Vorengard

I agree, there cannot be game mechanics that punish people for not being online. Nor should it be possible to destroy someone's things without them having the opportunity to do anything about it. But to remove the ability to damage someone's things when they're not online not only ruins the sandbox, but presents potentially game breaking exploit opportunities.

I think it would be great to have an Arkship in space somewhere because it would give builders the freedom to build massive space stations in the same way that an Arkship on the ground will result in some really fantastic cities. Great idea, I hope they do this.

I really like the idea of finding additional Arkships that can be reactivated. But I would not want them to be very common. 1 per planet would be too many. Heck, 1 per solar system would be too many. I would prefer them to be very rare and far apart so that the players have more leeway in creating their own environments and safe zones. If there's a guaranteed safe spot in every system, never mind every planet, then there's no reason to work to build your own bases.

I would assume that there will be a way to build your own safe zones, or to ensure that your structures are in some way protected. That could even be by making the siege process time-consuming and expensive enough that people will not want to bother siegeing someone unless they are relatively sure of their ability to profit from it. So long as buildings are hard to destroy and relative safety is attainable, people will go out and build things. Look at games like Rust, where you're never really 100% safe anywhere. People still built elaborate, massive castles and towers and palaces even. Don't worry too much about killing off the carebear content with hardship. Similarly, don't make the game so safe that it's nothing but a different-looking Minecraft or Space Engineers. In summary, if I wanted to play Rust, I'd go play Rust. If I wanted to play Space Engineers, I'd go play Space Engineers. DU should be something in between.

I assume that the range on automation will be relatively large, I don't think you'll have to be sitting directly next to something to run automation. This could be as much of a hardware issue as a balance issue. I believe the primary concern would be automated defenses or fighters that people just leave all over the place, or automated mining drones that keep working when youre offline. Both of which would be unbalanced and potentially game breaking.

Are we here to complain about the EVE skill system? Or are we here to talk about what we want to see in DU? That being said, I have no problem with passive-only training plans so long as the gameplay is balanced in such a way that success is not dependent on a character's number of skill points/levels/whatever. If that is the case, as it largely is in similar games like EVE, then not having an active component isn't important. In a system where success isn't based on skill levels there's still incentive to do things all the time because that's what you need to do to learn to be good at something. To use the already tired example, in EVE it genuinely does not matter how many skill points you have if you do not know fundamental game concepts and strategies. 5 million SP and basic PvP skills beats a 150 SP carebear with no combat experience every day all day. That's what I want to see in DU, and for building and mining as well as PvP. Skill should be about understanding complex game mechanics, not an essentially arbitrary amount of skill points. Likewise, hard skill caps are a bad idea because it's an arbitrary restriction on fun and player freedom. If you make the possible skills so wide nobody could ever train them all, then there's no reason to limit it. This is something I think EVE does correctly, because there isn't a person in the game that is perfect at everything. The game simply has not been around long enough for anyone to train every single skill to 5.

Love it. Except "Right to Repair". I don't think anyone should be denied the right to fix their ship, for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most compelling is new players, who could buy a ship not realizing they aren't being granted repair rights, and then rage-quit because they can't figure out how to fix their ship. That just sounds like an unnecessarily annoying feature. Otherwise, top quality list.

I believe the Devs said your scripts will only work when online and nearby, but obviously that's not final.

I agree, my use of the 2 minute example was to make a point about how total realism isn't something we want. I think 15-20 seconds would be a great time-frame to aim for, but of course it should depend on the size and speed of your ship. I think it's also important to point out that, in the God Mode video especially, the Devs are using Dev Hacks to move around, which means they most likely were not moving at a speed anything like what we would expect to achieve in a regular ship. I wouldn't make any judgments at all from any of the videos currently posted. It's just too early in development.

I have no idea how you would manage inventory space or move massive objects, but at some point you will probably have to use a typical "magic inventory" system like in every other game. I mostly favor the idea of shipyards on space stations because it's one way to encourage the massive space stations the Devs was to see so badly. I don't blame them, it would be really cool to see something like that built. It would also be interesting gameplay. Either way, I have never really liked that crafting in games "just happens" in some imaginary space in a couple of seconds. There's no sense of achievement in that.

I don't think you're entirely correct about size and space. Even though nothing has weight in space, big things inherently have mass, so it takes a great deal of energy to start something moving, and then even more energy to make it stop. So a single person in a space suit would not (and should not) be able to build the 100 ton reactor for a huge space ship. But yes, a 200 km plank is doable because the pieces of that plank would be individually light. My point was not about overall size, but about the size of the pieces you used to make that very large space station or ship. Using massive components should require massive machinery, for gameplay as well as realism.

My argument for why we should be able to put our names on our products. Blueprints should have Player and/or Organization names for branding purposes People like being known, and they like showing off when they do something cool. So blueprint designs should retain the name of the person who made them so that people can develop reputations for being excellent ship/station/modual/etc designers. Not only will this inspire people to try hard and reward them for being great, it will favor competition between organizations. Org A will try and destroy Org B because Org B designs better ships, so they cut into the profits of Org A. Alternatively, people will hire Org B to design a cool new ship for them because they've proven they have people who know how to make good ships. Such a system would also provide the possibility for groups to sell their services to people without the time or inclination to build things themselves. It opens up a whole new world where people can be "that guy who designs the best buildings" or "the woman who plans the best space stations". Then they can use that reputation to sell their services to large, wealthy groups that want something built specially for them, but don't necessarily have the time or expertise to do it themselves. One of my biggest problems with crafting in other games is that you can't really show off if you're good at it. Everyone knows the top pvpers, but nobody's heard of the best crafters. That should change. I realize it would most likely be unwise to list names on individual market orders, like who is selling what. But I don't see any reason why you would deny people the ability to broadcast their designs, creations, and services. Just include an option to disable the name for people who don't want the publicity. Thoughts? Edit: Sorry, no clue how it got double posted. Fixed

TL;DR Give enough depth that building excellent ships is hard, but building good enough ships is easy. I'm here to advocate for a ship design system that is complex and deep enough that it requires a certain level of skill to get the most out of your designs. I don't know how the Dev team plans to work out ship statistics, so I'll lay off the specifics and focus on the general concept of what I think would make interesting gameplay. Key Concept: Functionality should be easy, Excellence should be hard It shouldn't be hard for your average player to figure out how to put together the necessary parts for a space ship or building. A couple basic components and you should be good to go (I know the Devs want it to be relatively hard to get into space at first. I absolutely support that, this is just a comment on the general complexity of building things, not the easy of acquiring resources). It should be easy to make something that flies, because a space game (which is how 90% of people will look at DU) is about flying a space ship. So building your first space ship should be relatively easy. But that first space ship you make by yourself should suck. Like really suck. It should be 1 step above barely functional, and achieving anything better than that should require a decent amount of knowledge and expertise. Like with fitting ships in EVE Online, there should be a clear performance difference between the people who know what they're doing and the people who just throw on things that seem good. Then there should be another clear difference between the people who know the basics, and the real Fit-Masters. But with DU, there's also the possibility for complexity in the actual ship hulls, not just what you put in them. So when it comes to building ships, it should be complex enough that only real masters of the craft can design ships with the best speed, or most HP, or most damage, etc. Then those people should be able to sell those superior designs for more money on the market. To use another EVE example, it never ceases to surprise me how many people don't know how to fit their ships properly, because the system is deep and complex enough that it takes a great deal of knowledge to fit the best possible ship. Most people are acceptable, many people are terrible; but after 7 years of playing I still see fits every now and then and say "wow... that guy has a really nice fit that I've never thought of". Ship building in DU should be like that. Simple enough that anyone can get by, but deep enough that quality takes real skill. Then extend that complexity where possible to buildings and space stations, etc. But especially to space ships. Thoughts?

You could limit personal manipulation to the size of the object, which would have the benefit of having a reasonable gameplay justification, and being "realistic". Should a guy in a space suit be able to maneuver and install the reactors for a battleship by hand? I don't think so. No, I'd limit the size of things that can be built personally to a certain size category of moduals, which isn't exactly the same as a tier system. Then we ignore the awkwardness of having tiered ships where "only tier 2 ships can use tier 2 blocks" etc. By adding size categories you don't restrict the building freedom, you just change efficiency. Say a size 1 reactor takes up 1 block and produces 10 power, and anyone can carry one around and place them wherever on a ship. However, a size 2 reactor only takes 4 blocks and produces 25 power, but it requires a small shipyard to install on a ship. So you could, theoretically, build a battleship with all size 1 reactors, it would just take much more space and time and it wouldn't be as resource efficient as if you used a small shipyard and size 2 reactors. That way you can build whatever you want, it's just not going to be as good without special equipment.

Well think about it. Say I make a cool ship design, and it's this really big, intricate, cool looking ship that took me hours to get just right. So I put the blueprint up on the market and sell it for, say, $1,000 (just to pick a nice even number). Without some sort of rights protection, what's to stop some other guy from just buying and building a single copy of my ship, changing 1 block, and then saving it and selling that blueprint as his own design for $900? Now he's just stolen my idea and is selling a nearly identical copy for far less money, even though he's done no work and invested only the original price. Now everyone will buy from him and not me because his is the same, only cheaper. Can you see how annoying that would be for builders and designers everywhere? If it were me, I'd make it so you can't edit ships you made off of someone else's blueprints. Or maybe you can edit them, but only in a limited way, such as certain blocks or add-ons. Sure, that might not be "realistic", but it stops the game from favoring the rich players with enough free time to sit and manipulate market all day long. I'd also like to see a crafting system with a high enough level of complexity that it's hard to simply build your own version of a blueprint you saw on market. Especially for larger ships. Obviously with small 1-man fighters there's only so much variation. But if, for example, if it requires actual skill to build ships with the best stats then being a master ship designer will be an actual thing; which I think would be incredibly cool. "Oh, I only buy ships designed by Player X, his ships have maximized defensive capabilities." Which would be countered by "I prefer Player Y, his designed are all faster and more agile than anything else on the market!"

100% agree. Newbros should at least be able to build 1-man fighters to get into space for the first time. But I think anything larger should absolutely require a space station with shipyards, because that opens up an entire dynamic of gameplay. Then you can have people renting out shipyards to other people, which will promote building massive space stations, especially around the most popular worlds. It also encourages wars between factions where each side is targeting the others shipyards. Plus, if you require shipyards to build big ships, then there's an incentive to go after other people's shipyards so you can corner the market.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I didn't want theft to be a part of the game, because it absolutely should be. What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't be as easy as "buy a ship, change 1 block, re-sell at a lower price than the originator", because that would kill the building gameplay in 2 seconds, not to mention flooding the market with a thousand ship types that are nearly identical.

I wouldn't necessarily be worried about this, as vertical building is not only possible, but encouraged. I imagine the Ark-Zone quickly turning into a virtual favella of small houses, shacks, and factories all built on top of each other. That might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think it would be very cool to see happen. Or maybe there will be an incentive to build cheap skyscrapers newbros can rent out for their starter homes? I imagine if you need any kind of Item storage then having your own space close to the central market of the Arkship will be very valuable indeed. That seems like one of the best ways to encourage the large skyscrapers the Devs clearly want to see happen in this game. And I hope they manage it, because an actual player built city in an MMO would be such a cool thing to see.

I would also like to see massive space stations and the Death Star (we all know there's going to be one) built in this manner, because it would be very very cool. But imagine the technical difficulties in doing something like that? In the end, I imagine that space stations will need to have different rules that space ships.... but the Death Star is really just a massive space ship, so I have no idea how that could be worked out. At least the Devs have a few years to think about it, because that's how long it should take to make something like a Death Star. Heck, if they do it right I hope it takes a couple months just to make the first stargate.

This is also a good idea, but still doesn't solve the issue of people re-fitting ships in deep space for purposes they were not designed for, which in my opinion basically removes the need for specialized ship hulls. For example, how much fun would EVE Online be if every ship was only defined by the moduals you put on it? In DU, what's to stop people from just re-building the same ship over and over to suit their changing needs? That would completely cripple the market for ships and put all of the emphasis on gear. Personally, I'd still have multiple ships, because that's cool, but you have to plan for the worst-case scenario of what hardcore players will do; and they will always go for the most absolutely efficient method. I'm afraid that if you allow refitting after "completion", then you'll see major organizations all flying around in the same ship modal 24/7 that can easily be swapped out with the pieces they need. In my mind that's just a globe with the guns sticking off the sides, so you can quickly run around outside and switch them out for whatever weapons or utilities you need at that very moment. That sort of meta does not promote interesting gameplay, in my opinion.

I absolutely agree, this would be a good work-around for the mid-combat refit problem. But it doesn't solve the issue of people refitting ships in deep space, thus removing the need for specialized ship hulls. I think that would be a major mistake because it removes an awful lot of gameplay depth. I would suggest adding a "completed" mode that disables all functions (shields, weapons, engines, etc) until the ship is fully built, but once a ship is complete you can no longer add blocks. In this model I would consider "repairing" to be a completely different process that only re-builds destroyed blocks. I realize that idea has some issues, like having to build massive ships quickly because they're vulnerable the whole time they're being built, but I don't think that's necessarily bad gameplay; and I really fear the consequences of having ships that can be edited at any time anywhere. Perhaps include a shipyard modual for space stations so that ships can only be edited at an established space station? In addition to being a way to balance combat and building, it would help justify the need for massive space stations. If each "Drydock" can only repair or build 1 ship at a time, then you'd need tons and tons of Drydocks for all the building and repairing that will be going on in this universe. Some of them would have to be truly huge as well if you wanted to make really big ships.

Even if the universeis endless, and it's not hard to get around (neither of which are necessarily true according to the devs), there are still plenty of economic reasons why people will want to stay centralized. You can't make money if there's nobody to sell anything to. You'd also have to be entirely self-sufficient in terms of rare resources, construction, even new blueprints. You'd have to design and build everything yourself. Not to mention you'd have a real hard time getting any more recruits, as they'd have to travel all they way out to wherever you are to be worth anything. No, I think people will stay centralized because it will be difficult not to be close to the Hub, which will probably be the Arkship. To use the EVE example, the closer you get to the trade hubs, the more people there are, Jita especially. Even null-sec entities that base their existence on being on the fringe of space still live as close to the core as they can. Not many alliances have their base of operations out in Cobalt Edge, or the back end of Period Basis, do they? Even if they own sov there, that's mostly for ratting space, and the rest of the time they fart around the high-traffic areas like everyone else.

All I would say is that it's very important that people not be able to steal others blueprints. So long as the Devs know that and take effective measures to ensure that the blueprint system isn't compromised, everything will be fine. I would suggest that the editing and re-blueprinting of ships from bought blueprints be un-allowed, and that the ship creation system be complex enough that it require some level of skill to re-make ships with the same abilities and stats. But it seems like the devs already know that and have the situation under control.

I understand the desire for realism in every game, but I have to say, of all the things to worry about, this is not one of them. Remember that a scaled down planet will have a scaled down atmosphere. If you gave any of these planets an Earth sized atmosphere it would be almost as thick as the planet itself. That's even besides the fact that flying in and out of that atmosphere (something we will be doing a lot, I hope) would get really boring really fast if it took 2 minutes every time. But I completely understand where you're coming from. I just think that what amounts to a 2 minute loading screen to land on every planet is a real pain in the neck.

Building an entire city that floats would be rather difficult depending on how the systems for fuel, lift, and weight work. If there's any system for weight and lift at all, I can imagine that you would need a whole lot of lift generation, which would mean a whole lot of fuel. But I can imagine that a traveling refinery or production plant would be incredibly useful, especially once resources start to become depleted near the starting zone.