Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kulkija

  1. Of course, you can try to play DU like a peaceful survivor. But sometimes you need to go out from non player builded safe zones for mining, trading or other things. When you move out, you have a risk to be a PVP target without your agreement, so this is a full PVP.


    Yes you are rigth, outside safezone there is full pvp.

    How ever it is my choice if I go to pvp zone.

  2. nonPVP timers is really bad idea in FULL PVP world.


    1. So many peoples can play a game, more then 1-2 houres, on weekend only. And when a timer go on 48 houres... Hello NQ guys, we paying for full game content... 


    2. If 10 (100, 1000, 1kkkkk)  players wants to kill 1 player, they kill him 100%, and its a correctly balance in FULL PVP game. Don't won't to die -  "run Forest run..." 


    3. What about pirat players? Defenders has time to move out all staff and to deconstruct all expensive buildings and machines. Where is a profit?


    Power stations ---> power cells (accumulators, condensators)---> shields, turrets, battle ships, trups, def npcs. 

    For small groups - underground base or freespace.

    I think DU is not FULL PVP game. PVP is only one of many supported play styles.


    "Safe Zones will protect you, and avoid Dual Universe to become a free for all PvP game. However, PvP will be possible when you step out of the Safe Zone. "


    It is not said that starting zone is the only Safe Zone. Also size and amount of safe zones is open.

  3. Am I? How so?

    I am all for delayed reward systems. Have no problems with bounties. And I would enjoy having to visit bars to heal up.

    But its not about only what I want. I just dont see a general desire for a system that is too punishing. I'm not talking about skill point loss, if you remember our little chat, I dont really have a problem with it.

    I was talking about multiple days recovering from death. I think that is a bit too hardcore.

    Well since I kind'a started this, I did some extra reading.

    Death is allready planned quite punishing, and ... interesting.





    "Klips --

    A Resurrection Node is a power hungry machine (remember, the beast is twisting the fabric of the quantum multiverse space-time topology, in order to affect its probability distribution and save your ass). You need to power it and make sure it is fully charged, and the time it takes for a full charge will depend on the type of power source you can afford to use. This can range from a few minutes to a few days


    Also loosing some or all of inventory is there as Twerk said.


    On the other hand it seems to be planned so that RS nodes ar much more complex as i remebered.


    All good.

  4. Cost to make ships = the reason suicide fleets won't happen.

    For a pilot on a ship, you got to expect certain gear to go along, like G-Force dumpening suits, which would be destroyed when tose pilots die. Which increases the cost.

    Suicide Fleets are like burning money for nothing. And on top of that, they can be blown to bits before they can even get to you or... you know, wait for them to get on an intercept and hit them with all the EMP weaponry you have, fry them, board the ship, kill the pilot, steal the ship and scrap it to sell for money.

    The counterplay is there, people just have to put effort on using their brains.

    I agree.

    But still I would like to see that pilots life has a value, not only materia around him.

    One possible solution could be that usage of those respawn nodes would not be free.

    Dont die if you can not afford it.

  5. @ Archonious

    I see your point, and I like it because safezones will make big trading hubs possible and by that way create content for pirates, and many others.


    There is, as we speak some attributes in zones/tiles

    0,) default is free pvp, warzone

    1.) Ownership, by TU

    2.) Protection, by weapons, and bubble

    3.) Access rigths, by RDMS


    As of safe zone RDMS could go there, if it includes, "no weapons or agression" - attribute.


    I also agree that balancing defence by numbers is hard and many lead to grinding.


    Timers is good as long there is someone to ask for a help or there is options to deal with owerpowered attacer.


    How ever I saw in Eve that help was newer there, when needed.


    There could be also other attributes wich may make safezone stronger and harder to destroy.


    - it could be decleared by its owner as DMZ, demilitarized and neutral zone.

    - more civilian activities stronger dmz

    - if there is groving industry and other civilian installations and buildings they make DMZ attribute stronger.



    - is dmz same as safezone? generally yes.

    - how ever it could exists witout TU or buble.

    - it could expand itself slowly, by activity and population and it may go down if no activity.

    - it could be created also by political agreement.

  6. I'm just wondering...

    We say : it is hard to build and maintain a safezone.


    What is "the other zone?"

    Pvp zone?


    Is pvp zone The default zone.


    If yes, why?


    Why not ,,, hard to build/create and manintain pvp zone as it may be for Safe zone.?


    Well... shoot me im just asking stupid questions.

  7. I think it is important to have conversation about safezones.


    Safezones boost industry and industry manufactures all the weapons and ships, for pvp, cvc, pirates, etc.


    Without industry there will be no cvc, no economy, without healthy economy, there will be no traderoutes, so nothing to do for pirates...


    I feel that current protection bubble-consept may be weak for boosting industry.


    What ever solution is, it need to make sure that time invested for creating industry is secured.

  8. i think:


    1.) Self destruct may (or may not) kill all nearby players, firiendly and hostile.


    Death is, must be, heavy and serious event.


    If so, both sides need to consider risks of selfdestruct. This can be serious enough for both sides of the coin.


    2.) Selfdestruct dont need to be "binary event". It can have all shades of grey. From simple sabotage, disabling ships componetns, to partial destruct, mabye jetting all fuel to space, etc. The big booom could be only one form of selfdesruction.

  9. Exactly.  :)



    Why would the explosion be so specific? I say make the Power Core create a damage bubble with a radius and damage proportional to

    1) fuel amount 

    2) size of the Power Core

    3) Level of Wattage the Power Core provides.

    And the timer can be set, it's optional.

    If I want to take my enemy with me, I should be able to do so. If my Power Core is my last weapon, I shall use it.

    hmm... this leads my mind into EMP

  10. Yep,


    I was salso thinking about what I can do or not to do while in stealth mode myself or in my Ship.


    If I use "active radar like" pulse scanning, I will break allmost in all cases my stealth and enemy will know im .... near. One ping is enough.


    I can use passive recon tech such as thermal cameras, microphones, nigth vision, etc.


    This can add extra layer to scanning+Stealth combination.

  11. That's a very good thought and the fact that weapons are geared, given their class, on short, medium and long range coincides as well.

    So yeah, the less illuminated the target is, the closer you need to get to them, given you can tell where they are to begin with, as names will probably be tied to a "scan" system, similar to how the Elements are displayed in building mode with a tab popping on them.

    Invisibility cloaks would also pretty much work on the same principle for normal lighting, as stealthsuits work for nightivision, you simply need to get closer to the enemy, again, given you managed to tell where they are.


    If you use Stealth "tech" you stay in Stealth when using thermal scanning or nigthvision only. But if you use radar type Scanning in stealth you will illuminate like a lighthouse.


    This can create interesting gamepaly if deployed well.

  12. I understand why the combat system will work on a targeting system.    


    My question is whether the success calculations for the combat system will be "locked in" and calculated when the shot is fired or if the success calculation will be complete when the shot should hit the construct.


    For example, if an opposing construct locks and fires from a distance that will result in my construct being hit in 3 seconds; could I do anything in those 3 seconds to reduce the chances of a successful hit?  Can I deploy flares or some kind of defensive system that reduces the chance that the shots fired will hit my ship or is there nothing I can do once the shot is fired?  If I accelerate away from the shots, can I reduce the chances of a successful hit.


    I'm not talking about collision physics; rather, whether the algorithm calculating success is made at the point of impact or firing.


    I could imagine that a lock and fire from construct A returns a calculation that an impact will occur on ship B in 3 seconds.  3 seconds later a calculation is made on that point of ship B taking into account any defensive systems deployed or evasive action that work into the damage/success calculation (could also recalculate distance at this point to effect the damage).

    You may find some more info here :


  13. By no means did I read all of your posts...some of you have great posts btw...thanks for making this a better game by sharing your ideas!

    I suspect that the concerns brought up in this post are going to be mitigated through servers and instancing.  I think having a single server with 8000 (because that is how many of us there are at the base)+ people will not work without multiple servers or at least instancing.  Ark and Space engineers do this...I am not sure how Eve handles it but I believe they do instancing.  I know in Ark that a newb generally didn't join well established servers where everyone had everything already.  Same thing in SE.  

    I suspect we will see a gameplay / system / game more akin to Ark and SE than Eve or WoW and thus mega servers won't be possible without significant instancing elements on the server side.  This alone wouldn't stop more established players from attacking newbs and ruining the experience so I think adding in anti griefing elements server side would fix this.  I brought up this idea in another post but I think the starting planet should only be entered one way, by starting the game for the first time.  Once you leave this planet to advanced, it should be impossible to re enter this planet.  This would prevent pro's from harassing the newbs.  Go see my other post for the details.

    Again...cool ideas and good dialog!


    It wont be any instances or multiple servers.



  14. I dont think it will be like that.

    If you cant enter at all you wouldnt be able to take over territory.

    Unless I'm missing something. :)

    Yes I agree. I'missing that too.

    Only solution I see is a Spy.


    Later in same article

    "Now, a few words about war. You can get control over a territory by “convincing” its owner or administrator to give a delegation to you, or, more traditionally, you can enter it, find the territory unit, destroy it and plant your own, or simply hack it. Expect it to be well hidden and well defended. "


    It should not be easy to take ower a terrotiry.

    If TU is rare and wery difficult to get. It may be much more difficult to desroy it.


    I would be wery disappointed if one can just drill a hole into a wall or digg a tunnel..... to be able to destroy something so important.

  15. (2) https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg/posts/1675018

    "Alpha/Beta access: no subscription involved."






    Is there an approximate date for Alpha, Beta and official release?

    - First half of 2017 for Alpha.

    - First half of 2018 for Beta.

    - End of 2018 for Official Release.


    Last updated: Fri, Sep 16 2016 4:55 AM EEST

  • Create New...