Volkier

If anything, I'd go with Twerkmotor's suggestion, of collision damaging capacitors - or even modules on the ship. A small ship kamikazeing into a planet sized starship should go pop with the starship's crew going "Why did the proximity light flash for a second? We didn't feel anything.. Oh well, must have been a space rock or something". (ie. it taking little to no damage). 
 
WHY do we need 'some' sort of 'collision' damage, is because we 'need' people to actually put some effort into landing, and building their ships / constructs around the ability to maneuver / land better or worse under various different circumstances. Like having half the thrust engines blown off. I know I'm likely speculating here, but ramming full speed into a planet to "land", or alternatively having a "one button auto-land" - aka NMS style - is going to ruin this game for a large number of people imho. 

If anything, I'd go with Twerkmotor's suggestion, of collision damaging capacitors - or even modules on the ship. A small ship kamikazeing into a planet sized starship should go pop with the starship's crew going "Why did the proximity light flash for a second? We didn't feel anything.. Oh well, must have been a space rock or something". (ie. it taking little to no damage). 
 
WHY do we need 'some' sort of 'collision' damage, is because we 'need' people to actually put some effort into landing, and building their ships / constructs around the ability to maneuver / land better or worse under various different circumstances. Like having half the thrust engines blown off. I know I'm likely speculating here, but ramming full speed into a planet to "land", or alternatively having a "one button auto-land" - aka NMS style - is going to ruin this game for a large number of people imho. 

If anything, I'd go with Twerkmotor's suggestion, of collision damaging capacitors - or even modules on the ship. A small ship kamikazeing into a planet sized starship should go pop with the starship's crew going "Why did the proximity light flash for a second? We didn't feel anything.. Oh well, must have been a space rock or something". (ie. it taking little to no damage). 
 
WHY do we need 'some' sort of 'collision' damage, is because we 'need' people to actually put some effort into landing, and building their ships / constructs around the ability to maneuver / land better or worse under various different circumstances. Like having half the thrust engines blown off. I know I'm likely speculating here, but ramming full speed into a planet to "land", or alternatively having a "one button auto-land" - aka NMS style - is going to ruin this game for a large number of people imho. 

If anything, I'd go with Twerkmotor's suggestion, of collision damaging capacitors - or even modules on the ship. A small ship kamikazeing into a planet sized starship should go pop with the starship's crew going "Why did the proximity light flash for a second? We didn't feel anything.. Oh well, must have been a space rock or something". (ie. it taking little to no damage). 
 
WHY do we need 'some' sort of 'collision' damage, is because we 'need' people to actually put some effort into landing, and building their ships / constructs around the ability to maneuver / land better or worse under various different circumstances. Like having half the thrust engines blown off. I know I'm likely speculating here, but ramming full speed into a planet to "land", or alternatively having a "one button auto-land" - aka NMS style - is going to ruin this game for a large number of people imho. 

Pretty much the general gist of what's being said in this thread - it makes absolute sense to have more efficiency from more crew on larger ships. In pretty much what #4 said regarding roles and what was later said regarding NQ's statement on efficiency of larger ships.
 
The statements that I really disagree with, and what I really don't want to see happen, is the obsession of "balance", that has existed in, and completely crippled several games in the past. Life is unfair. Sure, there would always be advantages and disadvantages in everything and anything, but I don't want to have a "fair fight" against a capital ship when I'm flying a little single seat fighter - or even a bunch of em. If I take my mitsubishi pajero onto a a race track up against a Ferrari, I expect to lose in a race, badly, beyond any recognition. Likewise, I would like to see specific roles when it comes to ship designs, and sizes - so using that same comparison with cars, my Pajero climbs 40 degree hills in the mud on the farm - something which a Ferrari wouldn't be able to do.
 
Basically, what I would really hate to see, is the whining of "whine, that capital ship gun melted my single seat fighter - it's too OP, balance it" - in the regard of EVE online, something which I didn't quite like (though I understood why they had to do it in the span of EVEs gameplay), was the fact that smaller ships were literally invulnerable to larger ones, as the guns were unable to hit them. Yes, you want a mixture of ships in fleets - but that mixture needs to be achieved through each ship earning it's specific role in that fleet through it's own strengths, rather than forcing a rock paper scissor scenario, with the ability to evade turret fire of small maneuverable craft lying with the pilot, against the aim of a gunner, or the quality of the design and location of hardpoints of the ship - rather than simply saying "gun size X cannot hit targets smaller than size Y". 
 
Would this result in certain ships and builds that would be significantly better than the others - of course - but isn't that the entire point of a game such as DU, part of which is building and improving blueprints and ships? And it would also bring in the mechanic of correctly identifying your target based on it's threat level meaning the difference between victory and defeat. I feel, that 'unbalance' in this sense, is a GOOD thing, since it will push players to try and build better, more efficient, more advanced ships throughout the 'evolution' of DU, rather than stifling this with balance.

Pretty much the general gist of what's being said in this thread - it makes absolute sense to have more efficiency from more crew on larger ships. In pretty much what #4 said regarding roles and what was later said regarding NQ's statement on efficiency of larger ships.
 
The statements that I really disagree with, and what I really don't want to see happen, is the obsession of "balance", that has existed in, and completely crippled several games in the past. Life is unfair. Sure, there would always be advantages and disadvantages in everything and anything, but I don't want to have a "fair fight" against a capital ship when I'm flying a little single seat fighter - or even a bunch of em. If I take my mitsubishi pajero onto a a race track up against a Ferrari, I expect to lose in a race, badly, beyond any recognition. Likewise, I would like to see specific roles when it comes to ship designs, and sizes - so using that same comparison with cars, my Pajero climbs 40 degree hills in the mud on the farm - something which a Ferrari wouldn't be able to do.
 
Basically, what I would really hate to see, is the whining of "whine, that capital ship gun melted my single seat fighter - it's too OP, balance it" - in the regard of EVE online, something which I didn't quite like (though I understood why they had to do it in the span of EVEs gameplay), was the fact that smaller ships were literally invulnerable to larger ones, as the guns were unable to hit them. Yes, you want a mixture of ships in fleets - but that mixture needs to be achieved through each ship earning it's specific role in that fleet through it's own strengths, rather than forcing a rock paper scissor scenario, with the ability to evade turret fire of small maneuverable craft lying with the pilot, against the aim of a gunner, or the quality of the design and location of hardpoints of the ship - rather than simply saying "gun size X cannot hit targets smaller than size Y". 
 
Would this result in certain ships and builds that would be significantly better than the others - of course - but isn't that the entire point of a game such as DU, part of which is building and improving blueprints and ships? And it would also bring in the mechanic of correctly identifying your target based on it's threat level meaning the difference between victory and defeat. I feel, that 'unbalance' in this sense, is a GOOD thing, since it will push players to try and build better, more efficient, more advanced ships throughout the 'evolution' of DU, rather than stifling this with balance.

Pretty much the general gist of what's being said in this thread - it makes absolute sense to have more efficiency from more crew on larger ships. In pretty much what #4 said regarding roles and what was later said regarding NQ's statement on efficiency of larger ships.
 
The statements that I really disagree with, and what I really don't want to see happen, is the obsession of "balance", that has existed in, and completely crippled several games in the past. Life is unfair. Sure, there would always be advantages and disadvantages in everything and anything, but I don't want to have a "fair fight" against a capital ship when I'm flying a little single seat fighter - or even a bunch of em. If I take my mitsubishi pajero onto a a race track up against a Ferrari, I expect to lose in a race, badly, beyond any recognition. Likewise, I would like to see specific roles when it comes to ship designs, and sizes - so using that same comparison with cars, my Pajero climbs 40 degree hills in the mud on the farm - something which a Ferrari wouldn't be able to do.
 
Basically, what I would really hate to see, is the whining of "whine, that capital ship gun melted my single seat fighter - it's too OP, balance it" - in the regard of EVE online, something which I didn't quite like (though I understood why they had to do it in the span of EVEs gameplay), was the fact that smaller ships were literally invulnerable to larger ones, as the guns were unable to hit them. Yes, you want a mixture of ships in fleets - but that mixture needs to be achieved through each ship earning it's specific role in that fleet through it's own strengths, rather than forcing a rock paper scissor scenario, with the ability to evade turret fire of small maneuverable craft lying with the pilot, against the aim of a gunner, or the quality of the design and location of hardpoints of the ship - rather than simply saying "gun size X cannot hit targets smaller than size Y". 
 
Would this result in certain ships and builds that would be significantly better than the others - of course - but isn't that the entire point of a game such as DU, part of which is building and improving blueprints and ships? And it would also bring in the mechanic of correctly identifying your target based on it's threat level meaning the difference between victory and defeat. I feel, that 'unbalance' in this sense, is a GOOD thing, since it will push players to try and build better, more efficient, more advanced ships throughout the 'evolution' of DU, rather than stifling this with balance.

Pretty much the general gist of what's being said in this thread - it makes absolute sense to have more efficiency from more crew on larger ships. In pretty much what #4 said regarding roles and what was later said regarding NQ's statement on efficiency of larger ships.
 
The statements that I really disagree with, and what I really don't want to see happen, is the obsession of "balance", that has existed in, and completely crippled several games in the past. Life is unfair. Sure, there would always be advantages and disadvantages in everything and anything, but I don't want to have a "fair fight" against a capital ship when I'm flying a little single seat fighter - or even a bunch of em. If I take my mitsubishi pajero onto a a race track up against a Ferrari, I expect to lose in a race, badly, beyond any recognition. Likewise, I would like to see specific roles when it comes to ship designs, and sizes - so using that same comparison with cars, my Pajero climbs 40 degree hills in the mud on the farm - something which a Ferrari wouldn't be able to do.
 
Basically, what I would really hate to see, is the whining of "whine, that capital ship gun melted my single seat fighter - it's too OP, balance it" - in the regard of EVE online, something which I didn't quite like (though I understood why they had to do it in the span of EVEs gameplay), was the fact that smaller ships were literally invulnerable to larger ones, as the guns were unable to hit them. Yes, you want a mixture of ships in fleets - but that mixture needs to be achieved through each ship earning it's specific role in that fleet through it's own strengths, rather than forcing a rock paper scissor scenario, with the ability to evade turret fire of small maneuverable craft lying with the pilot, against the aim of a gunner, or the quality of the design and location of hardpoints of the ship - rather than simply saying "gun size X cannot hit targets smaller than size Y". 
 
Would this result in certain ships and builds that would be significantly better than the others - of course - but isn't that the entire point of a game such as DU, part of which is building and improving blueprints and ships? And it would also bring in the mechanic of correctly identifying your target based on it's threat level meaning the difference between victory and defeat. I feel, that 'unbalance' in this sense, is a GOOD thing, since it will push players to try and build better, more efficient, more advanced ships throughout the 'evolution' of DU, rather than stifling this with balance.

Posted it some other thread but what the heck
 






 
Still sort of work in progress - I don't particularly like the rear end, and the VToL thrusters need some love. Then add stuff like windows / unmanned turrets etc.

My suggestion, is simple.

Make the timers go away, add "Escalation Hardening". The more constructs shoot the shield in a short period, the stronger a shield gets. That means that a horde of 100 ships will be met with a 100% hardening of the shield (depending on its tier level) which means the defenders got time to retaliate, while if a single ship attacks the shield, the shield gets no hardening.

THAT would create the need for "Shield-Breaker" ships, which would have to be massive to accomodate a lot of weaponry, therefore they would be slow and they would be the perfect demonstration of a Titan in DU.

And let's face it, a battle around an enormous Shield-Breaker ship would be something that's actually epic, and would create a sense of urgency for both sides, let alone boarding parties going on.

48 hour timers work in EVE, due to how easy it is to pass between systems. It doesn't work in DU the same, since gates will be shut for enemies and I don't think a faction, no matter what org it is, will be that stupid to have their stargates unattended by security people, for the stargate to be (possibly) hacked, so that arguement is off the table.


As for SAFEZONES (not to be confused with player-made bubbles) safezones should have an ACTUAL 48 hours timer,  so they can act as a "citadel" to a star system, the last fortress to fall. The Safezone around the starting Arkship is excluded from that mechanic.


And oh god, I hope there's no protection bubbles for every single ship. I mean, a cruiser or higher level ship, sure, there should be a defense measure like a force field, that renders the ship inert (immobilisation) but in exchange makes it have a really powerful shield around it, subject to the same Escalation Hardening I mentioned above. Having every single corvette and frigate have a magic shield of immunity, woul dfuse the point of having space-stations for people to dock in or on under the station's own protection bubble. Battleships would NEED said limited shield, as they won't be able to dock on a station (and let's face it, they won't, too big to fit ) .
 L

Just thought I'll throw in a call out to anyone who plays in my timezone - which is as above in title (UTC +12). Any Kiwis, Aussies, people living in Japan or Americans working the night shift here - who are looking for other people to play with? Not sure if there's any organisations already in existence in this timezone - and don't know if I want to start one without getting a feel for the game itself, but it's probably time to start putting some feelers out either way.
 
So yeah, too early to talk about creating corps / orgs / whatever, but here's an open invitation to hop onto my TS3 server (equilibrium.instantts.net) - no strings attached - just to hang out with people keen on DU outside the all popular American timezone and see what happens

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.

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.

Don't remember where I've seen the Devs saying it - probably in one of the Q&As, but basically there would be a complete world reset both at the end of Alpha and at the end of Beta prior to full public launch. However, blueprints of your constructs would be kept and will cross over with your character(s). 

I think it's safe to say that everyone on here would.
 
That said, I think you'll be very pleased to know that this has already been part of the confirmed core game mechanics for well before I can remember

Posted it some other thread but what the heck
 






 
Still sort of work in progress - I don't particularly like the rear end, and the VToL thrusters need some love. Then add stuff like windows / unmanned turrets etc.

Posted it some other thread but what the heck
 






 
Still sort of work in progress - I don't particularly like the rear end, and the VToL thrusters need some love. Then add stuff like windows / unmanned turrets etc.

I can pretty much bet you $ that CvC would be added in at some point, likely very shortly after release if not before then - based off what the developers have been saying, the vision they all seem to share, and the payment model they have chosen. It's a shame it won't likely be one of the first few things in alpha at this point in time, but I'm not overly worried about it ultimately being in the game.
 
Have faith. I know plenty of games over-promise, don't deliver, and disappoint nowadays. But likewise all reason and logic will dictate that if Novaquark can pull off what currently is promised to come out of the kickstarter campaign, they would be able to, and in all respect actually would add in CvC. 

I can pretty much bet you $ that CvC would be added in at some point, likely very shortly after release if not before then - based off what the developers have been saying, the vision they all seem to share, and the payment model they have chosen. It's a shame it won't likely be one of the first few things in alpha at this point in time, but I'm not overly worried about it ultimately being in the game.
 
Have faith. I know plenty of games over-promise, don't deliver, and disappoint nowadays. But likewise all reason and logic will dictate that if Novaquark can pull off what currently is promised to come out of the kickstarter campaign, they would be able to, and in all respect actually would add in CvC. 

What about in a non-perfect world? So for instance, you lose power / internet to your house for the evening due to whatever reason / computer explodes etc. Games like EvE (I'm only comparing due to the similar "destructible ships system where the ship doesn't respawn with you" situation) would warp your ship out to a random unmarked spot away from any player / installation in space, and subsequently make your ship disappear after fifteen minutes. There are risks - your ship is still very vulnerable in those 15 minutes, but at least it's not a blatantly "you are definitely screwed" scenario if you drop connection while on a tour in hostile space.
 
Or what about servers having an emergency patch or crash? It does happen, and has happened with pretty much every single MMO to date. You would then have to physically camp your computer well into the next morning, waiting for the server to come back up so you could get back on before your enemies do and destroy your ship.
 
Wouldn't having your ships permanently out kind of put all players at the mercy of things beyond game world and beyond player control, in a pretty straight forward "guaranteed screw-uppery" as a consequence? 
 
I wouldn't be as worried about trolls parking stuff outside buildings. It would be pretty simple to have "no landing" zones on city streets for instance in my opinion, and would make sense to have specific "landing pads" attached to hangars scattered throughout the city. I would, however, be a bit worried of the above, and feel there are better ways to maintain the immersion and not have ships "disappear" in front of people's eyes, as well as avoid players "logging in" out of nowhere creating a "offline camping" mechanic - which is just as much of a problem. 
 
I mean yay for persistence, and I'm all for it, but there needs to be some reason logic and compromise, considering that in a fully immersed game, you would be "living on your ship" - which you obviously cannot do since it's sadly DU is not RL. And show me a gamer who has never had their internet disrupted for whatever reason, timed out due to something like a "gaming platform" (cough steam) deciding to cripple your gaming by applying updates you have no control over, experience servers crashing or coming offline out of schedule by ten minutes for an update, or simply having the game crash on them since god knows no developer can optimise for every single combinations of hardware (a lot of which hasn't been released yet). 

Am I the only one who had images of random planets with mined out 'dick pics' on their surfaces that are visible from space, when I read the thread title? 

Twrkmotor may got that point wrong, but I would agree 100% with the purple kitty on the fact that permitting players from running their own servers in an MMO - which is what DU strives to be, is going to COMPLETELY change what the game is about. It's not minecraft, it's not counter strike, it's not a short term 'action' game. It is a long term virtual immersion project in an MMO fashion. Heck, if done right, it is deserving of it's own genre based on the sheer fact that it's striving to do things not done before.
 
Also, to be fair, that is not the only point you made. Majority of your post was about how "pay to play is worse" than the alternative. Everyone can obviously have an opinion, but has it occurred to you that a lot of people are actually tired of 'pay to win (free to play)' gaming models that spam the MMO marketplace today, and lack customer support, originality, release broken unfinished expansions every week and dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator - primarily to support their funding models? 
 
Also what #9 said. No to cash shops. Would be the worst thing to happen to the game imho. 

Soft Kitty
Warm Kitty
Little ball of fur!
 
Also, is it just me, or has this last week seems to have spawned a fair number of "I don't want to pay monthly" crowd? 
 
As for the OP - Different people prefer different payment methods. Plenty of people would disagree with you for a number of reasons, and prefer the exact opposite to what you would prefer. DU announced what they wanted to do. Get over it.

Vodka and Duct tape. 
 
But I don't know yet - I've got a few concepts that I've sketched out, but would depend on how the game handles building, and whether you would be able to pre-view something or get 100% of resource back if you 'delete' it. 

Soft Kitty
Warm Kitty
Little ball of fur!
 
Also, is it just me, or has this last week seems to have spawned a fair number of "I don't want to pay monthly" crowd? 
 
As for the OP - Different people prefer different payment methods. Plenty of people would disagree with you for a number of reasons, and prefer the exact opposite to what you would prefer. DU announced what they wanted to do. Get over it.