ostris

@blazemonger Once again you are attributing to me something i never said and arguing a point i never made. When I say the game wont be safe your response is essence is you probably won't die. Probably is not 0%. In other games you are 100% safe to mine, 100% safe to play the game loop(at least from other players). Not 99.99999% safe. I am not afraid of any type of player dominating the game. And never said i was. I'm "afraid" about the disconnect between the world NQ is putting out and the world I think they will get. The game can work with lots of pvpers everywhere or lots of p+e players everywhere. With things being safe OR nothing being safe. I'm ok with all of it. The game world should match the game they want to make. If they want it to be a civ building game first and pvp second then the game world should not be structured the exact opposite. PvP in 99% of the game world with small protected areas.
 
It is also odd to me that you accused me of knowing the pvp systems etc which i never said i did. My entire argument is games that allow open world pvp tend to be dominated by it and that runs against the civ style game NQ sometimes markets. That's the beginning and end of my argument, because as you stated we don't know anything else about combat. Your entire post, for it to be true, has to make huge assumptions about how game play mechanics work. You are assuming you can easily hide from those that want to kill you because the world is so large. You are assuming that the game play will support this style of game yet we know nothing of why it will be that way. This is YOUR argument, that I couldn't know the details of the pvp system. Yet somehow you KNOW you can hide. My point does not require any of this, it only requires the clearly stated position of NQ towards pvp and p+e zones.

@Borb_1 I appreciate the way you discuss things. As to your first paragraph, this would be the exact opposite of the stated position NQ has right now. They have stated if you want to gain something of value it must come with risk. The Moon Safe zones, clearly stated, will have NO resources in the ground and the arkship safezone is too small to be relevant in mining for the long term(i don't know if they have provided a clear answer to what resources will be in the arkship safe zone). What your saying in this first paragraph is pretty much what i am saying NQ should do to get the game you are stating DU is. Which is provide the complete or near complete P+E game loop to players with no threat of PvP. So i guess i kind of agree with this.
 
Neither one of you have actually answered the question I asked. You talked about why it SHOULD be the way you say. Why the mechanics of the game, that none of us know, SHOULD lead to the P+E base you say. The point I am making is if primary P+E civ building is the game NQ wants, why implement stuff that SHOULD make it that way instead of implementing stuff that DOES make it that way. This game is vastly different then other games so I agree none of us can KNOW how it will work out(keep in mind you are both saying this is a civ game as if you KNOW it will be). But the question neither of you answered, if you have the opinion that this should be primarily a P+E civ building game with a smaller PvP top:
 
"why have the game world as PvP with P+E zones, and not the opposite?  Why force the PvP in to the P+E game loop? "

@blazemonger
 
Few things that seem a bit wonky about your post:
 
1.) I copied the entirety of your first paragraph.  And as such the entirety of that paragraph was taken into account.
2.) An opinion does not mean it is immune to attack.  You said PvP would likely be simply to settle disputes, I brought up clear indications that that won't be the case.  There's an idiom about wishes and dreams... wish I could remember it ?
2.) "Now that we're nitpicking anyway, your quote is not on the front page, it is part of a text which refers to a component of the game a few pages down. But yes, that really is not all that relevant so let's leave it where it is.." 
 
So, who gets to decide what's considered the front page of the landing page for DU?  Is it the funding banner?  Oh, maybe it's the DU logo. No no no, it's the animation.
 
Also, who gets to decide official word about DU that is irrelevant?  Hmmm.  If it truly is irrelevant, I think NQ would take it down

2) Yes, see @Lethys post. Thing is, NQ have to say you could get pvp'd outside a few places where you're 100% safe. Because a lot of people from MMOs are binary about PvP and don't want to get burnt: 100% or 0%. Also the future ultimately is for player systems as per the vision statement so there's a consistency factor here. But that's why at the beginning, I would expect it NOT to be. With a small population, you have a skew on the numbers working correctly, the emergent systems are not developed and also need live play to actually behave "organically" without dev hard rules eg ark force field.
 
1) Yes again, it's too early to state emphatically, without falling into arguments about words and their legal meaning! ?
 
3) Players will want to build, probably in considerable numbers and that will shape the game's growth as well as the current design now. This is the future factor probably see more of when the server time increases.
 
Perhaps a tie-in between builders and shooters will be highly complex crafting supply chains and queues will make weapons and other battle systems for ships for pvp players? These will be much more complex 
 
Edit: Spoiler: A good story (fictional or fact it performs it's service) on the perils of an unrefined pvp system.
 
 
 

My hope is that the size, scale and freedom of the game will allow for real world 'pvp'.  Peaceful factions will control some areas and those areas will be pretty secure, pirate / anarchy forces will create no go areas and there will loads of places in between. 
 
Become part of an org if you want security. 
 
I hope the community is left to police the game.

Obviously there are multiple main drivers for the game, PvP isn't less than building and building isn't less than PvP.  Pretty strange that some people haven't picked up on that yet. 
 
PvP won't just be to "settle disputes if all else fails".  The whole reason there are safezones is because that isn't the case lol
 
Also from the front page:
"get ready to face players fighting for supremacy, resource control or geostrategic advantage. Space pirates raid lonely travelers, corporations steal from each other, warlords rain destruction and cities need the costly protection of dome-tech…"

@blazemonger Once again you are attributing to me something i never said and arguing a point i never made. When I say the game wont be safe your response is essence is you probably won't die. Probably is not 0%. In other games you are 100% safe to mine, 100% safe to play the game loop(at least from other players). Not 99.99999% safe. I am not afraid of any type of player dominating the game. And never said i was. I'm "afraid" about the disconnect between the world NQ is putting out and the world I think they will get. The game can work with lots of pvpers everywhere or lots of p+e players everywhere. With things being safe OR nothing being safe. I'm ok with all of it. The game world should match the game they want to make. If they want it to be a civ building game first and pvp second then the game world should not be structured the exact opposite. PvP in 99% of the game world with small protected areas.
 
It is also odd to me that you accused me of knowing the pvp systems etc which i never said i did. My entire argument is games that allow open world pvp tend to be dominated by it and that runs against the civ style game NQ sometimes markets. That's the beginning and end of my argument, because as you stated we don't know anything else about combat. Your entire post, for it to be true, has to make huge assumptions about how game play mechanics work. You are assuming you can easily hide from those that want to kill you because the world is so large. You are assuming that the game play will support this style of game yet we know nothing of why it will be that way. This is YOUR argument, that I couldn't know the details of the pvp system. Yet somehow you KNOW you can hide. My point does not require any of this, it only requires the clearly stated position of NQ towards pvp and p+e zones.

@Borb_1 I appreciate the way you discuss things. As to your first paragraph, this would be the exact opposite of the stated position NQ has right now. They have stated if you want to gain something of value it must come with risk. The Moon Safe zones, clearly stated, will have NO resources in the ground and the arkship safezone is too small to be relevant in mining for the long term(i don't know if they have provided a clear answer to what resources will be in the arkship safe zone). What your saying in this first paragraph is pretty much what i am saying NQ should do to get the game you are stating DU is. Which is provide the complete or near complete P+E game loop to players with no threat of PvP. So i guess i kind of agree with this.
 
Neither one of you have actually answered the question I asked. You talked about why it SHOULD be the way you say. Why the mechanics of the game, that none of us know, SHOULD lead to the P+E base you say. The point I am making is if primary P+E civ building is the game NQ wants, why implement stuff that SHOULD make it that way instead of implementing stuff that DOES make it that way. This game is vastly different then other games so I agree none of us can KNOW how it will work out(keep in mind you are both saying this is a civ game as if you KNOW it will be). But the question neither of you answered, if you have the opinion that this should be primarily a P+E civ building game with a smaller PvP top:
 
"why have the game world as PvP with P+E zones, and not the opposite?  Why force the PvP in to the P+E game loop? "

I appreciate the logic of how you are classifying.
 
Just to be clear, Dual Universe game world is IMMENSE. It's like nothing else (apart from EVE but then that works according to your model with it's sec status).
 
Instead of this classification (incidentally PvE is incorrect as that's player vs mob_AI. It's P+E as players scan, mine, purify, haul, make, combine, design and build using all the materials by voxel and other game systems. Also your category is an old-throw back to MMORPGs where you have a dislocated game system full of non-interacting sub games.
 
Let's think of DU as a pyramid for convenience: Base = Voxel World. Next = P+E (civilization building activity based off the base). These whatever anyone thinks of the design now, will be the largest by far segment of population numbers, just as you find in population pyramids in ecology. And using this classification , you have above this combat system: Much smaller by proportion but still likely very popular (I think space battles are going to be a sight to see). As Blasé (I mean Blazemonger!) says, the design of the mechanics will happen in Alpha 3. The scenarios of how combat happens in Beta. In that time we'll see a lot of different scenarios zoom in on an optimal outcome for release for that pyramid to retain it's correct shape. Be that safe zones, economy functionality, server load, player distribution and of course the development of large player orgs, new systems themselves. The most interesting of all perhaps.
 
TL;DR: It's a misconception though correct logic within that to describe as 2 pots, 1 larger than the other. It's a Pyramid of interacting layers by population numbers and the energy flow between those layers. It's 1 consistent thing. Some layers may never interact with other layers, but indirectly all layers interact.

@slipp_
In all honesty, if you need to ask this question, at this stage you should probably wait.

I understand. ill edit the post.

It is important for NQ to say that DU isn't a "PVE" game.  So people understand that there won't be monsters or raids to beat or whatever.
 
But in some ways I feel like DU is actually even more PVE then those games.  By the literal definition of the words at least.
 
I mean there will definitely be an environment.  And it's probably not going to make things easy for us.  But PVP is a part of that.  Not something separate. 
 
It's not a PVE game in the sense that the point of the game is to beat the environment.  And it's not a PVP game in the sense that the point of the game is to kill other players.
 
It's just a game.  You do whatever you want.  
 
Edit: It may be impossible not to alienate the type of PVE and PVP players who need a clearly defined and usually easy to attain goal to go for.  But I don't think  that is alienating PVP or PVE players.  It's just alienating people who aren't ready for a different type of game.

Man they really need to get us some more server uptime before things get any more lord of the flies around here. 
 
There are people who simply want an endless stream of mostly defenseless new players to execute just for the giggles.  There are also people who want to roam the universe in complete safety without anyone bothering them at all.  And I think there are probably other games out there better suited to both those groups.
 
PVP is a huge part of this game, especially because there is no PVE.  But building is also a huge part of the game, because there is simply no other building game even close to DU out there.  
 
If we want this game to be a success everyone is going to have to consider how something that might enhance their own experience, might also totally ruin someone else's.
 
I might like to be able to build anywhere I want without being bothered by PVP.  But I am willing to give that up to make the game better overall.
 
People should also consider that the safezones are simply safezones.  And if PVPers choose to use them to avoid PVP.  Then those people just aren't playing anymore and you have to move on.  It's a compromise.
 
I promise you there is some amazing mountain top somewhere on some planet that I would like to build on.  But I may have to choose not too because I don't want to have to defend it.
 

I think the hope from nq is that the low level of the initial player base and lack of constructs will make this kind of a task nearly impossible for several months. In some of the older videos JC was saying it may take a month for the first players to get to space. Combine that with the size of alioth and the safe zone, by the time an org was large enough to lock it down there will be so many ways out(MSA, hidden bases etc) that locking down the safe zone will probably not be worth the effort unless its specifically to lock down a single enemy org or something. 
 
I think ultimately that is the difference between ARK and DU. The play space, even without jump gates and what not, is so large it will be impractical for one group to try to control things. The problem with ark and rust is that its very very easy for a smallish group of players with a bit of an advantage(first quetz/giga or good blueprint) to control the entire play space.

Hi everyone,
 
To conclude this never-ending discussion that already happened many times before and after the Kickstarter campaign:
 
We are still a small company aiming to make a very ambitious game, especially for a company of this size.
  We have a tight budget, and we can't go overboard with appealing (but not mandatory) goals before we reach the official release of the game (at which point we should be able to self-finance the said goals, if all goes well). Among appealing goals are: localization in multiple languages and giving a thought for other platforms.
  Developing for another platform cost money, but it also need to have the right available people, and right now, we are still recruiting to complete the team for the main platform. It wouldn't be reasonable to start another team for a new platform. Polishing the game on one platform and running it smoothly on the main hardware configs (intel/AMD nvdia/ATI) is already a huge task.
  Yes, some devs are running Dual Universe on Linux. That doesn't mean it's a stable and polished version, that we could guarantee to allocate people to fix problems happening on Linux if such issue arises. Linux players will be the first to throw rocks at us if something goes wrong in that regard (and they would be right).
  Developing in one thing and maintaining is another thing. Doing both for a second platform has an irreducible base cost + a proportional cost. At this point we have no irrefutable proof that making a Linux version will cover this. Sorry but linking a press articles (released in 2010) and based on indie games is not enough. While we are an indie company, we are trying to make a MMORPG, and we haven't read yet a source (backed with facts) saying the market share using Linux in MMORPG communities is big enough to be profitable. In fact, the few news in this category tend to be interpreted as the contrary: for example, CCP dropped official Linux support for in 2009.
  So this is not a "definitive no", but not a yes either. In any case, we won't take the risk to make too much too fast at the same time. This would be the best way to jeopardize the project. We have no big publisher backing the project if something goes wrong. We understand that the idea is appealing to Linux players, but that doesn't sound a reasonable idea for the moment. Making a proper game first on at least one platform is.  
In a nutshell:
There are ways to run the current version of Dual Universe on Linux. However we won't allocate any (human or budget) resource to start a Linux version in the current context. That doesn't mean we can guarantee it will be always the case and we can't promise official support for it so far. Having developers running Dual Universe on Linux should give a hint that Linux compatibility isn't completely out of our mind (but again this shouldn't be interpreted as a firm promise for a Linux version).
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

Let me just be very clear, I am not against a Linux client but feel that it's just not a viable option prior to full release. If after the game is out and running NQ finds the time and resources to develop a Linux client then why not. The point raised earlier that NQ should not set expectations for this before they can commit to it is spot on IMO.
 

I agree with @blazemonger , it just shouldn't be a priority. I think the game is ambitious enough, has enough technical challenges, and enough of a backlog of wanted features that will take them after release(like travel from one system to another). Adding on a linux client is just a low priority. I think a crowdfunding might be ok but once you start taking peoples money to promise a linux client NQ has an obligation to complete it. I 100% guarantee the linux client or design of the game to assist with a linux client will be harder then it looks. Simple example would be if NQ has to design its own anticheat due to the unique nature of the game. That will be a lot of work to do with both linux and windows. My primary concern is they promise some level of linux and the unexpected workload for it delays the game for the 90%-95% of users not using linux, or they take a pr hit by failing to deliver an acceptable linux client after crowdfunding to do so.

There is a difference between static and dynamic constructs, I believe, depending on the the initial placed core.
Protection bubble generators therefore could only be deployable on static constructs.
.

One suggestion here would be that this would be a great place where a Novaquark provided API would be handy to have. 
 
Emails get lost for all sorts of reasons, and having a notification show up on my phone would be extremely useful in events like this. 

How can system get exploited? How can it be improved to prevent exploits?
 
That's my usual way of thinking. Especially when I encounter interesting and complex system, like DU.
 
So I have some possible exploits in mind, that probably were discussed, or there is game mechanic I'm not aware of that takes care of them already.
 
I marked possible solutions with colours, based on my subjective opinions:
Green means it would help to fix the problem
Yellow means it wouldn't hurt, but doesn't really change much regarding that exploit. Or is really complicated to implement.
Red breaks more than it fix.
 
1. Building base deep underground with extremely hard to breach defences. Can't use battleships, because it's too deep. Infantry assault is like Soviet unarmed infantry charging German MG lines at Stalingrad. Digging is prohibited by TU.
 
Possible solutions:
A. Forcing some of valuable devices to be placed close to the surface. Obviously all farming, but that doesn't help much. TU seems like the best candidate. Forcing TU shallow enough that battleship cannons can dig seems like best solution for now.
B. Require special gear and resources to survive at large depths. Just like D. it would only fix the problem if those resources can't be stored for longer than length of typical battle. And would hurt hidden bases without TU, that aren't really problematic.
C. Harder to dig deep? It's only initial cost. And also increase durability of underground base, so it can be closer to surface.
D. Solar panels/wind wanes as only renewable energy? That would work only if energy storage were inefficient (energy vaporising over time). Also sieges would be long boring waiting.
E. Some assault system, where TU protection goes down after attackers with there enough time? Same problem as D. and B. - waiting. If digging protection shuts down during assault (as suggested by @gladiator5501) then all surface bases defences become too easy to avoid by tunnelling.
F. Exponentially increased maintenance cost? Damage over time to anything that is deep underground? Would work, but may be taxing on server. And hurts hidden bases.
G. Provided by @ShioriStein: Gas weapons. But that would require liquid physics, which we probably won't get anytime soon. Same apply to flooding such base with water.
H. By @Hades: Make TU protect only close to the surface, leaving depths impossible to protect from digging. Would allow night-mining of enemy resources, without any viable counter.
I. Make TU buble shape, rather than column. A bit far from currently implemented system - but that's probably how it gonna work in space. Would limit the amount of stone you need to blow up to get to nearest TCU. Would lead to nice staged battles, as you'd fight for small parts of enemy base (i.e. only for storage section) It would also make it independent from hex-grid, thus more natural.
J. By  @ShioriStein@Kurock@Felonu: Make digging with explosives/weapons quick and cheap. That makes surface bases completely obsolete (just like E.), but at least fix the underground bases problem.
K. By @Felonu@ostris:Limit dispenser-storage (item link) range. Would at least force underground bases to have entrance for cargo vehicles.
L. Drill. Primitive tool that can't be blocked by TCU (but can be by FFU or safe zone). Dig slowly (1/8 m3/s), Is loud (sensors can pin-point it form hundreds of meters), and you need to carry rocks in uncompressed form out of the tunnel.
 
2. Automated AFK mining. What if I build and program my hovercraft to go in pattern, jump on, block/macro dig button and leave it for night to dig whole ore vein?
 
Possible solutions:
A. Provided by  @Atmosph3rik: Resources should be in non-solid, odd-shaped veins, so strip mining is extremely inefficient. Sounds like efficient solution without side effects.
B. Limit players inventory capacity. But it's easy to set macro to once per 10 minutes turn around, use dispenser to clear inv, then go back to mining. And it would hurt long mining trips on foot (I don't mind, as IMO you should use some kind of vehicle with you most of the time).
C. Limiting how much character can mine per day. I.e. make mining generate heat, which cools several times slower when not mining. The longer you mine, the slower it goes. I.e. after 2h you mine 2x slower, after 10h you mine 10x slower. That would hurt legit no-life miners, which I wouldn't mind, but some players probably would.
 
3. Provided by @Omfgreenhair: New player's bases boxed with basic materials in safe-zone by troll (who may demand payment for removing the structure)
 
Possible solutions:
A. TU makes it impossible due to size of protected area. But it's not really within reach of new player
B. Static constructs have weaker version of TU (few meters around the construct) built in, making griefer work more time consuming. Especially considered that you need to dig under base as well, to fully block someone.
C. Limit players to single static constructs within ASA per account. That shouldn't harm anyone sane, and would help against ASA clutter. This way troll could troll just one player.
D. Limit usage of very basic resources in constructs (rock, dirt, snow). But that would hinder creativity too much.
E. Provided by @Kurock: Allow players to re-park ships that someone parked too close to your construct, even if it means some clipping. Should fix the problem with dynamic constructs used for boxing.
 
Know the solution? Share.
Think of some other exploit? Share too.

at around 4:30, shows ownership of the tile as a whole not a layer of it.

Ultimately i think @CalenLoki you are making way to many assumptions on how the dispenser/links work. Most everything else you have mentioned comes at a pretty large cost if you cant move resources to your base easily:
 
Assumption 1) Links are not distance locked. There is zero reason to suspect this applies to dispensers. Dispensers are being shown as a control unit not a transport unit. A dispenser dispenses things it doesnt teleport them. If they wanted them to be transporter units they would make them that or make another element that does that. As of now there is no reason to suspect that a link between storage and dispenser can go over long distances, or that such a link exists(is there a video showing a dispenser linked to anything?). The only links that appear to not be distance locked are data links/fuel links, but no confirmation on that. However there is a distinct different between those links and what you are saying the dispenser unit can do. Take the fuel link, allows the engine to use the fuel in the tank. We have never been shown an engine that has storage on it and fuel tanks has been shown in several ship building videos as required(engines blink without the connection in tutorial video). This means when you link an engine to a fuel tank the resource doesn't move its simply consumed by the engine.You cannot transport fuel from the surface to an underground base using an engine, you can only consume the fuel on the surface with an engine underground. So best case you would be able to maybe craft using your dispenser or storage up top if you linked it to a crafting table or w/e underground.
 
Assumption 2) No area damage. Your entire kill room concept is predicated on there not being any area damage in the game. If there is i can use the corner to get a 1v1, 1v2 on your turrets. If your turrets are close to each other i may be able to target one with a missile/explosive and damage everything in a radius around it including things i cant see and cant see me. If they are spread out to avoid this i cant see how you can assure anything more then a 1v1, 1v2. There has been some talk about targeting something will do area damage around it in an interview JC did but combat in general is almost all theoretical at this point so you have to make a lot of assumptions to say if a kill style room will work at all.
 
And lastly something that has been pointed out by others, is you are limiting your own ship use to whatever can fit in your base. If your ship can get through so can mine. I'm not saying an underground base wont be very beneficial. It probably will be, i just don't think its gunna be nearly as game breakingly good as you make it out to be. At the very least i think it will come at a large cost of convenience.
 
 

at around 4:30, shows ownership of the tile as a whole not a layer of it.

for sure

1) I understand the situation but fail to see the problem. If it's hard for enemies to get in, it's hard for the people that live there too. If the base must have ship access, well those are massive doors that can be shot down. Also (outside of the safezone) you can still destroy claimed land. No mining just means you cannot *collect* the resources from the ground. If you are worried about people defacing your grounds, you should have put up some shields. Also, most importantly, we need proper tools to flatten/restore terrain.
 
2) Automated Avatar Syndrome is a disease. Anyone caught with this disease should be shot then banned or the disease will spread. Quarantine the infection. I don't really have a solution for this other than don't be an AAS.
 
3) Outside safezone, think outside the box and action it with gunz. Inside the safezone I like the idea of "reparking" a ship that sticks around in your safe zone territory for too long. An option that moves it randomly to nearby open (unclaimed) area. The owner has no issue finding it again because it's still listed on his map. Fixes box ships and illegal parkers . If you get wheel clamped (aka boxed) in someone else's territory, it's really your own fault.

Actually quantum is a very, very, very small thing xD

@Gerald_Deemer
I would _really_ like to know where you rent an actual physical high end server for $15/mo .. that would be a very nice trick and I'll take a few..
 
I think you do not really know or understand what server cluster will be required fro DU to run as NQ envisions it. Let alone running a business, developing extensions and additional content/tools/elements/features. They need highly skilled designers for modeling, graphics, sound and these people do not come cheap. A considerable team will need to be available to maintain the server cluster 24/7 as well. 
 
There really is no argument against the subscription model if only for the fact you are being provided with an endless amount of hours of playtime when the monthly subscription cost comes in at well below $1/day.