BonemanJones

Bumping this thread a little but a quality system, tied to a few other systems could be seriously engaging, AND difficult for megafactories to monopolize. Here's an outline of my thoughts. I'm using T3 Atmospheric Engines as an example. It's a "what could have been" outline, because I believe the game in it's current state is too far gone to implement this. All of these systems would have to be implemented at the same time, in addition to 2-4 other large content drops in order to not saturate one facet of the gameplay offered.

1.) [Streamlining] Element tiers can remain, but the "military, freight, maneuver, etc" designations wouldn't. Higher tiers would still require higher tier ores and parts to create.
2.) [Quality] Introduce "Quality" stat. Creating a T3 L Atmo Engine from the standard recipe yields a 1* quality. Creating a T3 L Atmo Engine from the standard recipe, and including additional parts yields a 2*-5* quality, offering stat bonuses and aesthetic differences.
3.) [Stats] Introduce stat bonuses from aesthetic/accessory modules. For example, the standard flight seat offers no bonuses. A flight seat of 2* quality that includes tanned and dyed leather (4a), or custom woven textiles (4c) that improves comfort/morale and offering the pilot "sharpness" that manifests as a 10% bonus to maneuverability.
4.) [Special Resources] Introduce resources that cannot be mass-farmed cheaply and must be actively acquired. For instance, isotopes of certain ores that only exist under specific circumstances. Ores with short half-lives that must be immediately processed into an alloy, or will degrade. Materials obtained from new features.
4a.) Introduction of animals could be a way of adding materials tied to them. A form of silicon that only exists on the shells of certain creatures or exists as a biological by-product. Leather from harvesting animals.
4b.) Material formed under intense heat and pressure from an asteroid impact.
4c.) Organic fibers or other material acquired through farming specific plants.
5) [Specialization] Through the existing talents system (should be redone from the ground up as a system that rewards active use of skills, not just passive investment) you could specialize in mass production, or artisanal production. Solo players and small orgs of artisans could get bonuses to efficiency/production time etc. Would rank up and progress through actively producing high quality parts.

Application
A megafactory as it currently exists does so because of a near limitless inflow of minable ores and deep coffers of quanta. They are able to mine through a network of passive miners and players, and purchase materials through the market. Under my system they would still be able to do so, but by following only the standard recipe, their T3 L Atmo Engines are 1* quality, offering only base stats for Tier 3. So while a 1* T3 L Atmo Engine requires only base ingredients, wouldn't they be able to create a 2* with the same process? No.
A 2* T3 L Atmo Engine would require a specific alloy made from an unstable isotope of iron not able to be acquired from passive miners. Individual players would need to acquire it by prospecting for asteroid impact sites (4b) that yield enough of the isotope for 2-7 complete 2* engines. (This is a potential vector for on the ground combat based PvP).
A 3* would require this alloy in addition to a silicon isotope gathered from a predatory chitinous animal that only spawns during specific weather, and so on.

Economics
What's to stop the rich DU oligarchs from buying all of these special materials off of the market and having 5* quality megafactories? Here are some potential solutions.
1.) Character bind special materials. A heavy handed approach that I do not prefer, but would force megafactory owners to do their own legwork.
2.) Gathering special materials solo, the effort required to get enough to run 5 lines producing more than 1* T3 Atmo Engines would far surpass the factory's ability to output product. Ergo, a megafactory with 50 production lines, would not be able to exceed the production of a solo player or small org with on 3 production lines based solely on material acquisition time.
3.) If these materials are sufficiently challenging to acquire, players will either hold on to them for their own artisan production, or sell them for a large profit. A megafactory owner COULD purchase the iron isotope alloy from the market, but the price would likely be far in excess of the cost of a single 1* engine. With realistic production constraints from requiring a scarce component, megafactories output of 2*+ elements would be low, and they would have to charge very high prices to make the effort worth it. The inconvenience of doing the legwork is a deterrent for players used to their factories doing the work for them.
4.) On the other hand, a solo player or small org going out to acquire the iron isotope gets to price their labor as they see fit. They did not spent any quanta acquiring it, only time. This makes it much more possible to undercut the megafactories without taking a loss. Megafactories MAY take a loss in the beginning, but the high prices for higher quality elements would chew through their coffers. This is the financial deterrent. Making artisanal elements is easier to do as a solo player or small org where ACTIVELY engaging in gameplay elements is what rewards you with the needed material. NOT simply having a massive factory infrastructure and deep pockets.

Parting Thoughts
I don't believe the system I've outlined above could be implemented now. It would need to have been included upon launch of the Beta, alongside every system in-game now and more. As I said in the intro, the problem is oversaturation of gameplay elements. In the early days of the DU Beta, almost every single person had their own factory pumping out all the elements and parts they needed, which made the market unnecessary. Industry was the single most fleshed out gameplay element (arguably the only one) there was, so everyone flocked to it immediately. Upon the release of 0.23 players were left with nothing to do, and left. Fast forward a year and a half and aside from a couple of additions like missions, the content situation still looks a bit bleak. Were my ideas alone implemented now I believe 90% of current, returning, and new players would flock to it immediately, and when everyone is an artisan, nobody is an artisan. Completed, quality parts would flood the market in weeks, and the people who wanted to make artisan products (not the people who did it because there was nothing else to do) would be left in a situation akin to the markets right now. Where raw materials cost just as much (or more) than finished products, and the time investment of playing the new content didn't make the effort worth it.
The only way I could see this being implemented now is if it also pertained to other newly introduced gameplay systems I haven't mentioned here.

For years we are told any kind of test-account is a bad idea as it does not work with the player driven economy and persistent universe, introducing it almost seems like there are plans to, you know, not have it persistent, like due to some kinda already planned wipe.
 
anyway
 
Player markets of this type, as in, some L cores for decoration and foundation, filled with S or XS cores where people can have dispensers or advertisement, is something that players have already done, but could not get to really take off because of the missing ability to advertise.
 
Instead of giving players the tools to advertise such a thing (see below), NQ builds their own version, which is now "official" and gets a sticky top spot in the VR list, twitter, website, release note, youtube, launcher advertisement slots.

What are people with actual markets (sorry, dispenser halls with screens) supposed to display there? Big screens with price lists, screenshots of the market and an info button to set destination?
If the normal market ui ("J") had an option to "include player dispensers", then any player wanting to buy item X could also see
"Oh, somebody has a dispenser on a construct called SVEA-Market" 50km away and sells it for cheaper, 52 items available!"

A ship seller has screenshots of his ships, descriptions and destination button at the NQ-Market.
Imagine he could just upload the BP into a "ship databank" and any player can, via VR, load and test those ships in a VR enviroment, and of course buy the bp, I mean it is just a data item after all. 
 
Nope, what we get is the way that needs the smallest amount of work possible, an intern building a market like players already did, manually choose who gets to "rent a stall" and it all gets advertised via the usual outlets.



So a player market, made by devs, advertised via out-of-game tools, without adding in-game tools.
Website based DAC stuff, without adding in-game stuff.
Website based new friend invites, no change in game.
Talents reset, without any change to the talents, which sure could need one.

But in the game at least square lights now do what vertical lists already do, that’s a relief, unless you actually wanted to have some kind of spotlight, with a cone, like the square light works currently.

So I felt NQ had this during the Golden Era between Beta launch and .23 update. It was so amazing even when things were problematic. You had a community of players like a bunch of crack addicts during downtime waiting to rush the server gates. 

The main reason I feel we lost it is that we are all building sand castles on a beach (Dual Universe - beach), and then each wave (update) from NQ is like a wave from the ocean and starts eroding/erasing both individual player projects and community projects that were developed.

The big one for me was the tile taxes, to "open up more territory" for all the players, that was paired with the removal of mining/megas. They should have never been done at the same time. The worst thing about this situation is you had dozens and dozens of players warning NQ about the devastating impact this would have, and it is exactly what happened, and NQ pretty much dismissed us and decided to do it anyway. The economy and value of all things was destroyed within just a week, while a burden was placed on the player with weekly taxes. Also the value, purpose of so many ship designs became pretty much obsolete.

This removed incentive to play, and forced players to abandon thousands of tiles to make room for others, when the community suffered a population loss not boom.
Players don't want to spend 100's of hours playing only to have their projects removed/wiped/destroyed/broken,obsolete.

This instability, and Alpha approach to development choices in DU is stifling to motivation and creativity.

The problem with OP is that he blames the devs, which is really not fair. 
 
It's not the devs who make the decisions and in case they do , that is still not because they are bad at what they do, it is because the people in middle and upper management are not doing their job.
 
What some of the devs need to do is get better at not taking some of our critique and comments personal as it's not. If they "get their feeling hurt" because of what is being said here, they should consider that maybe that is because the effort they put in may not get recognized due to the way their management is misrepresenting and in some case mishandling it.
NQ is a massively top heavy company where the people at senior and above level vastly outnumber the ones who are "on the floor", doing the actual work. And that is quite obvious in how much NQ talks without communicating and says a lot but has very little to show for it.
 
Another obvious sign of this is that while yes, there is a more frequent cadence of updates and announcements but what is _actually_ changing and improving for the game? It seems that NQ is just waddling along as if they are still in Alpha, while they are planning to actually release their game not long from now. Problem there is that the game IS effectively still in Alpha with so much still in flux, many elements of the game yet to be implemented and a good few potentially disruptive changes still ahead.
 
Big signal on this was one of the answers in this week’s podcast, just casually saying that you yet need to get started on (memory) optimisations mere months away from a release is a big sign you do not have your priorities in check and that has NOTHING to do with the devs on the floor, it has to do with the people in charge not setting the correct priorities and not managing the project very well.

 

WHY ARE PLAYER'S BEING SO MEAN TO THE DEV'S?

I think it is time we have an honest accounting of the real problems here, cause there is more than one elephant in the room, but there is definitely an Elephant King!

While the developers are sitting here both refuting/ignoring criticism and saying they know what is best,
does NQ stop to think about why members of the community "provoke"(vocally criticize) their developers, vs. NQ just treating their critics as bad apples?

1. Could it be that the players feel their trust has been betrayed by the developers?
2. Could it be that the developers have ignored players, and players see themselves being blatantly ignored?
3. Could it be that players feel disrespected by the developers after years of funding/subscribing to & testing their product?
4. Could it be that every time the community sounds the alarm, the devs continue to plow right into development icebergs like the Titanic?
(game breaking/buggy/forced updates, that ruin our ships, make our work obsolete, or further erode the little incentive/purpose there is to do things in game currently.)

5. Could it be the destabilization injected by the developers announcement, and delay to wipe/wipe timeline?
6. Could it be the "fight club" we aren't allowed to talk about, where criticism of developers results in forced removal of those critics?
(As they are discounted as trolls, unconstructive, and undesirable rule violating members of the community, many which were once die hard defenders of this game in the beginning)

7. Could it be NQ keeps replacing things that were promised to be community driven, with NQ curated and controlled perks that will eventually give an advantage to NQ pets and fanboys. (vs. actually giving us more tools to socially connect, say a better chat system, the ability to send messages to offline players in game, and more capability to build and manage our own communities/host events.) Ya know things we have wanted for years now, and you refuse to implement.

Meanwhile...

8. Could it be that anyone that has been here more than 3 months, knows developer decisions have resulted in a massive shedding of players.


THE KING ELEPHANT

The truth is the developers advertised, took funding, and sold a different promised game vision,
and now for a couple of years held a death grip on their own broken vision of the game they actually wanted to make instead.

A bit of bait and switch isn't it? The crux of the problem, the dissonance between developer and community.

What we have in common now is that both players and developers feel disrespected, and that isn't something you see with...
Kenshi, Slime Rancher, Valheim, Satisfactory, Kerbal Space Program, Astroneer, Monster Sanctuary, etc etc etc...

We were promised and even given something very different in the beginning than what we have now. A universe that used to have us excited and invested, and even devoted to Dual Universe, every time servers came back online. Now we are being given something VERY VERY different, and we don't like it, and all those that have left the game may have liked one or two changes, but overall disagree with overall pivot of development.

Those of us still here still see the bones of the game we were promised, dying to a slow necrosis of development decision cancer that is killing what gameplay we loved best about Dual Universe. The community debates/speculates helplessly back and forth between each other in the back seat, while developers say " I hear you, now hold my beer" and continue to drive off the cliff.



So here is my CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK to our dear dev's: (Not that it will change their behavior)

1. Go back and review what people loved about Dual Universe at the launch of BETA.
(When people would spend all day building, and flying and mining, even when the servers were like gimpy hamsters with epilepsy.)

2. Go back and review what you promised people during Kickstarter, when you sold packages, when you made promotional material and we were saying "take my money!".
    Then look at the contrast and see just how far you have strayed from the world you promised. If you still think you are delivering what you said you would, then ask yourself
    why you feel you are saying one thing and we are hearing/playing something very different?

3. Go back and review the community members that used to defend you, and encourage you, and support you.
    Ask why old allies now seem to be enemies, and loyal followers and masses alike have abandoned your current crusade.
    If you can still justify all those you have lost, then ask yourself who will remain, who do you hope to replace them with?     and then be very clear about which type of players you want to attract from here on out and which of us should go find another game.

It isn't that we see you as less than human, it isn't that we want to hurt you as the developers, and we surely don't want to see Dual Universe fail.
What we do want is posted every day by members of your community, it is no longer just a few rogue players demanding change, it is the majority of people posting.
There is a darn good reason that the "INTERNAL DISCUSSION thread has 42 PAGES of disheartened community members posting mostly negative feedback/criticizing NQ.
That new threads are about problem 1,2,3 and a,b,c... and that we sometimes create our own threads for topics vs. the pinned threads that you unpin and bury acting like it never happened.

If you want feedback, YOU ARE GETTING IT, and your actions need to reflect you are paying attention vs. "we hear you" <continues same behavior>.
It is the same as saying "I'm Sorry" and then the very next moment committing the very same offense.

Right now your request for feedback, seems like a request for praise and gratitude, and then you are upset with us, when we don't feel or express either.



CONCLUSION:
You act like we are turning our back on you the developers, but if you continue with the bait and switch, and tightening control on the narrative and in game replacing player driven features with NQ managed/controlled things that can be leverage/perks to promote an elite few (64) teachers pets "DU Oligarchs" (influencers/promoters), then the gaming community will ultimately turn its back on you if you continue this path.

Then everyone will lose, the developers, and the community, and Dual Universe will fade away to be forgotten along with all those before that made these mistakes and suffered similar fates.

Games that have players sharing positive experiences about them, have those posts because that is what the community feels about the product/service. DU used to be one of them. So stop vilifying your community for telling you over and over again how they feel because it isn't what you want to hear and it doesn't offer another solution that you will ignore, time and time again.

Create an experience that your community loves, and you will see it reflected in our communication.

After completing several ship builds over the past few months and really digging into the voxel editor, I've found that the biggest limiting factor to my creativity has been the checklist of elements that are required for any ship to function.

The Problem:
I'll use engines as an example.
All basic atmospheric engine L's are the exact same size. They all output the same thrust. Same fuel consumption, etc. There is a distinct number of them that I will need on my ship if I want to lift a Container L. But what if I want my ship designed with only one massively powerful engine instead of twelve relatively smaller engines? With the current system of elements that isn't possible.

Elements as they currently exist occupy the role of function while honeycombs occupy the role of aesthetics/armor. For a pure pve ship, using anything but elements is an active detriment to it's functional performance. For a pvp ship, the meta dictates the optimal style/aesthetic (currently a flying cube). This creates a situation where you aren't really designing a ship so much as designing a socket for each necessary component. Effectively a box with a seat in it strapped to some engines. Actual ship design would necessitate many internal components, not just all-in-one elements to be bolted to the hull.

Currently ship design (for any type of hauler) requires the entire back end of the vessel to be a wall of engines to maximize thrust.

The Solution:
I am suggesting a merging of elements and voxels so that you are able to define the size and shape of your elements. Engines would exist in the form of a voxel, and function as such.

The same can be done for containers, fuel tanks, doors, windows, ailerons, brakes, etc.

How would voxel based elements work?
Another game with this build system is Avorion, which fits into the space simulation builder genre (you can look up speed builds on YouTube to get a good idea for how the builder works). You can define an area to function as your engines. With this system you could have the exact same engine footprint. The same weight, thrust, fuel consumption, etc. However, you are now free to style the back end of the ship around one engine instead of many because it's shape and orientation are different. Using my masterful skills of paint I've illustrated a comparison of how things are now versus what I'm suggesting.

These two ships would have identical weight, thrust, fuel consumption etc. because they have the same volume of engines, just spread differently.
Voxel based elements would be manufactured just like elements are currently, but instead of outputting a singular object, it would output a volume of voxels, much like the honeycomb refinery does. One voxel of engine would have a set amount of thrust. A voxel of container, a set capacity etc. The larger the element, the more capacity/thrust/fuel/weight...

What exactly is gained from this?
Most of the benefit of this is aesthetic, but there is some importance to that. Have you guys seen the Facebook ads and YouTube trailers for DU? Most of them are featuring interesting looking ships to showcase what can be done in the game. The reality is that the markets are littered with ships that are nothing more than engines strapped to a container with a stack of wings. There is a distinct "sameness" to most of the ships I see and it's because I'm staring at the exact same engines and wings and hovers on every one of them. I believe this damages the atmosphere of the game, especially for new players looking to see all sorts of cool ships, or build them, and then end up having to meet the same "checklist" of parts and being restricted.

Additionally though, you would be able to make better use of space within a ship. Containers could be long and thin for a specific type of ship or more square to fit where they need to. Most of an engine could be internal so it is longer instead of wider. Larger drive cores could offer reduced cooldowns.

I'd like to hear some of your feedback. Bad idea, good? Waste of time? Let me know!

After completing several ship builds over the past few months and really digging into the voxel editor, I've found that the biggest limiting factor to my creativity has been the checklist of elements that are required for any ship to function.

The Problem:
I'll use engines as an example.
All basic atmospheric engine L's are the exact same size. They all output the same thrust. Same fuel consumption, etc. There is a distinct number of them that I will need on my ship if I want to lift a Container L. But what if I want my ship designed with only one massively powerful engine instead of twelve relatively smaller engines? With the current system of elements that isn't possible.

Elements as they currently exist occupy the role of function while honeycombs occupy the role of aesthetics/armor. For a pure pve ship, using anything but elements is an active detriment to it's functional performance. For a pvp ship, the meta dictates the optimal style/aesthetic (currently a flying cube). This creates a situation where you aren't really designing a ship so much as designing a socket for each necessary component. Effectively a box with a seat in it strapped to some engines. Actual ship design would necessitate many internal components, not just all-in-one elements to be bolted to the hull.

Currently ship design (for any type of hauler) requires the entire back end of the vessel to be a wall of engines to maximize thrust.

The Solution:
I am suggesting a merging of elements and voxels so that you are able to define the size and shape of your elements. Engines would exist in the form of a voxel, and function as such.

The same can be done for containers, fuel tanks, doors, windows, ailerons, brakes, etc.

How would voxel based elements work?
Another game with this build system is Avorion, which fits into the space simulation builder genre (you can look up speed builds on YouTube to get a good idea for how the builder works). You can define an area to function as your engines. With this system you could have the exact same engine footprint. The same weight, thrust, fuel consumption, etc. However, you are now free to style the back end of the ship around one engine instead of many because it's shape and orientation are different. Using my masterful skills of paint I've illustrated a comparison of how things are now versus what I'm suggesting.

These two ships would have identical weight, thrust, fuel consumption etc. because they have the same volume of engines, just spread differently.
Voxel based elements would be manufactured just like elements are currently, but instead of outputting a singular object, it would output a volume of voxels, much like the honeycomb refinery does. One voxel of engine would have a set amount of thrust. A voxel of container, a set capacity etc. The larger the element, the more capacity/thrust/fuel/weight...

What exactly is gained from this?
Most of the benefit of this is aesthetic, but there is some importance to that. Have you guys seen the Facebook ads and YouTube trailers for DU? Most of them are featuring interesting looking ships to showcase what can be done in the game. The reality is that the markets are littered with ships that are nothing more than engines strapped to a container with a stack of wings. There is a distinct "sameness" to most of the ships I see and it's because I'm staring at the exact same engines and wings and hovers on every one of them. I believe this damages the atmosphere of the game, especially for new players looking to see all sorts of cool ships, or build them, and then end up having to meet the same "checklist" of parts and being restricted.

Additionally though, you would be able to make better use of space within a ship. Containers could be long and thin for a specific type of ship or more square to fit where they need to. Most of an engine could be internal so it is longer instead of wider. Larger drive cores could offer reduced cooldowns.

I'd like to hear some of your feedback. Bad idea, good? Waste of time? Let me know!

After completing several ship builds over the past few months and really digging into the voxel editor, I've found that the biggest limiting factor to my creativity has been the checklist of elements that are required for any ship to function.

The Problem:
I'll use engines as an example.
All basic atmospheric engine L's are the exact same size. They all output the same thrust. Same fuel consumption, etc. There is a distinct number of them that I will need on my ship if I want to lift a Container L. But what if I want my ship designed with only one massively powerful engine instead of twelve relatively smaller engines? With the current system of elements that isn't possible.

Elements as they currently exist occupy the role of function while honeycombs occupy the role of aesthetics/armor. For a pure pve ship, using anything but elements is an active detriment to it's functional performance. For a pvp ship, the meta dictates the optimal style/aesthetic (currently a flying cube). This creates a situation where you aren't really designing a ship so much as designing a socket for each necessary component. Effectively a box with a seat in it strapped to some engines. Actual ship design would necessitate many internal components, not just all-in-one elements to be bolted to the hull.

Currently ship design (for any type of hauler) requires the entire back end of the vessel to be a wall of engines to maximize thrust.

The Solution:
I am suggesting a merging of elements and voxels so that you are able to define the size and shape of your elements. Engines would exist in the form of a voxel, and function as such.

The same can be done for containers, fuel tanks, doors, windows, ailerons, brakes, etc.

How would voxel based elements work?
Another game with this build system is Avorion, which fits into the space simulation builder genre (you can look up speed builds on YouTube to get a good idea for how the builder works). You can define an area to function as your engines. With this system you could have the exact same engine footprint. The same weight, thrust, fuel consumption, etc. However, you are now free to style the back end of the ship around one engine instead of many because it's shape and orientation are different. Using my masterful skills of paint I've illustrated a comparison of how things are now versus what I'm suggesting.

These two ships would have identical weight, thrust, fuel consumption etc. because they have the same volume of engines, just spread differently.
Voxel based elements would be manufactured just like elements are currently, but instead of outputting a singular object, it would output a volume of voxels, much like the honeycomb refinery does. One voxel of engine would have a set amount of thrust. A voxel of container, a set capacity etc. The larger the element, the more capacity/thrust/fuel/weight...

What exactly is gained from this?
Most of the benefit of this is aesthetic, but there is some importance to that. Have you guys seen the Facebook ads and YouTube trailers for DU? Most of them are featuring interesting looking ships to showcase what can be done in the game. The reality is that the markets are littered with ships that are nothing more than engines strapped to a container with a stack of wings. There is a distinct "sameness" to most of the ships I see and it's because I'm staring at the exact same engines and wings and hovers on every one of them. I believe this damages the atmosphere of the game, especially for new players looking to see all sorts of cool ships, or build them, and then end up having to meet the same "checklist" of parts and being restricted.

Additionally though, you would be able to make better use of space within a ship. Containers could be long and thin for a specific type of ship or more square to fit where they need to. Most of an engine could be internal so it is longer instead of wider. Larger drive cores could offer reduced cooldowns.

I'd like to hear some of your feedback. Bad idea, good? Waste of time? Let me know!

Emerson IV
My first fully fleshed out M core.

After completing several ship builds over the past few months and really digging into the voxel editor, I've found that the biggest limiting factor to my creativity has been the checklist of elements that are required for any ship to function.

The Problem:
I'll use engines as an example.
All basic atmospheric engine L's are the exact same size. They all output the same thrust. Same fuel consumption, etc. There is a distinct number of them that I will need on my ship if I want to lift a Container L. But what if I want my ship designed with only one massively powerful engine instead of twelve relatively smaller engines? With the current system of elements that isn't possible.

Elements as they currently exist occupy the role of function while honeycombs occupy the role of aesthetics/armor. For a pure pve ship, using anything but elements is an active detriment to it's functional performance. For a pvp ship, the meta dictates the optimal style/aesthetic (currently a flying cube). This creates a situation where you aren't really designing a ship so much as designing a socket for each necessary component. Effectively a box with a seat in it strapped to some engines. Actual ship design would necessitate many internal components, not just all-in-one elements to be bolted to the hull.

Currently ship design (for any type of hauler) requires the entire back end of the vessel to be a wall of engines to maximize thrust.

The Solution:
I am suggesting a merging of elements and voxels so that you are able to define the size and shape of your elements. Engines would exist in the form of a voxel, and function as such.

The same can be done for containers, fuel tanks, doors, windows, ailerons, brakes, etc.

How would voxel based elements work?
Another game with this build system is Avorion, which fits into the space simulation builder genre (you can look up speed builds on YouTube to get a good idea for how the builder works). You can define an area to function as your engines. With this system you could have the exact same engine footprint. The same weight, thrust, fuel consumption, etc. However, you are now free to style the back end of the ship around one engine instead of many because it's shape and orientation are different. Using my masterful skills of paint I've illustrated a comparison of how things are now versus what I'm suggesting.

These two ships would have identical weight, thrust, fuel consumption etc. because they have the same volume of engines, just spread differently.
Voxel based elements would be manufactured just like elements are currently, but instead of outputting a singular object, it would output a volume of voxels, much like the honeycomb refinery does. One voxel of engine would have a set amount of thrust. A voxel of container, a set capacity etc. The larger the element, the more capacity/thrust/fuel/weight...

What exactly is gained from this?
Most of the benefit of this is aesthetic, but there is some importance to that. Have you guys seen the Facebook ads and YouTube trailers for DU? Most of them are featuring interesting looking ships to showcase what can be done in the game. The reality is that the markets are littered with ships that are nothing more than engines strapped to a container with a stack of wings. There is a distinct "sameness" to most of the ships I see and it's because I'm staring at the exact same engines and wings and hovers on every one of them. I believe this damages the atmosphere of the game, especially for new players looking to see all sorts of cool ships, or build them, and then end up having to meet the same "checklist" of parts and being restricted.

Additionally though, you would be able to make better use of space within a ship. Containers could be long and thin for a specific type of ship or more square to fit where they need to. Most of an engine could be internal so it is longer instead of wider. Larger drive cores could offer reduced cooldowns.

I'd like to hear some of your feedback. Bad idea, good? Waste of time? Let me know!

It ain't ready for that. It'd get review bombed so hard that records would be broken.

Nothing special, just a way to nest bookmarks into categories.

Some call it space mining I call it Railgun Art.
 

 
 
 
 

Unfortunately only about 1 in 10 make it to my gallery. Rest have to be dismantled and sold to be reused next time I meet the new owner.
 
Edit:
Links to the originals before our "meeting":
https://du-creators.org/makers/Gerokz Aerodynamics/ship/K-480
https://du-creators.org/makers/Captains Customs - Ship Sales/ship/Horizon
https://du-creators.org/makers/EVEManny/ship/Precipice
 
 
P.S: It would be nice that a game that creates 1.6mb screenshots would allow them to be posted without being recompressed to 0.5mb. In a forum thread asking for screenshots...

After completing several ship builds over the past few months and really digging into the voxel editor, I've found that the biggest limiting factor to my creativity has been the checklist of elements that are required for any ship to function.

The Problem:
I'll use engines as an example.
All basic atmospheric engine L's are the exact same size. They all output the same thrust. Same fuel consumption, etc. There is a distinct number of them that I will need on my ship if I want to lift a Container L. But what if I want my ship designed with only one massively powerful engine instead of twelve relatively smaller engines? With the current system of elements that isn't possible.

Elements as they currently exist occupy the role of function while honeycombs occupy the role of aesthetics/armor. For a pure pve ship, using anything but elements is an active detriment to it's functional performance. For a pvp ship, the meta dictates the optimal style/aesthetic (currently a flying cube). This creates a situation where you aren't really designing a ship so much as designing a socket for each necessary component. Effectively a box with a seat in it strapped to some engines. Actual ship design would necessitate many internal components, not just all-in-one elements to be bolted to the hull.

Currently ship design (for any type of hauler) requires the entire back end of the vessel to be a wall of engines to maximize thrust.

The Solution:
I am suggesting a merging of elements and voxels so that you are able to define the size and shape of your elements. Engines would exist in the form of a voxel, and function as such.

The same can be done for containers, fuel tanks, doors, windows, ailerons, brakes, etc.

How would voxel based elements work?
Another game with this build system is Avorion, which fits into the space simulation builder genre (you can look up speed builds on YouTube to get a good idea for how the builder works). You can define an area to function as your engines. With this system you could have the exact same engine footprint. The same weight, thrust, fuel consumption, etc. However, you are now free to style the back end of the ship around one engine instead of many because it's shape and orientation are different. Using my masterful skills of paint I've illustrated a comparison of how things are now versus what I'm suggesting.

These two ships would have identical weight, thrust, fuel consumption etc. because they have the same volume of engines, just spread differently.
Voxel based elements would be manufactured just like elements are currently, but instead of outputting a singular object, it would output a volume of voxels, much like the honeycomb refinery does. One voxel of engine would have a set amount of thrust. A voxel of container, a set capacity etc. The larger the element, the more capacity/thrust/fuel/weight...

What exactly is gained from this?
Most of the benefit of this is aesthetic, but there is some importance to that. Have you guys seen the Facebook ads and YouTube trailers for DU? Most of them are featuring interesting looking ships to showcase what can be done in the game. The reality is that the markets are littered with ships that are nothing more than engines strapped to a container with a stack of wings. There is a distinct "sameness" to most of the ships I see and it's because I'm staring at the exact same engines and wings and hovers on every one of them. I believe this damages the atmosphere of the game, especially for new players looking to see all sorts of cool ships, or build them, and then end up having to meet the same "checklist" of parts and being restricted.

Additionally though, you would be able to make better use of space within a ship. Containers could be long and thin for a specific type of ship or more square to fit where they need to. Most of an engine could be internal so it is longer instead of wider. Larger drive cores could offer reduced cooldowns.

I'd like to hear some of your feedback. Bad idea, good? Waste of time? Let me know!

Honestly, I think elements themselves in their current form are a big part of the problem. I'm putting together a post better explaining this, but I think there should be honeycomb voxels, and element voxels, similar to the way the build system in Avorion works. Instead of having a set Engine L that you need to make fit on your ship, engines would be designed the same as you design your ship, and weight/thrust/fuel consumption would all be based on it's size. Elements as they currently exist could still remain untouched for people who don't want to take the time to build their own engines, but elements greatly stifle creativity IMO.