Jump to content

GrandMaster Apex

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GrandMaster Apex

  1. discordauth:e7eXf8d3ogvuuhB4uFmUyXh92JHU7KKdC2o7-XaUY18=
  2. My opinion is to keep the DAC system as proposed on release, trial how it works, and see if changes need to be made. NQ is incredible at following and listening to the community so if DACs cause issues I am confident that they will resolve it promptly with the players best interests in mind.
  3. Thanks Astrophil, It will be great working with you too! Especially now that Alpha is getting closer The I.B.O was set up by me about 8 months ago (September time) so any other org or name would have been after I took a break. Shame on them :/ lol
  4. Haha! well why not, if all you lone vendors and entrepreneurs want a place to crash feel free to discord me
  5. Thanks, it's great to be back. Me too I guess lets hope it benefits the many!!
  6. After taking a long break the I.B.O is back and looking to start making allies for alpha and beta. We are not only looking to offer our services but to make lasting partnerships with other organizations who can offer services essential to our cause. Feel free to add me on discord if you wish to discuss further. GrandMasterApex#5811
  7. Great work MasterRed very informative! You can tell theirs a lot of effort being put into the DUA.
  8. was a great read hope there are more to come! definitely worth checking out.
  9. Great job! it was certainly worth the wait. -Liked-
  10. I hope you eventually find a worthy crew. Good luck from the I.B.O
  11. Good luck in finding, and securing a planet. By no means an easy task on any scale. But I hope you remember to have fun while trying to do so.
  12. Welcome to Dual Universe, The I.B.O will be watching you with great interest. Good luck with your endeavours.
  13. The Devs are at work to try and implement mechanics within the game that will make it very beneficial and rewarding to build together with other players. Cannot say what they will be yet, but that is what they have said
  14. I think that devs have said that it may be that we can fill areas with dirt (no resources just dirt) so that terrain destruction won't be an issue for building, aesthetics ect. If you want an area filled in just fill it with dirt as most likely no one will mine it if there are no resources left to gain. Don't think its confirmed but something they might be considering
  15. The I.B.O wishes you good luck in your endeavours. It would be great to see hover trains and networks in the future if it is or becomes a possibility.
  16. As for quite some time within the game, there will be no way to actually own territory in space, no one would have ownership of such a station until an organization controlled a very large part of the planet that the station orbits or indeed the cluster of planets within the system. As such it would be the case that a council, either independent or comprised of all the contributing organizations was formed, to allow permission to edit within the section of the station that they have constructed.
  17. I think for the moment, the simple answer is that nobody knows yet DaphneJones. Stargates are a gray area as they are a long way off on the roadmap, and rightly so because of how long it will take the community to be able to construct even 1 (suggested over 1 month upon acquiring all tech and resources relevant by sending a probe out to reach the construction site). Now there have been a lot of problems in other games of what is called "Bottle Necking" whereby you can effectively set up a blockade on the gate's entrance to destroy all ships trying to pass through. A problem if say you built your gate, and a faction wanted to grief you and stop anyone including yourself from being able to use it. To combat this it has been suggested that the gates will have a large radius around them that you can activate the jump ability so that is extremely difficult to do this. Because of this feature AccuNut I do not think that gate classes will be relevant as the size of the gates eventhorizen would no longer be relevant to a ship's ability to enter a wormhole. The ship would need to be in range to activate the stargate and would be warped from their location. Of course, however, if this is something the community would want it could become a reality that each gate class allows bigger ships and as such, each class is more expensive to build. Novaqaurk has said they will listen to the community and implement things there is a genuine demand for. Delving a little more into the games mechanics, we should remember that this server technology works better when players are closer together. As such although Novaquark has essentially given us an infinite universe, they are making it difficult for us to explore out as they want to keep the community together, as well as providing a real reward for those who wish to explore. I think a lot of very interesting points are made about stargates, and I think it is something the community should really come together to discuss. I would personally like to see stargates owned by players that can only be used by the tagging permission. But I do think we need to consider a scenario whereby; player A builds a gate to a new world that is heavily used by everyone and one day cuts the gate off or the gate is destroyed so no one can return through it. All players on the other side cannot build gates and are now cut off from all markets, their safe zone resources, ships and most of their precious items they felt to valuable to leave outside of the safe zone. Devs would have to physically intervene to effectively teleport all players back, which is a hassle to them. In this scenario perhaps having 2 forms of gates to build, personal gates that can have tags and permissions set. Once a player travels through the gate they cannot have permission removed to make the return journey even if said gate is destroyed. As well as community gates that are cheaper, indestructible and are useable by everyone. There is a lot to consider and think about with these things and it is never as simple as it may first appear. As cool as ideas may be and as much as we may want to see them, we do have to think outside the box and take all things into account.
  18. I think to put things into a form of context for everyone, to my knowledge at least; this is what has been proposed. 100 DACs go onto the market, in a close enough proximity for me to be able to go around and buy from various markets. As there are many sellers, there is a price war and the price is very reasonable in terms of resources or credits. Scenario 1:- the players who need the DACs need to do minimum farming to afford this DAC and once they have enough they buy and redeem the DAC, adding to their gameplay time. As the Dac was not redeemed by the buyer it couldn't be looted so his RL money was safe, and as the player who bought it redeemed it straight away it could not be looted from him either so he was safe.The DACs are lootable but only if the player who bought them for in-game currency does not redeem it when he buys it, which he did so his game time was never in danger. No problems there, chicken dinner for all. Scenario 2:- I buy 80 of those DACs and keep them. There is now a market shortage, a friend of mine buys any others we find going on the market and after a week we possess 80% of the games DACs that have been on sale that week. Now we sell those DACs on at 1000% of what we bought them for. As there are currently no other DACs for this week to buy, the players who need them have no choice but to buy them. The price is now ridiculous and players have to spend most of their in-game time grinding just to play. No one can steal these DACs off of me that I am not going to use, as my friend and I have lifetime subs from Kickstarter. Moreover, seeing how much DACs are now selling for, the buyers who pay RL money for the DACs inflate their prices in in-game currency to match mine so DACs how now permanently increased 1000% in 1 week. Clearly, a huge problem that players are wanting to avoid and quite rightly so. As such once I buy those DACs in-game for in game money it is proposed that if I do not redeem them, then they can be stolen from me to try and prevent this from happening. Scenario 3:- the player who bought the DAC is far away from the DAC seller, and has asked for it to be transported to him. Payment was in terms of in-game currency that is not lootable as it is not physical. Now to send the DAC via 3rd party it must be redeemed to be transported, or at least made physical. This now presents a large problem for everyone, as what is to stop me from selling a DAC, and having my friend steal it mid transitt, returning it to me and splitting the profits? you may suggest that the DAC is not lootable until it reaches the buyer? But now we can return to scenario 2, where I have my friend collect my DAC's for me and hold them until we have buyers at our inflated prices, keeping them protected and un-lootable, as we would meet in the safe zone for me to collect, redeem and re-sell, and then even tip off a pirate org to steal them from my friend for a set price for the info and split that as well. I feel this scenario is open to huge abuse and needs to be looked at. Of course, you should really always try and collect your DAC from the seller, but what happens later game, when you are too far away to do this. Personally, I think that as many game mechanics are still undecided, unconfirmed and subject to change, we cannot really bring a clear answer to the solutions to this. This game is not like any other game we have ever played, and really is still a bit of a mystery to us all. Although I do agree that this debate is clearly relevant and needs to be addressed by both sides for several reasons. I do think it is foolish to rush to conclusions on what should and shouldn't be implemented until we know for certain how this game is going to play. It is unfair to ask the devs to put in this kind of time and effort which will put their roadmap and important features on hold when it may be that what we are asking for doesn't fit into the games mechanics or is not needed because of such mechanics. I think really, this debate is better nearer to the game's release when we know what the deal is.
  19. I must agree with phroshy on this matter. Outside of the safe zone, territories can have what is called a protection bubble, which is planned to be very difficult to destroy. The owner of this territory will charge taxes which will be likely used to power the bubble. Although yes you can set up a market on any non-claimed territory, it is likely that players will pay the premium to have their resources protected. The game is centered around player choice and player action. This is one of the core foundations of the game to make gameplay emergent, decisions relevant and politics community driven. Thier is nothing to stop a player charging 1000% rates, but that market owner will have a limited space to store items to sell. If they are not selling items because of astronomical sales taxes then they are going to lose out to the competition quickly as no 1 market will be able to sell every players item in the game. Also, you will not know what other players are charging say on the other side of the planet unless you travel regularly. Planet travel is not really very unrealistic or expensive meaning that monopolies will be formed by supply and demand, and healthy competition is advised. Thier is also nothing to stop the miners selling their own goods without player market vendors, so again if they are not getting their items sold they will just start selling it themselves or using someone else ect.
  20. us old time veterans will be sitting in the tavern looking at these war mad newbies with their 1000 player cvc battles in years to come, reminiscing about the good old days when you had to get your lazy ass out of the ship to avatar vs avatar to destroy the ship. "They don't even know how good they have it" we'll say!
  21. I am not one to be negative on forum topics, however I do feel this is one of the most ridiculous posts I have actually bothered to read to its conclusion. What you are suggesting is discrimination - Fact .. You are stopping freedom within a game that is titled to be a MMO sandbox game that is trying to break the realms of current gaming restraints to allow freedom to players on a whole new level. As such it is only logical that any organization, of any size should be able to brand themselves a logo. Players who specialize in contract work will require a logo as believe it or not, a logo is usually the basis of most advertising and awareness of service. Contract work requires 1 player, they may be a specialized miner who loans their service to organizations for a high rate, it may be a specialized architect or script writer, why would a LUA scriptwriter need 10 members if they can script? Why would an architect need 10 players to make a design? why would a pilot need a crew of 10 members to fly a 2 man ship? and why should they need 10 members to have a logo to give themselves their individuality? What happens in the later game, when new players find it hard to recruit members but want to start their own organization and have their own identity associated with it? It is very likely that a lot of players may want to have a player design a logo for them as they struggle to do it themselves, leading to a very lucrative in game business if it is in high demand. Why should this business be limited to just big orgz? The system does not need moderators to check logos every time one is designed do you not think NQ have more important things to be doing? Just as players can build offensive designs in the game that will be tagged and can be reported, the same will apply to the logo. It would be tagged with the players name who created it and when reported the moderators will review and issue necessary punishments. its very selfish and narrow minded and many players in the community may be silent about this, but small organizations have a voice and they deserve to be equal, given respect and freedom just like any other.
  • Create New...