Vorengard

To quote Nyzaltar's response to a similar question in the AMA from way back in July of 2016"
 
 
Who knows if this is still the plan for how stargates will work, but this was what they were thinking previously. It's also important to note that JC has said on multiple occasions that stargates are not something players will be able to build until years after launch.
 
I'm as excited for them as the next guy, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here

Spaceships naturally have no gravity (well unless spinning or accelerating). I'm not in the pre - alpha to know how this is being handled in any ship that a person is not sitting in, i.e. big enough to walk around in.
 
So I'm proposing gravity plating (maybe as a technology) that a builder places on any surface designed to be the 'ground' within the space vehicle. This will allow walking within an open area of a ship, as well as vertical 'transport tubes', which would be lined on all sides with gravity plating to create zero gravity within the tube.
 
It may also help the dev team in linking avatars within a ship - last thing anyone wants is a ship to accelerate leaving all the non seated avatars floating in space.... or worse.... crushed against a bulkhead o.O
 
Anyway, thats my 2c, hope Im not suggesting something that has already been suggested lol
 
Cheers
 
CoreVamore

The dev diaries before were to show everyone the progress they were making and how things were going. With the pre-alpha out now, I think the time on such an update is better suited for the actual game, where people can experience the updates for themselves.
 
Not to say I wouldn't love a dev diary anyway, and it would show everyone the progress... But still, gotta give them some leeway. They've earned it. 

NQ is rather busy with the ongoing Pre-Alpha, as they should be. I wouldn't expect a Dev blog any time soon, and in this circumstance that's totally ok with me. 

First of all, I'm seriously opposed to any sort of timer system. Been there done that with EVE and it's simply no fun. EVE only has it in the first place because the nature of the game requires it. DU can and should avoid creating that sort of system because it's absolutely obnoxious and is easily abused, and I think I expressed my opinion on the matter rather well in this post.
 
So, overall, I would oppose any and all timer-based systems because they're silly, annoying, and actually encourage griefing (such as setting off timers just to get people to show up, then blue-balling them). Furthermore, they divide the community into groups based on timezones, with various timezones not competing at all because of how the timer system prevents them from attacking in their enemies downtime. Then there's those groups in EVE that win conflicts simply because they have people who can log on in the middle of the night with no consequences. I've been on the receiving end of that, and its incredibly frustrating to lose territory simply because your opponent's pilots don't have families or jobs, and so they can log in at 4 AM and spend hours sieging your towers, and you just have to let them. Timer mechanics encourage this type of nasty behavior, and it's bad for the game overall.  I'm much prefer a weak asset protection system that forces people to work together and protect each other in their down-times.
 
That being said, I totally support the idea of having to conquer hexes "inward", because it will provide some sort of protection and will turn conflicts into prolonged wars, rather than lighting strikes at critical infrastructure. However, that's going to require some serious ground rules, because currently you can place a TCU anywhere. So, what's to stop an org from placing their outer TCUs on the very edge of the hex, and then building huge defense turrets right across the border in an adjacent hex that would be totally immune to damage? That's completely broken, so any such system would mandate that TCUs be placed more centrally in the hex.
 
Regardless, you prevent greifing and pointless wars by making it take serious investments of resources and time to take a territory, not by implementing arbitrary timers that say when people are "allowed" to fight. Such a system goes against the very nature of PvP and the open-world experience. 
 
Edit: I'm also very against the idea of war declarations, for many of the same reasons already mentioned, and because they're restrictive and contrary to the very nature of an open-world game. There should be no arbitrary gateways for PvP in a single-shard, open world game. 
 

First of all, I'm seriously opposed to any sort of timer system. Been there done that with EVE and it's simply no fun. EVE only has it in the first place because the nature of the game requires it. DU can and should avoid creating that sort of system because it's absolutely obnoxious and is easily abused, and I think I expressed my opinion on the matter rather well in this post.
 
So, overall, I would oppose any and all timer-based systems because they're silly, annoying, and actually encourage griefing (such as setting off timers just to get people to show up, then blue-balling them). Furthermore, they divide the community into groups based on timezones, with various timezones not competing at all because of how the timer system prevents them from attacking in their enemies downtime. Then there's those groups in EVE that win conflicts simply because they have people who can log on in the middle of the night with no consequences. I've been on the receiving end of that, and its incredibly frustrating to lose territory simply because your opponent's pilots don't have families or jobs, and so they can log in at 4 AM and spend hours sieging your towers, and you just have to let them. Timer mechanics encourage this type of nasty behavior, and it's bad for the game overall.  I'm much prefer a weak asset protection system that forces people to work together and protect each other in their down-times.
 
That being said, I totally support the idea of having to conquer hexes "inward", because it will provide some sort of protection and will turn conflicts into prolonged wars, rather than lighting strikes at critical infrastructure. However, that's going to require some serious ground rules, because currently you can place a TCU anywhere. So, what's to stop an org from placing their outer TCUs on the very edge of the hex, and then building huge defense turrets right across the border in an adjacent hex that would be totally immune to damage? That's completely broken, so any such system would mandate that TCUs be placed more centrally in the hex.
 
Regardless, you prevent greifing and pointless wars by making it take serious investments of resources and time to take a territory, not by implementing arbitrary timers that say when people are "allowed" to fight. Such a system goes against the very nature of PvP and the open-world experience. 
 
Edit: I'm also very against the idea of war declarations, for many of the same reasons already mentioned, and because they're restrictive and contrary to the very nature of an open-world game. There should be no arbitrary gateways for PvP in a single-shard, open world game. 
 

Like others have said, no point in a war dec if there is no security zone or authority to file the war dec with. There are other ways of balancing without adding nonsense mechanics.

I'd just like to add that I'm against timers for many of the reasons already on here.  Something I haven't seen mentioned is that these kinds of organised battles also shutdown a whole host of war strategies and grant additional advantage to the side with the most numbers - organisations with more members already have a numbers advantage, they don't need that advantage artificially swelled. 
 
I'm also against war declarations for similar reasons.  It's also too rigid.  I'd like to see, as part of the organisation management tools, a relationships management system, completely customisable by and for each organisation's needs.  These shouldn't have any effect on who you can and can't attack though.
 
I also am not in favour of requiring an adjacent territory to be owned by the aggressor.  This also shuts down gameplay and warfare options.  An organisation should be able to own vast swathes of territory without ever once planting a TU if that is the MO they choose.
 
The difficulty of conquering a territory should be proportional to the strength of that territory's defenses and the effort its owners put into its defence.  It shouldn't be arbitrarily difficult or time consuming.  If there's no resistance, it should be quick and easy, but that doesn't mean that it should be easy just because you attacked when the owners were asleep.  It also shouldn't require shooting at structures by necessity.  It's not an easy puzzle to solve.  I'm sorry I don't have answers, but at this time I just know what I don't want to see.

First of all, I'm seriously opposed to any sort of timer system. Been there done that with EVE and it's simply no fun. EVE only has it in the first place because the nature of the game requires it. DU can and should avoid creating that sort of system because it's absolutely obnoxious and is easily abused, and I think I expressed my opinion on the matter rather well in this post.
 
So, overall, I would oppose any and all timer-based systems because they're silly, annoying, and actually encourage griefing (such as setting off timers just to get people to show up, then blue-balling them). Furthermore, they divide the community into groups based on timezones, with various timezones not competing at all because of how the timer system prevents them from attacking in their enemies downtime. Then there's those groups in EVE that win conflicts simply because they have people who can log on in the middle of the night with no consequences. I've been on the receiving end of that, and its incredibly frustrating to lose territory simply because your opponent's pilots don't have families or jobs, and so they can log in at 4 AM and spend hours sieging your towers, and you just have to let them. Timer mechanics encourage this type of nasty behavior, and it's bad for the game overall.  I'm much prefer a weak asset protection system that forces people to work together and protect each other in their down-times.
 
That being said, I totally support the idea of having to conquer hexes "inward", because it will provide some sort of protection and will turn conflicts into prolonged wars, rather than lighting strikes at critical infrastructure. However, that's going to require some serious ground rules, because currently you can place a TCU anywhere. So, what's to stop an org from placing their outer TCUs on the very edge of the hex, and then building huge defense turrets right across the border in an adjacent hex that would be totally immune to damage? That's completely broken, so any such system would mandate that TCUs be placed more centrally in the hex.
 
Regardless, you prevent greifing and pointless wars by making it take serious investments of resources and time to take a territory, not by implementing arbitrary timers that say when people are "allowed" to fight. Such a system goes against the very nature of PvP and the open-world experience. 
 
Edit: I'm also very against the idea of war declarations, for many of the same reasons already mentioned, and because they're restrictive and contrary to the very nature of an open-world game. There should be no arbitrary gateways for PvP in a single-shard, open world game. 
 

First of all, I'm seriously opposed to any sort of timer system. Been there done that with EVE and it's simply no fun. EVE only has it in the first place because the nature of the game requires it. DU can and should avoid creating that sort of system because it's absolutely obnoxious and is easily abused, and I think I expressed my opinion on the matter rather well in this post.
 
So, overall, I would oppose any and all timer-based systems because they're silly, annoying, and actually encourage griefing (such as setting off timers just to get people to show up, then blue-balling them). Furthermore, they divide the community into groups based on timezones, with various timezones not competing at all because of how the timer system prevents them from attacking in their enemies downtime. Then there's those groups in EVE that win conflicts simply because they have people who can log on in the middle of the night with no consequences. I've been on the receiving end of that, and its incredibly frustrating to lose territory simply because your opponent's pilots don't have families or jobs, and so they can log in at 4 AM and spend hours sieging your towers, and you just have to let them. Timer mechanics encourage this type of nasty behavior, and it's bad for the game overall.  I'm much prefer a weak asset protection system that forces people to work together and protect each other in their down-times.
 
That being said, I totally support the idea of having to conquer hexes "inward", because it will provide some sort of protection and will turn conflicts into prolonged wars, rather than lighting strikes at critical infrastructure. However, that's going to require some serious ground rules, because currently you can place a TCU anywhere. So, what's to stop an org from placing their outer TCUs on the very edge of the hex, and then building huge defense turrets right across the border in an adjacent hex that would be totally immune to damage? That's completely broken, so any such system would mandate that TCUs be placed more centrally in the hex.
 
Regardless, you prevent greifing and pointless wars by making it take serious investments of resources and time to take a territory, not by implementing arbitrary timers that say when people are "allowed" to fight. Such a system goes against the very nature of PvP and the open-world experience. 
 
Edit: I'm also very against the idea of war declarations, for many of the same reasons already mentioned, and because they're restrictive and contrary to the very nature of an open-world game. There should be no arbitrary gateways for PvP in a single-shard, open world game. 
 

Silly stuff? If they allow embedding Youtube videos onto in-game screens, I bet we'll have no shortage of that.

All very good points and this subject has been brought up several times. 
 
One idea has been that these npc's will switch on and off to inject currency according to a formula, when required. 
 
Naturally this is all speculation at this point. 

While I voted yes and think this is a really great idea, let the record show that NQ has publicly stated that this feature is a serious stretch goal that will not make it into the game for years, if ever. The issue is that weapons are all elements, which are meshes, not voxels; and the current editing system is based entirely on voxels. So, allowing us to create custom elements would require creating a whole new editing system just for meshes, which would require massive amounts of time and money and effort from basically the whole development team. Then there's the issue of balancing all those possibilities, which is itself a major endeavor that would likely require large amounts of additional dev time for the life of the game. 
 
So, while I love the idea, don't get your hopes up. It's really not going to happen any time soon. 

While I voted yes and think this is a really great idea, let the record show that NQ has publicly stated that this feature is a serious stretch goal that will not make it into the game for years, if ever. The issue is that weapons are all elements, which are meshes, not voxels; and the current editing system is based entirely on voxels. So, allowing us to create custom elements would require creating a whole new editing system just for meshes, which would require massive amounts of time and money and effort from basically the whole development team. Then there's the issue of balancing all those possibilities, which is itself a major endeavor that would likely require large amounts of additional dev time for the life of the game. 
 
So, while I love the idea, don't get your hopes up. It's really not going to happen any time soon. 

I'm happy with the trailer, but some of the comments on twitter about it make me want to pull my hair out.
 
 

Besides, JC's example might have also been assuming that people are doing nothing but removing voxels at the fastest rate possible (basically picking up dirt). Mining for resources however will be much more involved than clicking on funky colored dirt for hours. Scanning will eat some of that time, travelling to where the resources are will take some time, tunneling to those resources, or shaping a mine in such a way that you can fit, or that your cargo vehicle can fit will take time. Transporting those resources when your inventory is full will take time, having them refined will take time.
 
The accessory activities involved in mining will have a huge impact on how long the starting planet remains a viable place to gather resources. The trick I think will be trying to collect resources outside the safe zone, and navigating around the claims where mining is not permitted due to TU's.

They are testing All Terrain Vehicles on the servers. If it goes well we'll be testing ships  soon. 

1) You can build on territory without claiming it. However, you can't build on territory owned by someone else without their permission.
 
2) We have no information about the structure protection system, if any, so we really can't answer this question at this time. 
 
3) Playing solo will definitely be possible, but more difficult than playing in a group of course. However, how difficult is also hard to answer at this time because game mechanics such as the structure protection system play a major part in determining how difficult it will be to solo, and we don't know anything about that yet. Furthermore, keep in mind that it won't be possible to travel to another star system until some time after launch. At launch, everyone will be restricted to the starting planet Alioth, but you could definitely travel to the far side of the planet and build a hidden underground base that nobody would ever find. 
 
Alternatively, you could simply join a major organization that doesn't have serious participation requirements, and then go play solo. That way you can use their name and alliances as protection from a bunch of players without actually having to play with anyone else. You can also use the RDMS system to restrict all your buildings and ships to personal access only, so you don't have to worry about your unwanted alliance mates barging in without your permission. 
 
4) I think my previous responses mostly answer this question. To summarize, it's too early to tell at this point. 

While we don't actually have any real answers to these questions at this time, I would be very surprised if Air-to-Ground combat wasn't a thing. Keep in mind that buildings and ships are both constructs, and so there's no reason to believe they would function differently in terms of combat and taking damage (besides the fact that buildings are static ofc).
 
Not necessarily. Buildings could simply be resilient enough that destroying them isn't feasible without significant effort. We don't really know anything about automated defenses at this time, but JC has mentioned them in several interviews, and has specifically floated the idea that they would operate at significantly reduced fighting capacity for balance purposes. However, the main problem with strong automated defenses is that they are impossible to balance in an unstructured game. There's nothing stopping wealthy organizations from buying and installing tons of them all over their territory, thus making themselves impervious to attack from anything besides other major organizations. This would seriously cripple the viability of smaller organizations, not to mention solo players, and would ultimately push many people out of the game. 
 
So, while I sympathize with the desire to have strong defenses that people can't easily defeat, that would ultimately hurt the game. I'm much more in favor of very weak asset protection systems because that forces a more honest and interesting dynamic between players and organizations. If anyone can come along and wreck your stuff at any time, that will foster much more co-dependence and community unity than a system that makes this hard. Strong automated anti-air/ground systems are the antithesis of that.
 
(this might seem a little off-topic, but I think it's really important to explaining why strong automated defenses and hard-to-kill buildings are bad for the game)
 
EVE Online is a perfect example of why strong asset protection can be bad in an open-world single-shard game. In EVE there are rather robust systems in place that prevent people from quickly destroying other people's things (the reinforce and timer systems for player structures in particular). This is necessary in EVE because entire organizations can exist in high-security space where their assets are untouchable. However, huge segments of the community abuse this system and spend hours grinding down other people's structures just to piss them off, and they can get away with being this nasty and petty because there's fundamentally nothing anyone can do to stop them. This behavior would not exist if everyone was vulnerable to destruction at any time, because the community would gang up on and annihilate bad actors. 
 
DU could avoid this problem to an extent because virtually all of the game is open to PvP, so DU can (and should) implement a system that forces people to work together for mutual protection. Adding in strong automated defenses and buildings that take hours to kill would make it impossible to retaliate against people who are far stronger than you. For example: It would allow rich and powerful players to grief smaller organizations with impunity, because they could just retreat to their virtually unassailable base where the smaller players have no way of attacking them back. In contrast, If no one is ever really safe, then people will be less willing to make enemies and break other people's things just to be petty, because it could have very real consequences for them. So, going without major asset protection systems will allow us to avoid much of the trolling and nastiness that comes from giving everyone a place where they're relatively untouchable.

While we don't actually have any real answers to these questions at this time, I would be very surprised if Air-to-Ground combat wasn't a thing. Keep in mind that buildings and ships are both constructs, and so there's no reason to believe they would function differently in terms of combat and taking damage (besides the fact that buildings are static ofc).
 
Not necessarily. Buildings could simply be resilient enough that destroying them isn't feasible without significant effort. We don't really know anything about automated defenses at this time, but JC has mentioned them in several interviews, and has specifically floated the idea that they would operate at significantly reduced fighting capacity for balance purposes. However, the main problem with strong automated defenses is that they are impossible to balance in an unstructured game. There's nothing stopping wealthy organizations from buying and installing tons of them all over their territory, thus making themselves impervious to attack from anything besides other major organizations. This would seriously cripple the viability of smaller organizations, not to mention solo players, and would ultimately push many people out of the game. 
 
So, while I sympathize with the desire to have strong defenses that people can't easily defeat, that would ultimately hurt the game. I'm much more in favor of very weak asset protection systems because that forces a more honest and interesting dynamic between players and organizations. If anyone can come along and wreck your stuff at any time, that will foster much more co-dependence and community unity than a system that makes this hard. Strong automated anti-air/ground systems are the antithesis of that.
 
(this might seem a little off-topic, but I think it's really important to explaining why strong automated defenses and hard-to-kill buildings are bad for the game)
 
EVE Online is a perfect example of why strong asset protection can be bad in an open-world single-shard game. In EVE there are rather robust systems in place that prevent people from quickly destroying other people's things (the reinforce and timer systems for player structures in particular). This is necessary in EVE because entire organizations can exist in high-security space where their assets are untouchable. However, huge segments of the community abuse this system and spend hours grinding down other people's structures just to piss them off, and they can get away with being this nasty and petty because there's fundamentally nothing anyone can do to stop them. This behavior would not exist if everyone was vulnerable to destruction at any time, because the community would gang up on and annihilate bad actors. 
 
DU could avoid this problem to an extent because virtually all of the game is open to PvP, so DU can (and should) implement a system that forces people to work together for mutual protection. Adding in strong automated defenses and buildings that take hours to kill would make it impossible to retaliate against people who are far stronger than you. For example: It would allow rich and powerful players to grief smaller organizations with impunity, because they could just retreat to their virtually unassailable base where the smaller players have no way of attacking them back. In contrast, If no one is ever really safe, then people will be less willing to make enemies and break other people's things just to be petty, because it could have very real consequences for them. So, going without major asset protection systems will allow us to avoid much of the trolling and nastiness that comes from giving everyone a place where they're relatively untouchable.

I heard that *redacted* happened and that *redacted* is *redacted*. 

Critics claimed "it occured" and "it is a game"

No, all voxels (including ships) take up space in the game world. They can't just pass through each other. So no, you can't clip ships into each other to hide their numbers, If you want to dock ships in another ship, you're actually going to have to build passageways, doors, and hangers that can fit them. 

I agree with this assessment. While we can have automated defenses, construct to construct (even if Anti Air), should require to be manned to keep with the intended balance. 
 
And strong community support to a degree should be pushed, we're rebuilding society, not isolated secret societies or everyone's personal cult. But strategy should play the most important role ultimately. If you know that you are going to be up against heavy AA, perhaps you should change how you approach the job. Go for a land assault, sabotage the AA, perhaps use EMP or electrical counter measures etc. Let's not dare dumb  the game down because we see some obstacles. 

While we don't actually have any real answers to these questions at this time, I would be very surprised if Air-to-Ground combat wasn't a thing. Keep in mind that buildings and ships are both constructs, and so there's no reason to believe they would function differently in terms of combat and taking damage (besides the fact that buildings are static ofc).
 
Not necessarily. Buildings could simply be resilient enough that destroying them isn't feasible without significant effort. We don't really know anything about automated defenses at this time, but JC has mentioned them in several interviews, and has specifically floated the idea that they would operate at significantly reduced fighting capacity for balance purposes. However, the main problem with strong automated defenses is that they are impossible to balance in an unstructured game. There's nothing stopping wealthy organizations from buying and installing tons of them all over their territory, thus making themselves impervious to attack from anything besides other major organizations. This would seriously cripple the viability of smaller organizations, not to mention solo players, and would ultimately push many people out of the game. 
 
So, while I sympathize with the desire to have strong defenses that people can't easily defeat, that would ultimately hurt the game. I'm much more in favor of very weak asset protection systems because that forces a more honest and interesting dynamic between players and organizations. If anyone can come along and wreck your stuff at any time, that will foster much more co-dependence and community unity than a system that makes this hard. Strong automated anti-air/ground systems are the antithesis of that.
 
(this might seem a little off-topic, but I think it's really important to explaining why strong automated defenses and hard-to-kill buildings are bad for the game)
 
EVE Online is a perfect example of why strong asset protection can be bad in an open-world single-shard game. In EVE there are rather robust systems in place that prevent people from quickly destroying other people's things (the reinforce and timer systems for player structures in particular). This is necessary in EVE because entire organizations can exist in high-security space where their assets are untouchable. However, huge segments of the community abuse this system and spend hours grinding down other people's structures just to piss them off, and they can get away with being this nasty and petty because there's fundamentally nothing anyone can do to stop them. This behavior would not exist if everyone was vulnerable to destruction at any time, because the community would gang up on and annihilate bad actors. 
 
DU could avoid this problem to an extent because virtually all of the game is open to PvP, so DU can (and should) implement a system that forces people to work together for mutual protection. Adding in strong automated defenses and buildings that take hours to kill would make it impossible to retaliate against people who are far stronger than you. For example: It would allow rich and powerful players to grief smaller organizations with impunity, because they could just retreat to their virtually unassailable base where the smaller players have no way of attacking them back. In contrast, If no one is ever really safe, then people will be less willing to make enemies and break other people's things just to be petty, because it could have very real consequences for them. So, going without major asset protection systems will allow us to avoid much of the trolling and nastiness that comes from giving everyone a place where they're relatively untouchable.