Deacon

I'm strongly for unlootable, safe DACs.
 
Main reasons:
 
1) Lootable DACs will lead to rapid escalation of hatred in our community and poisoning of overall game atmosphere by constant fear.
2) In-game trade development will be crippled by need of using only safe-zone hubs.
3) Players, who enjoy suffering of others (and present in every game) will be extreamly motivated to do their worst with lootable DACs.  
4) Many people will not take lightly loosing DACs and quit the game, with very bad feelings. DACs cost real money and its simply immoral to take them from people just for "game mistake". They will be pushished enough by loosing inventory/ships.
 
Thanks.

This is pretty straightforward.
 
DAC is a RL cash-equivalent asset. Stealing it is RL theft. Allowing players to steal it would be a criminal activity on the part of NQ.
 
Just say No.
 
Sorry NQ. I got carried away and forgot about the one post rule. After reading through, I stand by what I said.
 
I should add, I don't see what a DAC would be as a physical in-game item or why a character as opposed to a player would want one. They are meta-items by their nature and should be treated that way. 

I also believe that such powerful weapons simply don't have a place in a game like this. They would be too devastating and unbalanced in any situation where they're getting used as a weapon. Games such as Dual Universe need to put limits on what is achievable by players, because the game is based so heavily around player interactions. What it comes down to is that WMD's just wouldn't be fun.

"Infinite space is infinite, theoretically in games, but for organisations, land is limited. It isn't going to easy to develop and build on a land, just to have someone else take it over by force and then move on in search of greener pastures. It will be possible and easy for smaller organisations and in the early stages of the game, but as organisations grow, the game develops and you're forced to abandon territory in search of others, it gets frustrating and outright infuriating. As DaSchiz has noted, some people have no interest in exploring, they simply take what they want from others. Then it becomes your duty to decide whether to give it up and look to new lands or to defend what's yours and risk losing all.
 
Some explorers will always be explorers and some organisations may base their income simply off exploring fertile lands and selling them at a price. But there's a limit to which an empire can expand and it is the duty of the leaders to find that optimal territory size and stick to it. Explore too far and the empire will crumble, keep too little of a territory and you will face resource problems among others. To the open mind of the explorer, space is infinite, but to organisations and people like us, space is very, very limited.
"

For the purposes of this thread, I'm operating under the assumption that contracts will have an in-game mechanic that enforces contract fulfillment conditions in an automated way (if person X accepted a contract, and fullfilled its conditions Y, then the reward Z is automatically dispersed through the methods described in the contract without additional player action by defailt).
 
We would expect to be able to put a hit out on a character or ship through the contract system. Kill "Player 1" report to location Y and receive Z spacebucks contract expires in 24 hours, that kind of thing.
 
What I'd like to suggest is that the negative of those same conditions be a possible building block of these contracts. For example, rather than Kill "Player 1" within 24 hours be the condition, "Player 1" is not killed within 24 hours also be an option in writing a contract. This would allow orgs to write insurance policies as contracts for ships, effectively provide additional incentive for a bodyguard contract, or allow players to bet on organized free-for-all arena dogfights through a contract system.
 
This might sound like a no-brainer, in which case great! This would make the contract system more complex, and could create some confusion.
 
Thoughts?

I can't even begin to describe how much the OP irks me. It is not only misleading in some cases but downright wrong. Hopefully due to a misunderstanding.
 
NB: No Construct vs Construct combat does not mean no PvP. There will be PvP in the form of Avatar vs Avatar combat. E.g. Boarding crews etc.
 
NQ has been blatantly transparent as to what features will be included and when. One reason for this is to set expectations. If Construct vs Construct combat cannot be added due to (seemingly) budget constraints, I am happy to wait as it will be one of the first things added after release. Don't want to wait? Get even more backers.
 
Does not having Construct vs Construct combat right out the gates suck? Hell yes. We all want it. But even mentioning NMS is not helping anyone.

I seriously doubt they are not adding CvsC to the game. The question, I hope, is when. Hit the stretch goal, maybe alpha. Miss it, probably later, sometime in Beta.

Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.
 
That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.
 
For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.
 
It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.
 
I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.
 
Thoughts?

I think at this point, the fantasy of a lootable DAC should be considered a meme

are you gonna keep making polls until you get desired result, agreeing with your opinion ?

are you gonna keep making polls until you get desired result, agreeing with your opinion ?

While I believe the devs can ban scammers even if not specifically stated in the EULA, for "player conduct un becoming" , sort of like UCMJ article 134,  I'm not sure they would.
 As stated before, they want this to be as much of a sandbox as possible, and don't want to hinder/help the player economy. We have all been scammed at one point in our lives. It's how we learned. The old days where your word was your honor and people took it as bond, no longer applies. I'm afraid it's now "caveat emptor".

are you gonna keep making polls until you get desired result, agreeing with your opinion ?

are you gonna keep making polls until you get desired result, agreeing with your opinion ?

are you gonna keep making polls until you get desired result, agreeing with your opinion ?

I love the way people throw out the term "Pay to win" to try and support their point of view or opinion. Then throw out the label "Carebear" if you do not agree.
 
Anyway, I voted I agree with them not being lootable. Because there is no safe way to keep them once purchased if they were physical. That scenario only helps bandits, not everyone, therefore making them  "Pay to win" if they're physical, by benefiting one set of playerbase  O.O   and if you don't agree , you're a carebear   
 
 
lol, thanks

Oh boy, where do I start. (I'm amazed that I read so far)
 
OK let's start with: this discussion on various channels has NQs attention, after all I got this info face to face from them yesterday :-D
(But nothing more regarding this topic other then "we are still discussing the details" which means it is almost set into stone)
 
But to clarify some things here what DACs are, which purpose they have and indirectly imply:
30 Days of playtime They are meant to allow active players with low rl income a way of playing the game without spending money Financing alt chars without paying again Giving a financial ingame boost by trading them Pre-paid server run time for NQ A very little tool to keep the rl money black market shallow  
What they are not:
A pay to win method (even if you buy 100 DACs good luck trading them with a reasonable profit) The holy grail of trading something physical in game (even though there is no confirmation on that yet)  
And if you think about it DACs shouldn't be physical, they represent game time, this is something that should be never ever stolen from someone.
 
"But EVE online has PLEX which can be stolen!!!!!"
Yes but EVE also has a very unique environment which allows a guarantee that they are safe from any unwanted access,
but at the same time to be more profitable to ship somewhere else at a very high risk.
 
DU isn't EVE and from the looks of it any physical item will always be at risk depending on your precautions.
So as long DACs can't be stored 100% risk free, there is no argument that could justify them to be physical.
 
In DUs case I don't think that limiting DACs to a local market would be a good thing, this could really dampening the exploration side of the game.
So something like a central "stock market" for DACs accessible for every player regardless where he is would work better in DU as EVEs model.
A "stock market" approach could even be used to "limit" the pay to win scenario, that people are worrying about so much.
I have no problem with "rich" individuals ensuring a lot of free game time for other players this improves everybodys experience in the long run. (Much like: this)
 
I personally like the idea of having them physically but I gladly give up this trait for a better overall gameplay.

I'm still not sure I understand how DACs being lootable turn DACs into less of a pay-to-win mechanic than when they are purely digital.
 
Even more importantly, after three pages of discussion, actually I still don't see how DACs are pay-to-win either way. If I butcher my piggy bank to buy lots of game money I still can't just conjure up an uber weapon of mass destruction.
 
If I want to buy the biggest and baddest battlecruiser ever to gank noobz with my rich parents' money, someone still has to construct that battlecruiser first. Presumably someone who already is at least as powerful as I am as a newcomer with a golden goose next to my computer.
 
And the money I spend isn't just disappearing either. If I pay a million spacebucks to the ship vendor, now the vendor has a million spacebucks. On top of how he probably was already pretty well-off in the first place if he is in the place to sell expensive spaceships.
 
 
I guess my point is, so many people here are acting as if the devs allowed rich people to produce uber weapons out of thin air. But I have a hard time seeing how a newcomer with too much money to spare could just usurp the powers to be and become the next kingpin. Every time they spend money, people around them will profit. And you can still loot, capture or destroy whatever they bought if they don't know what they're doing with it. If they bought expensive materials, you can attack them and snatch all of it. If they buy a big battleship, you can gather your boys to zerg them and show everyone what you think of rich people privilege. And so on.
 
 
It's getting late here in Yurop, sorry if my ramblings are becoming a little incoherent.

there will be other loosable valuable goods dont worry
 
if you wanna play money, play THTpoker

Two examples of when DACs should not be able to be stolen:
1) A casual gamer with a bit of time but no spare money has gathered enough resources to purchase next months subscription in the form of a DAC. Then it is stolen, potentially losing DU a player forever.
2) Kickstarter DACs. They are a major component in nearly all the backing options. Losing the lot on the first day is sure to also lose players.
 
Call it their own stupidity, losing players due to a game "feature" is not desirable.
 
Why should DACs be able to be stolen?
1) Curbing the super rich player from dumping thousands of DACs to effectively purchase entire orgs.
2) Encouraging piracy and in turn security forces. This is emergent gameplay.
 
Converting DACs to physical items at your spawn point would put the risk on the seller and the buyer could immediately digitize it again. It could work.
 
But wait. The DAC dealer can dump a thousand DACs anyway. Being able to steal DACs won't actually change this. And are there not other resources, elements, blueprints, entire ships that can be pirated?
 
My 2c

Yes, I support their decision against lootable DACs for a variety of reasons:
I can't imagine the grief of spending money on DACs and losing all of it shortly after in-game. That's the stuff that can quickly turn players away, presumably those that are especially willing to spend a lot of money on the game. Safe zones, like around the arkship, are apparently planned to be rare and far between. Trade with DACs would almost certainly only be happening in those safe zones if DACs were lootable, possibly giving safe zones an enormous economic edge beyond what they already inherently are going to have anyway. I'd rather there be several big markets with player-enforced security outside the safe bubble, the prospect of all trading hubs being located in safe zones feels pretty bleh. Unlootable money and DACs make active trading hubs outside safe zones much more feasible. DACs are a form of currency, and RP-wise it only makes sense to me that currency would be all digital so far in the future. The counter-argument concerning emergent gameplay feels weak to me, personally. Presumably you can still steal pretty much anything else, and there should be plenty of trade ships whizzing about moving all kinds of goods and resources, some of them bound to be very valuable, too. Looting crates of titanium and a cache of missiles makes for a better story than nicking someone's chequebook anyway.

if DAC are stealable then it will become a physical curency, so much more than just a pass to the game, generating lust and abuses in all the bad ways
 
For example new players aware of nothing, carying on a freshly aquiered from a Steam promotion package, 20 Dacs without really knowing what it is, but for them just a 2 monthes subscribtion to the game, and loosing them on the first day?
 
What would long time players say to this new player?
- Its your fault, you should have read the 20 topics about on the forum and devblog before playing?
- You must join us on the behalf of our hole mighty organisation we will secure your future 15€ spent?
 
This topic is a joke right? 
 
How would NQ reach 100 thousands players if the 5000 first players from alpha already planning to literrally scare the shit out their pants the  995 000 that will join at realease
 
Be realistic and stop thinking you are already the Emperor of the Universe, but do compromises for this game to be THE game that will fit a majority not a minority

I'm pretty ok with DAC being virtual currency, unable to be stolen. Only players that could argue here are scammers. You can earn DAC by killing and looting players -> selling their stuff -> buying DAC from market, it will just need a little bit more work...
 
This decision is not having worse effect on emergent gameplay than existence of DAC at all, yet developers need to live from something and keep developing, so existence of DAC is understandable. And to developers who are reading this... don't worry - the negative voices are usually the loudest. But it doesn't mean that majority of players agree.

Did you also make a one time payment for your internet to use forever?

Huh, something happened while I was working.
 
Sorry mammoth, everyone is just on edge right now because we've been having a fight over most of these topics for over a month.
 
I accept your desire that you think urging the game into a direction that you want is the right path, but its just one path of many.
 
the technology behind Dual Universe has been in the works from JC Baillie and his supporters for a long time. They aren't going to switch their minds from a Massive game to single shards or split instances.
Most people here as you have seen are fanatical for a true MMO game finally. I'm very excited myself for it.
 
This concern that bad things will happen to people and that's why you want to protect yourself from the world. There are some mechanics in place for that.
 
1.) Finding other players or organisations for safety. There are at least 4 umbrella organisations, a few of them offer mutual protection.
2.) Arkified areas will be player created high security zones, the full workings of how safe and how permanent are a little gray. but they'll exist.
 
Welcome to dual universe, it was an interesting first day for you. As suggested please look around, the Player made FAQ has good quick answers to many questions.
See you around