
 
EDIT: Fixed a typo and split a paragraph.

Skimming over the thread, I can safely say that I would be pulling my pledge and boycotting the game if it turns into a censored SJW shithole to "protect the feelings" of degenerates whose sole purpose in life is to try and find things to be offended by.
 
That said, I can completely understand and support reasonable rules that ruin the gameplay on an immersive level for majority of the people, because one person decided to be a troll. An example of this would be naming policies in older MMOs back in the 1990s / 2000s, where names like "qwertyuio1234" or "Aragorn513" were not allowed for the sake of creating a living, realistic and immersive world for the playerbase. In context of DU, I can completely understand and support them not wanting planets that consist fully of dick pics drawn all over them as an example.
 
But to go back to the point, in game conflict is part of the game - regardless of whether that conflict originated from in game politics of one organisation to another, or a group of players encroaching on someone else's in-game property. RL politics and censorship that has zero relation to the gameplay or immersion value of the game, has no place in it whatsoever.
 
As for people who cannot differentiate between reality and an online MMO, or who try to bring their personal real world issues into the development and structure of an online game, need to piss off and crawl back to under whatever rock they feel "oppresses" them.
 
EDIT: Fixed a typo and split a paragraph.

Very nice way of saying "I have a fetish of having a gun on my head" but most of us don't share in that fetish matey.
 
Let me illustrate with one of my escapades.
 
In another game, I had an SJW go ballistic on me when I said "I watched the end of BSG and I cried like a bitch". Why? Shit if I know, but my bets are because I dared to assume other humans have emotional triggers to bittersweetly ending romances ( uhm, spoilers ).
 
I guess I should have assumed female canines or any female of any species is an emotionless golem, and I should have also stuck to my privileged white male role and not even dare to shed a tear or two over how Roslin and Adama ended up.
 
How dare I have feelings, amirite?
 
NQ should actually ban anyone showing any form of emotion. They should in fact require you to declare your sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and if you even DARE say something outside of your privileged role, you should be immediatelly sentenced to death by a thousand spoons.
 
For example, if you are straight, male, caucassian and european, if you dare say "I love japanese cartoons" you should be banned from the game for insulting japanese culture.
 
IF you can't see the issue with a PC police culture or policies within a game world, then I can't do anything else to point it out to you.

♥ HORSEYS!! ♥

"
Hello, KhittyKhatt. 
 
I will advise you not to make this an issue on the Dual Universe Forums. We have dwelt in peace for well over a year (getting close to two, actually) without any strife from any sexual orientation or religious factions. Be a darling and keep it that way, will you? 
 
Kael is not a rash person and from what I've seen and heard from you, it's not unlikely that you are overreacting. To be straight with you, you are overreacting. Kael's post was neither discrimination nor bigotry and is well in line with the Forum rules. 
 
We all appreciate the occasional intense discussion, but this path leads us nowhere but barking up the wrong tree. Real life issues belong in the DM or off the Forums - not on it. 
 
Calling names is not a sign of maturity either and I will humbly but in all seriousness tell you to sort your issues out with him privately. 
 
Kael, let's calm down a bit, shall we? There are worse things out there, but I understand your point completely. 
 
Cheers.
"

I actually had a whole argument written out about what you said, but the fact that you just dismissed me straight away thinking I'm just another 'ignorant person' of the world shows how ignorant you are. You're no better than anyone else with your opinions.
 
I'm always open-minded and willing to accept new information, you just judge people too quickly.

Hi everyone,
 
Just a friendly reminder:
We respect diversity. However, forum rules also indicate that subjects related to sexuality, religions or real life politics aren't allowed (even in the off topic section).
The reason is simple: these subjects don't contribute to the discussions about the game and they are quickly a source of conflict in any game community (as this topic showed once more). So please avoid to discuss such thing on the forum in the future.
 
On a side note: 
According to the official lore, there will be no playable furry creatures. Only humans. So, as sad as it may sounds for certains members of the community, don't expect to be able to visually represent such character in-game. We prefer to be clear right from the start, to avoid giving false hopes on that topic.
 
This thread is now going to be closed.
Thank you all for your understanding.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

What are the graphics like? And how much fps do you get?

Wouldn't it depend entirely on the planet?

You break into Novaquark's headquarters in a daring overly complex and elaborate stun, like a combination from all the Mission Impossible movies, using a team of six highly trained professionals working outside the realms of any government. You then spend the next two months on the run from authorities, hard drive in hand, as a world-wide fugitive. Most of your team would likely be captured and/or killed during this time. Several cities would also suffer severe damages, with hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders killed as collateral damage, throughout the climax of your many brushes with those seeking you out. 
 
After faking your own death while simultaneously assassinating the lead investigator who is absolutely psychotically obsessed with capturing you through any means possible, you will then finally be able to live out the rest of your days in hiding, but in relative freedom. Crouching over an old computer in a caravan that you move from place to place every night, parked in the middle of the desert and powered by a diesel generator that you have to constantly fix every half an hour, you can finally enjoy the fruits of your labour in what is currently the in-development version of the game.
 
Hope this helped shape your plans for the next immediate (and long term) future.

And then you wake up and you have Chlamydia.... 

Time to voice an unpopular opinion
 
1) I do wonder how much of an issue that will be when it comes to the open world nature of the game as well as the single shard system. MMO games that include in-game voice, generally have it "group / squad / by invite only" for a reason, and since you are playing in the first person view here, I don't know if such as system would be possible. Considering the significantly less populated games that don't particularly do this exceptionally well.
2) How many groups / squads / clans will use open coms type system? Heck, even if it's squad only and whatnot - how many people would actually use it in their communities - considering things like having to be in the actual game to use it, lacking various options that third party voip software provides, the ability to have various channels, etc.
3) How much resources would need to be required to be used making a decent voice system? Remember, software like Teamspeak, Ventrillo, Mumble etc. is a standalone software, developed by an entire team on it's own. And it's fair to say that unless as much time, effort and resources is put into an in-game voice system, it's not going to be as well designed and thus have major disadvantages. Which does ask the question of - would it actually be worth it, and what is going to be sacrificed in the end?
4) So basically, I feel that having Arma style system, is a bit of wishful thinking for this model of the game - unless people are willing to compromise on other things. Now if that's not the case, fair enough, it would be a good thing to have. If it doesn't work as well when it comes to voice detection and whatnot as TeamSpeak is for example, I don't see myself or many others using it. If it can be made as good, without sacrificing elsewhere, then great - but I personally would rate it as in list of one of the lowest possible priorities for me, in what I'm looking for in a game such as this. 

Pretty sure it's done this way with regards to hard timers in both Eve, and planned to be done here, because unfortunately people don't all "live" in DU, and instead exist in the limitations and constraints of real life. People play all over the world, at different times, in different timezones, and can't drop everything on a whim even if they are instantly somehow notified that their shields are "under attack".
 
So really, it's more of a mechanic that enables the defenders to have a chance at countering their attackers, and actually provokes a PvP fight - albeit 48 hours later, instead of shooting down shields and taking over bases of each other when the other party is simply not online. Though I'd have to say that I agree with the point that 48 hours doesn't really work in this concept either - as the attackers 12 hours away, simply have to time it to have the shields go 'offline' at 9pm their time, when the defenders are going off to work at 9am theirs. So I don't know what is the best way to go about this either.
 
What I would like to see, is some way for smaller organisations with much smaller structures to effectively 'hide' their structures better. A small secret outpost with a small shield should be much harder to locate in the first place, than a much larger one, Maybe have a bit of a 'risk and effort vs reward' scenario - whereby a huge organisation with 10'000 people wouldn't be going around blowing up small 10 man bunkers "for the lulz", while it's still viable and profitable for a 50 member organisation to attempt the same feat. Though once again, I don't know how this can be practically achieved in realistic terms.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that once we have the game in alpha, and have a feel of what the world is like and how it works, people may have better ideas how to go about doing this - but until that point, I feel it's really taking stabs in the dark.

You break into Novaquark's headquarters in a daring overly complex and elaborate stun, like a combination from all the Mission Impossible movies, using a team of six highly trained professionals working outside the realms of any government. You then spend the next two months on the run from authorities, hard drive in hand, as a world-wide fugitive. Most of your team would likely be captured and/or killed during this time. Several cities would also suffer severe damages, with hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders killed as collateral damage, throughout the climax of your many brushes with those seeking you out. 
 
After faking your own death while simultaneously assassinating the lead investigator who is absolutely psychotically obsessed with capturing you through any means possible, you will then finally be able to live out the rest of your days in hiding, but in relative freedom. Crouching over an old computer in a caravan that you move from place to place every night, parked in the middle of the desert and powered by a diesel generator that you have to constantly fix every half an hour, you can finally enjoy the fruits of your labour in what is currently the in-development version of the game.
 
Hope this helped shape your plans for the next immediate (and long term) future.

I have nothing against piracy. In fact, I love encountering pirates. But proper pirates that is, ones who you can forep.... errr.... roleplay with a bit, and who actually try to get the most out of their spoils. Including kidnapping for ransom, gathering information, giving the pilot an option to surrender their loot as there's less chance for it to be destroyed in that case, and higher chance that the pilot would do the same thing next time instead of trying to fight them or run or suicide... Those kinds of pirates, who you can share some rum with. Not the kiddies who just want to pew pew at things for absolutely no reason other than the sake of pew pew and call themselves "pirates"
 
But hey - there will be the former and the later in every game. Everyone plays differently, and has a different moral for their character (or themselves?) in such games. In EVE for instance, as an FC I never allowed people to pod enemies. Insubordination was dealt with harshly. It was my version of "honor on the battlefield", and showing respect to a good fight.
 
** (And also, tactically, and something which many people who whined about such orders didn't understand - including to my immense frustration some senior FC's - was that I also wanted to delay the time it would take the active enemy pilots to regain access to a combat-ready vessels.) **

*heh heh heh heh heh heh*..... 
 
challenge accepted....

Once Alpha is out, and a few people start uploading stuff on YouTube, I bet this game will become very popular very fast. All in due time

*heh heh heh heh heh heh*..... 
 
challenge accepted....

I used to make "fast battleships" in EVE online. I'm sure everyone has. I'm also sure that everyone remembers that while you would eventually match the speed of a first tier 'poor man's interceptor', it would take about one or two minutes to accelerate to that speed, just as long to stop, and your maneuverability was about as good as Hindenburg's last decent. And on top of that, you had significantly reduced offence and defense capabilities. Needless to say, while it was fun to mess around with such builds "for the lulz", it was guaranteed suicide to try and fly something like that into actual combat. 
 
Same applied in cases where you managed to shove a battleship sized MWD onto a battlecruiser - except multiply all the extremes by 10. 
 
Not sure where I'm going with this, other than I suppose pointing out that it's not impossible to have a mechanic that can provide a whole load of depth into the game, while avoiding abuse of the said mechanic by means of making it impractical - at least to an extent. 

Ok, I've seen a lot of people (not just in DU forums, but elsewhere too) go on about how NMS has affected the indie gaming industry, how it made it hard to back projects, how it's shattered people's faith, why games like DU are struggling with popularity, comparing NMS to every single game in development, inserting a "but NMS was so bad when it promised something" when talking about expected features etc. etc.  
 
I really have to get this off my chest, so vent incoming:
 
 
People need to get NMS.
 
I understand it was a huge disappointment, and a lot of people chose to ignore the red flags that were up right from the get go with it, because they were passionate about the genre and the potential of such a game. There's nothing wrong with that - people pay for hope and wishful thinking every time a lotto ticket is sold. But those red flags where there from pretty much the first announcement.
 
Again, there's nothing wrong with hoping something you love would succeed, and to an extent letting emotions override logic. But denouncing every other indie project and game because "look what happened to NMS" - is basically refusing to accept that you didn't want to accept it's failure. Or alternatively, refusing to learn about what to look for, and what should set off alarm bells in the future.
 
And no, I'm not being holier than though - I've screwed up in exact same way with other games in the past. I've backed a couple of 'kickstarters' at different times, that I was extremely passionate about, despite the obvious shortcomings with those projects, all because I really really hoped for a 'chance'. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that - but either learn from your mistakes, accept that you were happy to pay $ for an off-chance the red flags were co-incidental and false, or simply grow up and accept you screwed up. And sure, if you feel like you no longer want to support games that are in development - there's nothing wrong with that.  But don't act like NMS's disappointment was a surprise that nobody saw coming, and that it represents all indie gaming developers. 
 
The red flags were there, plenty of people saw them, there's nothing wrong with paying for 'hope' and an 'off-chance', there's nothing wrong with not buying pre-alpha stuff, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out red flags or when something doesn't quite sound right with a healthy dose of factual skepticism. There is only positive outcomes in any conversation or discussion through that. But when it comes to saying "NMS did it, so everything else must be all lies" - NMS does not represent any other game, project, development team, game features or genre. Get over yourself.
 
 
Alright, I've said all I've needed to on the subject. Time to bring shields up to full power in anticipation for the incoming flak

That - the F=ma - can be easily exploited and can lead to torpoedo ships. We do not want torpedo ships. They already though got the orientation mechanism in-game for the ship's auto-scripter function when buillding it, so they also can keep track of orientation. They do have explained they ships wil lhave mass, and them ore stuff they got on board, the more massive the ships get.
 
F = ma would work if the model was voxel-damage based. What I suggest, works with decceleration in mind first. If two shps collide, but are moving in 10 m/s, then they just "lock horns" so to speak. They do not move. Now, the more massive ship, gets more power into its thrust, thus its inertia factor is higher, so the eother ship, to compensate, has to pump in more power into its core, thus, at a point, its core becomes to overload The "smaller ship", can choose to shut down the power core in its entirety and be shoved to the side, or risk popping in the struggle.
 
If anything, this whole "collision" model of mine is based on the principle on impulse, similar to what parkur practicioners utilise to not break a leg when they land after a vault. You extend the time of decceleration in order to reduce the forces applied to you.
 
If a ship has a certain mass and thus inertia modifier and its reactor is a Tier 3 model (top of the line), it has an Impulse Threshold of X. If that threshold is exceeded (ratios may vary as of the manufacturer player's skill training on Schematic research done on the Element itself), the capacitor / power core, suffers an "overloading" percentage of damage (which can be repaired / reduced via varius gameplay means, like cutting fuel to the capacitor while the overloaded amount is depleted, or amping the output to deplete it quickly to bring the capacitor under nominal standars).
 
If two ships were to "graze" one another, they would still suffer minute overloads, but on the bright side, they didn't pop. But if a star-fighter, which goes at a high velocity, was to collide with a ship that won't really badge by the collision as ts impulse tolerance is higher and its intertia is tronger, that star-fighter would pop on the spot, as the star-fighter can't tolerate such brutal deccelerations. Same goes for two star-fighters colliding They still can't afford the deccelration in their power cores, so they pop instead. 
 
Also, having mutiple power cores for a battleship would make sense, as it means the overloading percentage can be spread equally amongst them, thus increasing the Impulse Threshold by qutie a margin (at a very high manufacturing cost).
 
And yes, they do go for transversal speeds and orientations (like EVE's model), that's what they said in the updates from Kickstarter. 
 
The Unigine2 engine's calculations can compensate for relativity (which are used to simulate GPS satellite orbits). I think they got the technology for such a design.
 
 
See, what many people do not understand in the fear of the unknown, is that having collisino damage only opens up a vast array of options. Is your faction risking building those super-dreadnaughts at the monetary cost of 5 normal lbattleships? You as the engineer o na ship, do you make the decision on jettisoning a fuel cell in order for the capacitor to cool down from its overload, on going against your better judgemetn and listening to the captain of the ship telling you to "give them more power". You build a star-fighter with such an advanced flight assistance, that you ship is hailed as the second coming of the sliced bread, with your ship having the least numbers of collisions in battles.
 
I guess most people are short-sighted and they can't see a sandbox game as the interconnected entity it is. This is what mos t of the replies on many threads so far give me the impression of.

I thought you were more on the simple F=Ma formula - ie. taking the overall mass of the other object into consideration, whereby F is directly converted to damage taken by the capacitor (and maybe later on to directional forces if the game goes in that direction / engine allows for complex collisions). Only thing, is I would like to see certain modules built around decreasing - or outright absorbing a certain portion of damage for a certain amount of mass - at the expense of something like Maneuverability - so as to give people the option to outfit ships designed to fly through asteroid fields (eg. mining barges?). Of course the trick here would be to not have a mechanic that allows for battering ram types of ships (ie. a mining barge that can fly directly THROUGH a larger carrier, destroying the said carrier and not taking any damage itself), but at the same time, I feel there does need to be some kind of 'buffer'. And what better way to impliment it, than to give players options with regards to how they build specific ships. 
 
EDIT: Also come on - 100metres is PLENTY of room for error! What can POSSIBLY go wrong there? What happened to 'living dangerously' and whatnot?