Vorengard

That's a pretty decent idea, but I can see there being some coding problems with implementing it, depending on how the terrain system works. I'd defenitly like to see it happen, but I'd imagine it's rather far down the development pipeline.

Agreed. Counting squares will work for smaller constructs, but anything over, say, 20 meters will be difficult and annoying to build symmetrically.

Before I point out the flaws in assumptions being made here, let me first say that I really like this idea, and really want it to happen. That's being said... I think you're all forgetting how hard this is going to be to implement, and that means it probably won't happen. First of all, communications channels like this are complex and time consuming. Getting information from the crew to their captain, to the admiral will take time, and would really require a coms officer to do effectively, especially for an admiral controlling a dozen ships. In all but the most massive alliances, that's a huge waste of manpower that could otherwise be in more ships. Furthermore, it will take a lot of time to pass this info back up and down the chain, during which time things can happen. We don't see this structure in EVE because people would die, thus changing the situation, before that process could happen. For this structure to work in DU, the combat would have to be slow enough to make it viable, which might be too slow for most people's desires. People often forget that in real life naval battles take hours and hours. Also, it's going to require a lot of skill to do. Not only will you need a competent admiral, you'll need competent captains of every ship, who are also mini-fleet commanders of their own. This is a problem because most people can't or don't want to be fleet commanders, and even if they do they're pretty terrible. Look at EVE again. Even major alliances of 2000 people might only have 5 or 6 decent fleet commanders (and only 1 competent Strategic level FC, if they're lucky), and FCing in DU won't be completely different from EVE no matter what happens. The likelihood of having enough competent command staff to make this work is pretty low, just because most people won't want the responsibility, they just want to blow stuff up. And that's only two of the problems I see. That's not even mentioning issue of efficiency and cost. So, even though I want this to be a thing, I don't think it will be a thing because of all the obstacles in the way.

Correct. You'll notice the rings speed up as he goes faster, and bend ahead of him to indicate what the heading will be after the turn is complete. The whole purpose of the rings (as explained in a previous video, which Twerk should remember) is as navigational aids for space travel. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any way to judge turns and approach vectors in open space, because everything you'd use for a frame of reference is so far away.

These are very much work in progress, and not representative of the final product. That's been said several times in the videos, and if people don't get that there's really nothing NQ can do. Besides, without them, you wouldn't be able to tell if you were moving in open space. I agree that they're not at all pretty, but that's ok, it's a pre-alpha game, it's not going to be pretty.

I understand the desire for complexity, but complexity isn't inherently valuable. If we're going to have multiple fuel types, there needs to be a reason for it. Just tossing in new options that don't really result in different outcomes is not valuable complexity, or a good addition to the game. EVE was the perfect example. They used to have 8 different types of each module, 90% of which never got used because there were 2 clear "best" options. DU needs to avoid making the same mistake by not adding pointless complexity. If these fuels aren't going to add realvariety (and I mean legitimate differences, not just a few percentage points either way to different stats), then we shouldn't have them. All good gameplay needs to have a legitimate reason for existing, and "I want it to be hard" is not a good reason. That will only make the barrier higher for new players, and that's bad for growth. So what does make good complexity and variety? I would say something like the Factorio fuel/power system, where you can burn coal directly to power extractors, or you can burn coal to make electricity, or you can set up a solar power system, and so on. Burning coal directly (for DU, old fashion rocket fuel) is really cheap and simple, but high maintenance (refilling fuel bays over and over) and requires a lot of fuel. Using coal to power steam engines (in DU, perhaps nuclear reactors) is more expensive to set up (reactors require a lot of resources to build), but they use fuel more efficiently and are less maintenance in the long term. Finally, setting up a solar power network (for DU, perhaps Antimatter, or whatever) is advanced, requires lots of space, and is very resource intensive, but it lasts forever and requires no fuel input once it's up and running. A similar system would be good for DU because it would allow people to invest the proper level of resources and complexity to suit the needs of each ship. A cheap, throwaway patrol ship or scout, for example, doesn't need a complex and expensive reactor system, but a capital ship would really need one.

First of all, DU isn't a survival game. Not even a little. The very beginning might be a little like a survival game because of the lack of resources, but that's not how things are going to be for very long. However, JC did mention multiple engine types for space, atmosphere, and FTL, though how granular that will be remains to be seen.

Definitely too complex. I don't think NQ is aiming to make a ship design system that's so complex you need an Master's degree just to start. Sure, your idea is realistic, and that's great, but the dev team has a thousand other, more important things to focus on besides realistic fuel/engine interactions.

As Lethys said, such a system would simply put too much strain on the server to be worth it. JC has also said (I believe it was in the Q&A session) that they won't be doing something like this because of how difficult it is to do right, with there being little gameplay benefit. I understand the desire for such a system, because realism and complexity are cool and fun. However, DU isn't a survival game, or a hyper-realistic space sim, it's a game about empire building, exploration, and the emergent experiences that come with a single-handed universe, and so that level of realism and complexity wouldn't really benefit DU. Great ideas though.

Yes exactly. It's a game, and so people will not play it if it's not enjoyable. If people don't play, we don't have anyone to sell stuff to, or to shoot at, and then we might as well not play at all. I don't understand what's so difficult and unacceptable about putting in a couple minor restrictions that would vastly improve new player retention by making the game not look like crap. As always, far too many people are entirely concerned with their personal preferences, and not what might make a better game.

Don't get me wrong, of course there are those people, but they aren't "most gamers" by any stretch of the imagination. There are far more people who will appreciate spending their first several in-game hours in a place that isn't a total wreck, than those that enjoy being stuck in the visual equivalent of a totally trashed Minecraft server. Overall, I don't see a downside to making a small slice of the starting zone not a nightmare.

On the surface, I absolutely agree. I don't like excessive rules more than anyone else. However, we need to accept that a lot of people are not going to want to play a game that's ugly. Looks matter to them, and a starting planet that's one giant strip mine will drive a lot of them away. This is a huge problem in a game like DU that depends on relatively high player counts to be enjoyable. Now, you could say HTFU and troll everyone who suggests that maybe we need to accept certain things we don't like for the health of the game, like the average EVE player... Or we can avoid the fate of the now dying EVE and plan for long term success from the beginning. That means keeping *some* of the starting zones relatively good looking, because first impressions are important. That being said, we should be able to do whatever we want everywhere else, but it couldn't hurt to do something to preserve the land immediately around the Arkship.

Given the points that have been mentioned so far, it does seem like the problem might be self-solving. Orgs and individuals will of course be buying up the tiles closest to the Arkship, and if they simply stop people from mining, the problem should be minimal. Then, if we get a tool for re-filling holes, people will naturally smooth out the surface so they can build on it.

JC has mentioned the idea of repairing ships during combat, so I assume this is something we will see eventually. However, there are no details on this process (or repairing of any kind, for that matter) so we can only speculate as to how any of it will work. That being said, I really hope they implement this feature ASAP, not only for convenience, but because it sounds really cool. Being a part of a damage control crew on a large warship during a pitched battle would be amazing, and it would be a shame if we're not allowed to do it.

Yes, something just like that, but I would prefer it applied every time you place an object, so that you don't have to place, go back, measure, then move and edit if it's wrong. Some small and relatively unobtrusive would also be nice, as the separate dialogue box from SolidWorks would get very old very fast.

Exactly this. We definitely need some sort of tool to facilitate building in places where you can't see your surroundings, and some sort of vision mode (like infra-red, but it only picks out elements you've built) would be perfect. However, as you said Lethys, I'd make it a built-in feature of "Build Mode" that you can toggle on and off, so people can only use it when building a structure they own. This would also be super useful when attempting to build internal elements of a ship or building, because you wouldn't have to deconstruct a wall to ensure you're properly aligning internal elements with external elements, like wings, or pillars, and so on. And definitely prevent it from showing other players, vehicles, or elements of any kind, so it can't be used as a combat aid.

I didn't realize how much we needed this until right now. A line traced to the initial placement point with a small distance measure would be really great. There should also be some way of telling if you're drawing strait lines, because it will be really easy (and really annoying) to place something slightly off-center, especially when copy-pasting lots of elements, like in the most recent Dev Diary. Dear Devs, plz make this a thing. Sincerely, your fans.

This issue has been brought up several times in the past, and no one really has a solution they like yet. NQ has also failed to provide a concrete answer to the problem, so we'll just have to wait and see. Personally, I would favor some ability to fill in excavated terrain, so we can fix random holes people dig. They could also discourage mining around the Arkship by spawning all resources a ways away, or deep underground... But there's still going to be trolls who excavate giant trenches for kicks and giggles. If I were to guess, I'd say they're waiting till alpha to see how players actually act regarding terrain excavation, and that will allow them to make an educated decision about how to handle it. But whatever you do, don't mention a "player agreement" to deal with the problem, or you'll find at least a dozen people raging at you for *daring* to suggest they not act like total tools 100% of the time.

The problem with this sort of thing is the added technical strain it imposes on the server. We're going to have hundreds of ships in one place at any given time, and if even half of them are moving and transforming, that's a massive additional technical load. So, while I agree that this is cool, it's not technically wise.

I think these are great ideas, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't make it into the game in the long term. However, I doubt we'll see them any time soon as this feature is definitely not critical to having a complete game. As you said, it just takes a lot of effort to make the art and to balance the items, but perhaps this will be implemented eventually.

So, what's the height and speed of that plane? Assuming it's anywhere above ground level, and it's moving at any speed above 0 mph, then it's using far, far, far less energy to get into space than any ground-based missile system. Regardless, OP mentioned ICBMs, and I was responding to that particular idea. Still, your "small-ish holes" argument doesn't hold water because, regardless of the size of the hole, some people can and will sit there for hours till they've reduced an entire base to nothing. Furthermore, the point isn't really the extent of the damage, but the fact that it involves one player impacting another player's game in a way they can't protect against. Again, I think space-to-ground and ground-to-space weapons would be really cool... but unfortunately it's just not a good idea.

If you're talking about Surface-to-Space missiles that we could fire at ships, then whether or not they're implemented would depend on the existence of Space-to-Surface weapons you could mount on ships. You can't have one without the other because then one side or the other is at a serious disadvantage. So, with that in mind, I'm going to guess that we won't see either of those things in the game for one big reason: gameplay imbalance. JC has said on multiple occasions that he doesn't want there to be any aspect of the game where a player would be powerless to stop something from happening to them, and either way this feature is one of them. If you can shoot missiles from the ground at ships in space, then ships would need to be able to shoot back, or you have a major force imbalance. But if ships can bombard planets then they could also harass people just walking around mining, or smaller bases who can't afford ICBMs yet. In both cases those people would be unable to defend themselves, and that's not something any of us want. So, no, I don't think we'll be able to build missile launchers that can shoot space ships... or at least I hope not because then planet fortifications would be more than a little OP. Imagine if you spent hours building a nice space station, and then some guy puts an ICBM launcher on the planet and there's nothing you can do about it short of a full-scale assault on his TCU. That being said, I'm sure you could build a ton of small, cheap, disposable ships with high DPS and suicide them in waves at the enemy fleet, in much the same way missiles would work

The problem with "very powerful but very expensive" weapons (be it a ship, bomb, gun, etc) is that such weapons always grow out of control and become imbalanced, simply as a result of a growing economy. EVE's Titans and Supercarriers are the perfect examples. CCP has said that they only expected there to be 3-4 Titans ever. Today there's a couple thousand, and CCP has to dedicate far too many resources to balancing and re-balancing them, because when Titans are too strong alliances with 150 of them are unstoppable, and when they're too weak the alliances that poured trillions of ISK into building them scream that their investment has been wasted. The same thing will happen in DU if NQ isn't careful. If you can make MOAB-like bombs that obliterate things from orbit, or massive spaceships with orbital artillery, it wont be long before the uber-rich and powerful of the server start using those things to screw with the little people, simply because they're bored and they know nobody can touch them. I played EVE for a couple years where couldn't go to Low Sec without having to worry about some idiot from PL hotdropping you with his 6 Supercarriers just because he was bored. I can't even count the number of times I've been hotdropped on a gate, alone in my Battlecruiser, because the local PL guys were bored, and the cost of the fuel was a drop in the bucket to them. If you give people the option, they will do the same thing in DU, and believe me that really really sucks. Don't get me wrong, the idea of sieging people from orbit is amazing... but no orbital weapons or super-spaceships, please and thank you.

Or you could just build a small ship with cloaking, and then you can run around hunting deposits of the most valuable resources, and cloak up every night when you log off.

I don't think this will be as much of a problem as some people think. Given that people don't need food, I don't see a huge resource requirement. The only real input demand would be fuel for your mothership, so you'd need to either A) carry a metric butt-load of fuel, or have a means of manufacturing it on-board. Option B is probably your best bet, depending on the size and complexity of that process. Once that's done, you could theoretically live on your own forever, so long as no one comes along and blows you up.