gyurka66

Basically, this is something that is sort of a must have for a game that will be getting more and more complex as it develops.
 
Unless a huge game reset is planned when the game is released, it will be very important for new players to get their bearings, for this they will need some sort of tutorial, i'm not talking about game and interface tutorial, but a community tutorial, current political, economical and social landscapes explained in some degree.
 
For example, information about planets, cities, more powerful empires/organizations/corporations, explained basic stuff about procuring and selling resources, companies, but also information about jobs, since the economy is player driven, it means that a job board of sorts would have to be made available with information which organizations are hiring and what skills they require, that could be anything from pilots and soldiers, to miners or construction workers. Also information about distances and travel in-game would be a very welcome addition, so new players can better understand the game. Basically, an in-game wikipedia plus basic information about the current politics(this would require an algorithm or a human to write it as it changes).
 
Another thing that would be useful to new player when joining the game for the first time, would be newspapers. Written by players, for players. As the game develops, empires and politics will be established, newspapers will allow to inform people about current events in the galaxy, or a specific system, or a company, or even used as an Imperial propaganda machine.
Radios would be an addition to spaceships, bars, stations etc. allowing the owner to choose the station he wants to listen to. The range of said radio stations, that's what's tricky, it would require a specific architecture to be build, specific antennas, signal boosters, receivers in other systems etc. but it would also mean we can implement that into the in-game military forces.
For example, we have a Federation with a huge territory and a rival in the region, the radio system i'm proposing would allow a little laggy(the more stations and distance the signal goes through, the more signal lag you would get) all sensory data and positions would be sent to the sector command (i'm creating this structure while i'm writing this so don't go all "this is not how the game works now" on me, this is only an idea on new features in-game, which are not too hard to implement) and relayed to the high command for example, the in-game radio would mean that patrols can communicate with their higher-ups in the HQ by voice chat as well, or text if that's their policy.
Now, you want to start an attack, but there are enemy forces in the area, so you take out their comms relay, the Federation A looses it's contact with its forces in the region, and is virtually blind while Empire B is launching a full scale invasion. Before the word goes up the chain of command, Federation A can loose a lot of ground, or it can batter the Empire forces, no one knows, but being able to effectively knock out enemy comms and sensors is a vital part of waging war.
BEFORE some people point out that it can be substituted by discord, TeamSpeak, skype, whatever. It Can Not. Let's jump into the future, one year forward let's say, we have 1 000 000 players, and let's say there is an organization with 3000 people online on avg entire day, which is not really hard, good luck coordinating that by teamspeak. A military-like comm system is required in-game for the military fleets to function. This would also allow us a new aspect of game: hacking.
Hacking and spying to be exact, trying to infiltrate the enemy and get information from their systems, redirect some communication if you're attacking, making sure reports don't reach the main command for some time, or selling information to pirates about patrols in the region, so they can evade them, or getting blueprints and schematics for a military outpost you wish to invade, or hacking their comms and listening in, learning their secrets. It's natural that sooner or later, organizations will try to hide locations of some of their projects, bases, labs,(i'll write about developing new technologies some other day) mines, shipyards (take out those, the enemy can't replenish their numbers that easily) and hacking the enemy and infiltrating him will let you get the information. With hacking, we can actually base that on real life security and real life hacking, with improved graphics of course.
Jamming enemy comms would also be nice.
 
If we're trying to merge Space Engineers, EVE, Star Citizen, Stellaris (creating empires) and few other ideas, we need to have some sort of a system to introduce new players, and we need to expand the possibilities as much as we can, we need to make this game as realistic as it's possible, player-made radio stations and newspapers would certainly be an interesting addition, giving us dozens of new possibilities on what to do in Dual Universe world, this would allow to make kiosks with info, or radio stations, we would need people to speak on the radio, interview important people, and people would actually listen and read, because information is the key to many branches in economy, if there are reports of pirates in system A, people will react to that information, and move to system B where there are patrols established by some organization, or they will hire protection, so they can mine in that system or use it as a shipping lane. Flow of information is the key in establishing economy in space.
 
 
Soon i will follow with more ideas, this time about medical sciences in-game.
 
Also, i would love to hear what you guys think about my idea, i do like constructive criticism, so feel free to criticise.
And, this language is NOT my native language, so sorry for grammar and spelling errors, but it shouldn't be more than a little annoyance.
 
 
Fernix
 

I am wondering if it would be able to ram the ship non-destructively. Correct me if I am wrong, but the way weapons work is they cause damage to the voxels to the point where they completely destroy them. So, could some ship be knife-shaped, have tons of weapons in front and fire a hole into another ship, through which it will insert its tip (for some reason, this sounds dirty to me, sorry) into the created entrance, "locking" the two ships together. Then the ramming ship could influence the movement of both constructs (just like Hammerhead corvette did in Rogue One).
Imagine ton of small ships swarming huge one, creating holes in its hull, entering through them and through coordination of players operating those ships, moving the huge ship into any location, as if they were its own thrusters.

Magical metal which absorbs shockwaves  =)  I love this idea and it will probably add to the game as a rare and expensive metal ore ! 

True and I never said people should stop arguing. I simply said that it won't happen in the next years, if ever.
 
Plus I see no real benefit. 
Let's assume customizable weapons are a thing. What would happen? PvP players will simply search for the best combination possible for each situation (facing armored ships, shielded shipsfrom, bases, people, fast ships, slow ships, cloaked ships,.... whatever) and use that as a standard doctrine to face those threats. It'll boil down to let's say 30 gun combinations. 
If NQ stays with the system as they planned right now, you'll have let's say 40 guns of which 15 do the same thing (read: counter the same ships) as the customizable ones. Because that's balance - to every armor, shield, base, cloak there needs to be a counter. 
So they, end up with a cool and shiny system which is ridiculously hard to balance in comparison to pre defined elements and eveyone will still be using only certain combinations.
 
That's the way MWO does it (somehow). Mechs have different hardpoints on different parts and there are hundreds of different variants of parts and weapons. Still 90% of the people are using the same loading withup the same variant. Because it works.
 
Or look at eve where you can fitevade your ship as you want. Standard doctrines are always the same and even people who fly solo use the same loadouts. Only the real pros (which are like 1% of the population) fly loadouts which aren't expected on that ship
 
So yeah, can't really see a benefit

Do you mean we shouldn't write down our suggestions? And what makes you think that the only programmers in the whole DU community are the developers? I for one never worked on a project so big but i learnt programming, networking and some shit about hardware. And even if i'm not as qualified as the developers of the game my ideas can give them ideas even if it might seem that they are unable to implement it for some reason let them worry about it if they don't like and idea or think it's not possible they won't care about it.
 
And the other thing is that Zero-G physcis and voxel based damage are not groundbreaking at all as they have been used in numerous other games already. You always cry about how the server can't handle this kind of calculations but as you already said NQ already made a server tech just to maximise the effectiveness of these calculations.
 
Very Sad.

the max speed in space is rumored to be 20,000 km/s, thats one mighty fast target to accurately ram........  lets just see how the game unfolds as we might be talking about a tactic that can only work near where ships slow down to dock/enter atmosphere etc.

NQ are the ones who said they will not be allowing ship ramming as a game feature.
 
Whether it's possible or not is irrelevant, they mainly don't want it in the game because of the disruptive "cheese" tactics it will allow.
 
I agree with NQ in this regard...

I keep seeing a lot of "can't be done, server load too much" kind of replies in a lot of threads. But in this thread, I will post a little FAQ for you guys.

First off, game server, I would say 80% of today's games still run on single core servers. Meaning if you have an 8 core processor, you can run 8 servers on one machine (given you have the memory, hard-drive space, and network bandwidth to handle it). 15% of games run on dual core machines. And 4% run on four cores. A whopping 1% uses 6 or more cores. Its not much.

So, "what does this mean you might ask." Me personally, the devs seem to know what they are doing. Their shard system is vastly different than any current MMORPG and as they said, will ensure 1000's of players in one area no issue because of how the shards will split the load.

But, I also keep hearing "can't be done, too much server load". Well, with such brilliant programming, you can spread the load per core. Lest I remind you there are 32 core 64 thread server cpu's on the market now which very high core speeds compared to many older server chips.... If the developers load their game up with massive cpu's that can handle more, and have the proper code to follow suit on the server end, the possibilities are limitless. 10 years ago, yeah I would agree, it can't be done.

Just for an example, one server can have two cpu's, 64 cores, 128 threads, 2-4TB of memory (yes, TB, compared to desktops with 1-32gb), throw in an optical network solution that connects to a business optical solution, you could have seemingly limitless bandwidth. YES, I understand all of this costs money. But, at our great elders have said, you have to spend money to make money..... Now if they can spread server load, and have separate cores handle separate things, you can potentially handle very large amounts of load absolutely no issue. Now we all know that graphics cards handle physics better than typical cpu's, this is FACT. So, in this regard, get the smaller dual socket boards that have multiple pci-e ports. Have a gpu in every port and write the server code to use the gpu's similar to bit coin mining, ie you aren't render graphics, you are running raw code which is handled completely differently.

FROM ALL THIS, anything is possible, its just down to the developers to do it  Sure, there is the idea that "right now" it would be an issue, but they can iron all these out as they progress in development. It just takes a keen eye and a brilliant mind to show them the path, and they already have brilliant minds that can code and take advantage of it.... Honestly, I hope they see this post and go "holy crap, its doable". I know it is, and now they can too. Its just up to them to code, which I can admit, is hard, as I can't code at all, tried to learn both c++ and python, always get stuck and dunno how to move forward, coding isn't my forte, but solving puzzles and coming up with great idea's, is my forte, hence why I am a mechanic by trade, I follow technology closely in terms of hardware, and I even studied some law. I have absolute faith that the devs can handle the task of pushing their tech even further to give us a truly amazing world to play in.

That's fair, but you'd still have to balance it so those Ramming elements are expensive, to prevent the same abuse of suicide mechanics by numerous and/or wealthy organizations. 

what i posted about servers and technology is fact. not my fault you cannot comprehend it, maybe read a book before you make a stupid argument like "the devs know more than you". that's just small minded and absolutely hilarious. 

developers don't always have the answers, just like I may not have all the answers. you can google my facts, just like bit coin, physics calculations finish a lot faster and are more efficient when running on a GPU vs a CPU. If they have say 40 servers to handle the load index they described where servers will load certain zones to keep the game running well and have 1000's in the same node, they could put a gpu or a few of them, and code their stuff to run all physics calculations on the gpu instead of cpu, increasing the overall physics performance server side no issue. IGNORING that means you simply can't handle the truth.

I UNDERSTAND the NQ said they weren't going to work on ship collision because they don't want people ramming ships. they are going for "tab targeting" which makes ramming ships pretty much useless anyway. its not a twitch shooter when in ship cockpit.

HOWEVER, my facts about physics can work for more things than just ship collision mechanics, it can also be used for water, and land based vehicles.

The biggest reason Indy (independent) developers seem to be doing things other mainstream developers are not, is because they have the mindset of "IT CAN BE DONE" as apposed to the typical mind of "it can't be done.... don't even try". There is a reason why mainstream games have gone downhill in overall quality. the similar "it can't be done, its too much work, its too much time" etc. That negativity is ruining gaming.

Technology has far surpassed what we currently use in games. I don't mean player side where some games barely get 60fps at 4k. I am talking about the game itself and the technology in it. We can do so much more, but people like you, say no, lets just keep doing what we are doing because everything is impossible.....

As Vorengard said earlier
Which isn't true, because collision against the environment and constructs work in exactly the same way.

Clearly we arn't talking about 'voxel to voxel collision' and 'dynamic modification of voxels on collision' here.

Even if Vorengard meant to say that 'voxel to voxel collision is occurring against the environment but not against other constructs', that also isn't true; not only did Nyz say that they wern't doing that, but there's no evidence to support that that's how it works.

Actually physical calculations take much more resources than subtracting from a variable until it's zero and then deleting it.
 
and i don't think there will be too much ramming ever, because space is big even now and i heard they are making planets much bigger than they are in the prototype. The chances of eve encountering anyone point blank is pretty slim and i think collisions will only happen in either atmospheric fights(where a collision is almost certain death) or between fighters and their carriers.
 
The only complication i see in collision damage is that it would look really lame between two bigger ships and totally not look like some star wars collision between star destroyers. But fighters scracthing the surface of a destroyer are way more cooler.
 
So in the end i think collision warfare would limit itself but if it turns out to be  a problem they can still limit the damage of one collision forcefully. I don't see a problem with implementing collision damage.

This part of the forum is called the "Idea Box".
 
By definition, it's the place for dreaming ! 

Currently we have elements (created by NQ) that are used by players to create constructs. The player-built constructs can contain any number of elements of different types, and can have any shape that the builder desires.
 
Elements are crafted from recipes (defined by NQ) that require specific components and refined resources, and they have a unique shape (pre-defined mesh created by NQ). A player's personal weapons will be a special kind of element, because it will be the only type of element (that we know of) that will be directly usable by a player avatar.
 
To make the OP's idea work, NQ could create a new type of element template, where some or all of the components are placed in "slots" (pre-defined by NQ) during manufacture.
The owner of the element can then swap out slotted components as required. Using that template, any element (guns, turrets, engines, scanners, etc) can then potentially be turned into a "configurable" element. The functions of the element (and its mesh) would be exactly the same in both cases, but the allowed attribute value ranges of the configurable element would have to be wider. That will have implications for balance, of course, so components will have to have positive and negative modifiers as well.
 
NQ can then convert the "old" elements to the new configurable template whenever they like, and introduce the new version as part of a patch or major expansion.
 
AFAIK, the crafting system in DU is a complete mystery at this point. There's been no devblog explaining the design, and we've seen no examples of recipes or examples of the "components" that will be used in crafting. That makes it a bit difficult to judge what kind of impact this suggestion will have on dev time.
 
It will definitely require a whole bunch of new components. If that means a new 3D-mesh for each component, it will be a lot of work, but I suspect that components only have 2D inventory icons and will only ever exist in storage containers.

This idea came to me while I was eating a waffle downtown, so I figured I would post it as one of my debate threads and see how it goes, and what develops from it. 
 
Debate 10: Weapons Modules
 
This mainly stems from one of my previous debates as well as a few other current topics, specifically one about multi block weapons. While having multi block build-able weapons would be nice they are rather intensive to design and set up for the developers. "Correct me if I am wrong"
 
 
Hand Based Tools & Weapons
 
This started me thinking along the line of weapons modules, in this instance lets think about a standard pistol. The standard pistol is the base model that is produced en mass by your local market seller. However the pistol is modular, meaning you can replace the barrel, receiver, magazine, grip, ect. For instance if you wanted a full auto pistol you would switch the receiver module out with one that is full auto, or even one that is burst fire. While the pistol may look the same, "modules do not necessarily have to modify the appearance of a weapon" it does effect how the weapon performs, essentially making it a more specialized tool. Then if you wanted to turn that smg into something more accurate you could add a scope or a different grip module to it. The same applies to your standard rifle, you can modify its modules to turn it into a more specialized tool. For instance adding a longer barrel could increase your accuracy and range, and combined with a scope you would have a proper sniper rifle.
 
Ship Based Tools & Weapons
 
Along the same line of hand based equipment, your ship based equipment could follow the same line of thought. Everything could have slots for customization, everything from reactors, batteries, engines, ect. A great example would be that of a reactor, lets say for this example the reactor at hand has 4 slots available for customization, without those slots used the reactor will only produce a base x amount of power. Then you add in a fuel efficiency module into the reactor, meaning it uses less fuel to produce the base value x amount of power. Then you add in a generating efficiency module into the reactor, that boosts its base x production of power per cycle. So instead of producing 100% of power it produces 105%. There could be many other types of modules developed to add special features to your general items, and customize them to fit your exact needs. 
 
Ship turrets function in the same way, they have a set number of slots you can customize. Lets say for this instance the turret is a standard railgun, and has 5 slots available for customization. The first module added gives it a boost towards cycle fire rate, so instead of a base value of 100 fire rate its 105. You could make all 5 slots have cycle fire rate mods, or you could add in other special options. Module 2 and module 3 in this instance are capacitor boosters, which increase the amount of power the weapon can use to fire the railgun, increasing the speed of the projectile meaning instead of 100 its 110 damage. Then for modules 4 and 5, they are tracking computers. These tracking computers increase your turning rate on your turret. Meaning you can compensate and track your enemy faster. so instead of 100 it would be 110 boosted tracking rate. 
 
Economy
 
Having modules would also open up a whole new industry that players could focus into in producing modules for ships and weapons. And different quality modules would effect the stat that the specific module boosts. 
 
 
 
Anyway - If you have any constructive criticism or support to add to the topic feel free to comment below. Feel free to expand on the idea to your whim. 
 
Just keep it nice and clean - no flames
 
 
 
 

Total agree !
 
As JC said, he wants to see a system ,like IC2 in minecraft,in DUAL.
That means Energy > machine > products < alloys < rafinery < ore
In the same way, if i will build a radar, its components could lock a plane in 20 km range..To build a radar with 50 km lock-capability > so i will need alloys ( made with others rares materials)  to made electronics components of this radar.
 
I hope to see anti-aircraft missiles in vertical tube to protect my home base ... with 300 km range ! of course
 
Missile = Warhead + Electronic head (tracking/lock)  + Propulsion ( solid fuel ) ...you can mix Level 2 ..3..4.5..  for each section !!!
 
 
It will be fantastic to run a technology race

Physics is a gpu load, not a cpu. Running psychics on cpu is literally the wrong way to run physics. Most companies who run physics calculations have a similar setup to bit coin mining rigs with multiple gpu's to actually pound out said physics code, because gpu's are better at it.

I guarantee they don't have a set server farm setup yet. They probably have a few test servers and that's it. Add 1-8 gpu's per server rig and the physics issue load is solved in one fell swoop. If they can code a new algorithm for handling server load itself to where 1000's of players can hang out in the same spot and even fight each tother, than coding their game to use gpu's for physics calculations would significantly improve performance, which would mean we could even see actual wheels and such instead of "hover/flying" tech only, and we would also see water. "but water would be too much calculations" well, from other thing they said is that scripting only works when someone is present, I thought they meant your scripts only run when YOU are present, they haven't clarified, but if they can basically "turn off" unused sectors and then "turn them on" when a player is actually there to interact with them, then everything people are claiming can't be done, can be done. Server technology isn't how it was years ago. Not to mention, if you pay attention to how games are run server side, its all code, no game. Its not like running the game on your pc. However, look at the servers today. 80% are single core servers. That means you could have an 8 core server and its only using 1 core to run said game. 15% are dual core games that run on 2 cores, 4% run on 4 cores, and 1% run on 6 cores or more. We have 32 core/64 thread cpus, and none of that is properly getting utilized. If the devs here making DU decided to use all the horsepower that they can, anything is possible....

NQ is already doing the physics collisions for constructs. They have a video of a spaceship landing on a space station from 2016.
 
Adding in a flat damage calculation wouldn't require any more physics calculations to be done, because it's already happening. So the load of adding collision damage would be pretty negligible.
 
Personally I don't care one way or the other if they decide to add damage to collisions or not, but it wouldn't create a performance issue for the server.

Grappling Hooks in ANY game is fun.
Just imagine shooting one at an enemy ship and taking a free-ride.

Dual Universe's general Avatar vs Avatar combat system is still a topic to be discussed as most of it also lies in the dark for the community.
Nonthetheless, I'd like to discuss a related topic: 
How and if different tacical gameplay elements can benefit AvA combat and which elements can be used meaningful.
 
Having said that, it's also important to think about if certain tactical elements even make sense at all in an MMO like Dual Universe, what is feasible and what may be too much.
However, I personally felt it would be disappointing if ground combat only consisted of aiming and shooting around with different weapons with barely any features around. Seeing how many non-tactic games adapted features from tactic shooters, implementing certain elements can bring a lot more depth in combat situations.
 
So I thought of different features that many tactic shooters implemented. Surely you wouldn't expect DU to feature a full list of these and become a full-fledged shooter by the way, but I'd like to list a few specific ones that I think could be discussed well.

Advanced movement systems
A good basic for most tactic shooters is a movement systems that allows the player to take on different stances and have the character interact with objects and world elements during movements.
Usually, this consists at least of being able to stand, crouch and lie down as stances (Battlefield, Arma), some shooters go even further with additional stances in between these three or being able to sprint in different modes and combine them into slides or throwing yourself down.


But another element of this feature is the interaction with the environement, for example being able to leap over obstacles (The Division, Ghost Recon), sometimes even climb on elements 
 

 
These elements can commonly be seen in third person shooters, but more first person shooter adapt them as well.
First person shooters also sometimes feature the possibility to lean over to a side to look around corners. (R6 Siege, Squad)

 
Does DU need this?
Interacting with the world would be great, but DU is a Sci-fi game. Cimbing a building or being able to leap over small objects would not be necessary if we can use our jetpack for it. In fact, the jetpack allows for a far more complex movement system as it creates an larger, 3 dimensional space to fight in. Jetpacks are also found in modern action shooters more and more and open other options, such as walking on walls or power leaps.
However, being able to go prone is something that a jetpack can't replace and what I personally like to see in any game. Games with advanced physics or cover systems also include the leaning automatically.

 
Cover system
Especially in recent years, cover systems have been implemented in a majority of tactic shooters. It allows the player to position his character to any surface large enough and "stick" to it, moving along its course. With this, you can peek out to shoot and largely avoid getting hit easily. The problem with these systems is that they don't blend well with 1st-person, which is why most games with cover systems are 3rd-person shooters or switch into 3rd person as long as the character stays in cover. Another problem is that games with cover systems usually revolve around these (The Division, Gears of War, Rainbow Six: Vegas). Having a full cover system in DU would likely mean more work for a possible 3rd-person perspective or that combat takes place behind cover, which is fun for many but can become tedious at times.

This where the soft-cover system comes in:
Some recent games have implemented a cover system, that doesn't require your character to stick to a surface. Instead, the player positions his character regularly behind cover. As soon as he aims, the character will automatically look over or around the cover. The recent Ghost Recon Wildlands mixed these systems through an animation that seemingly lets the character stick to the surface without actually entering a sperate cover mode.


 
While it's questionable if DU needs this, it would certainly be a nice feature to get just a bit more depth in the overall combat system as it opens more possibilities in combat and prevents the rushed, senslessly action-rich gameplay seen in low-effort productions.

Kits / Roles
Typical for an MMORPG is a class system. Shooters feature them as well sometimes, although "kits" are used more often in modern shooters as the less static pendant to classes. Kits feature a set of equipment that can usually be changed in or between rounds. Together with these kits, certain roles of a player are associated, which are often similar to traditional classes in RPGs. We have healing kits like medics, damage dealers like the normal rifeman or assault, a subsitute for tanks are usually kits with heavy weaponry like rocket launchers or LMGs and engineering kits for what in any other RPG can be a summoner, tamer or an engineer as well.
 

NQ already stated that DU will not feature a fixed class system, but a skill tree with which players can specialize in a certain direction.
These may be associated with roles as well, but in terms of overall DU gameplay. That means that AvA combat would only be one direction for a role in the whole tree.
By fanning this direction of the skill tree out, a role system could be integrated into the game instead of having players assume different combat roles themselves or be determined solely by weaponry, which would be another possibility as well. A broader skill tree would  also mean stronger in-depth specialization, more directions to go and being able to combine skills and equipment effectively.
 
Communication channels
A working chain of command is essential for successful operations. A complex strategy needs to be executed correctly, which is why everbody has to know their part in it. But a single squad also needs to be able to adapt to the situation in the field, which is why higher ranks make decisions and forward them to the single members. Sadly, most games neglect this complex procedure and only give access to an all-chat and team-chat, traditional MMOs mostly also to guild / clan / alliance chats. This is good, but not enough for a working chain of command. Sadly, the commonly used 3rd party programs like TeamSpeak, Skype and Discord can't satisfy this problem either. 
Squad implemented a good first start for this - a Radio channel for Squad leaders, for the squads and for proxmity. Squad leaders can discuss plans and strategies together, forwards them to their squad, that can in turn confirm and report single events while members can talk to people outside their squad or their immediate group through the local channel. Additional, the chat window allows to send messages to the whole team.
I wouldn't expect DU to include VoIP, but besides the regular chats of traditional MMOs at least being able to have multiple chat channels for use inside organizations could be a lot to work with. These channels could maybe even be linked to the RDMS to decide who can type or read in it.
If we take this step a bit further, being able to create a certain amount of custom channels would come in handy for all possible situations. In that case maybe not only for use inside an organization, but even for creating prviate chat channels with password protection to invite people from everywhere in the game.
 
Weapon customization
Not neccesarily a tactical feautre itself, but brings with it a lot of tactical depth, similar to kits and roles.
Most MMOs feature equipment customization to some extent, mostly by upgrading quality and / or level of the gear. Fantasy MMOs also often allow to insert gems in sockets to boost a certain stat of the weapon.
 

 
This is a very basic level of customization, but being able to put mods, modules, upgrade chips or whatever you want to call it on a weapon would definitely be imaginable for Dual Universe.
Advanced customization allows the players to choose various components of their weapons like scopes, barrels, magazines, triggers and stocks. Somtimes, this is done when assembling or crafting your weapon and will determine the end stats of the finished product. In some games, this is an option in menus or on a crafting station (Fallout, Ghost Recon)
 

 
While this certainly is a lot of work on the development side, the result is always a fun feature that would be a great addition in a sandbox game like DU. In a game you can create your own buildings, cities, vessels and societies, why exclude weapons from it?

Interactive maps
The last and shortest feature on the list is interactive maps. There are only few games in which you can customize your maps. But like with communication channels, a complex strategy needs to be explained well. Being able to illustrate and visualise a strategy or tactic is a great help and makes for a fun feature. Having a map you can draw on and show other players can be a great help to communicate even without words, this doesn't even need to be in real time. It'd be enough to craft a map, edit its content, save it and pass on the next player. Seeing as this is already the case with the blueprints in DU, making maps similar to them might not be too difficult on the development end. 



Now you're asked. What do you think of these features? Would you like to see some of them in Dual Universe as well? What other elements would you prefer and what would you want to add to reach a deeper combat system?

I did not understand most of that so I will respond to what I did understand.
 
"Simply because "really", "fun", "unnecessary", "bore", "artificially" and "harder" are subjective materials."
 
Yea, they are subjective. That dose not change that the majority would find repeating the same thing over and over and over boring.
 
"Fortunately, NQ doesn't seem to fall into this trap. They have an appropriate answer to the "grind" or "boring" activities, by increasing the gameplay complexity.
In this way, NQ turns boring activites into valuable "job experience" which makes the whole game more interesting."
 
Even complex things get boring when you do them over and over again.
 
 
Sorry this post is rushed I had to get back to something.

Well, your own answer prove you don't understand what you are talking about.
 
Simply because "really", "fun", "unnecessary", "bore", "artificially" and "harder" are subjective materials. And this subjectivity naturally aim to build a balance of power and a social order. Through aggressive and defensive patterns, a collective belief is shaped without a real insight or link with the physical reality.
This collective strategy creates a narcissistic vulnerability, which make the whole social system working as a periodic time bomb. When the bomb is about to explode and destroy the community, a scapegoat is automatically found to discharge all the violence and frustration accumulated.
 
Basically, we could call that: to confuse have an arguing and have an argument. This confusion triggers a psychological defense pattern, giving the delusion to be right.
 
So, to answer your irony, I would say that you haven't the insight or knowledge to even think what you are posting regarding this topic. As a lot of people on gaming forums, having unending or useless debates which, as a result, only restore some fading egos upon others.
 
Fortunately, NQ doesn't seem to fall into this trap. They have an appropriate answer to the "grind" or "boring" activities, by increasing the gameplay complexity.
In this way, NQ turns boring activites into valuable "job experience" which makes the whole game more interesting.

I get the vibe that a lot of the members of the community are expecting a super hardcore experience. But because of this they do not like any ideas that remove grind from the game. I am sure we all know grind is usually bad/boring/not fun. It's the exact gameplay people where saying wasn't fun when we where discussing F2P.
 
So please think this before you post:
  Is this really fun, or is it a unnecessary bore to added artificially make the game "harder"?

It would be great if there were some kind of soundblocks and people could upload sounds they want if there wasn't a preset one. That way you could do different alarms, announcements and ambient noises, even elevator music if the game ever gets what is needed for elevator. Some easy way to share those sounds between players would be good too. 
 
As for the main topic it seems so oblivious to have ships in ships that I never even considered it at something that needs to be talked about. I just hope that there are enough tools to make doors for different sized hangars, not just few options for relatively small force fields. I want a major station or ground base that can dock whole capital ships in them with some kind of door/force field that can cover the needed entrance. 

To carry a construct you just need a way to stick a construct on another, and it's planned.