Vorengard

I'm not sure on this one either.
 
For traders it's more immersive to have actual people flying those goods down to the planet and when people want to visit the planet, they need to havebe troop transports too - that way you keep people busy and not just teleport with a click

Hi everyone, 
 
On one hand, it's true that some words may have been indeed confusing in the press release from last week. 
On the other hand, seeing some community/press websites not just stating the facts but starting to make assumptions without attempting to contact the studio (to check or ask for clarification) causes unnecessary troubles. It doesn't seem to be of any concern for the said websites but this is how the world works nowadays and we have to deal with it.
 
Update 14/08/2017 6.30 pm (Paris hour):
A JeuxOnline representative just contacted us to have some clarification about the unclear statement in the Press Release so the confusion should be cleared up soon.
 
So to be clear:
We still plan to give to Gold Founder backers (and above) and the ATV group access to our most recent stable version of the game (which will be - of course - still work in progress and far from being feature complete) at the end of September 2017. 
 
We apologize for the confusion that this Press Release may have generated among the community.
 
P.S: the delivery date on the Kickstarter page has never changed (and can't be changed once a Kickstarter campaign is finished). December 2018 has always referred to the Official Release and the physical reward delivery. It has never referred to the Alpha release.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

Hi huschhusch,
 
This topic is a non-issue:
- Satire is allowed as long as it refers to fictive people, fictive political movements or fictive religions.
- Satire isn't allowed when it refers to real life people, real life political movements or real life religions (and this is not negotiable as it can involve real life laws in some cases).
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

What haunty said
 
Satire of orgs/players/ingame events? YES PLEASE
But leave your RL bull-s*** outside the game.
 

My only problem with this approach is the unnatural advantage it gives to those organizations. There's huge amounts of psychological research that indicates that name recognition has a huge effect on how people view other groups, what they buy, who they trust, and many other aspects of human interaction. This is why major corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to put their name on a new stadium; because every time anyone mentions that stadium, they're inadvertently building brand recognition, which has a demonstrable effect on sales. 
 
Therefor, by identifying certain organizations as "major" on the wiki, we would essentially be validating those orgs to the community. New players would be more strongly drawn to join these groups. People would be more likely to buy ships and products from these groups simply because they've heard of them before. The community itself would, to some extent, view these organizations more highly because they've been arbitrarily identified as "important". This would put smaller groups at a serious disadvantage.
 
Think about it: you're a new player cruising the market with absolutely no idea what to buy and you see two ships in your price range. One is an unfamiliar ship built by some no-name industrial corp with 6 members, and the other is a mass-market design from some major organization who's name you've seen around a few times. Even if the indy design is slightly better and more affordable, most people will buy the brand they've heard of, because their subconscious tells them that must be better simply because they've heard of it (after all, if it's good, why haven't I heard of it?).
 
Obviously this is going to happen no matter what we do, but I don't think that's a line the wiki should be drawing, and definitely not before the game has even launched. The point of a wiki is to help people learn the game, not to advocate for one group or another, even indirectly.

Hi everyone,
 
Here is the official stance of Novaquark regarding the wiki made on Gamepedia. We launched the wiki on this platform with the goal in mind to let the Community fill/improve/complete it. we really thank  all those who have already participated in it. However, the wiki was never meant to reference player-created content (hence organization descriptions). It's made to describe official content, game mechanics and possible emergent gameplay.
 
Here are the reasons for our stance:
 
1) To keep some meaning for each website.
- The wiki is there for the gameplay and the game mechanics and the official content.
- The community portal is the place for all the community-created content (as it will evolve a lot with the arrival of a dedicated web developer joining the team soon).
 
2) If we start to include Organizations description, we will have to do it for every organization or none of them.
Referencing a few organizations will raise a ton of issues while referencing will gave the wiki contributors an unreasonable amount of work.
 
3) To keep a certain neutrality and peace on the wiki.
We aren't blind or naive. The moment some player-created content (especially organizations description or history) is included on the wiki, it will become a battlefield and we don't want that. The wiki is not made nor designed for that. Remember what happened recently on the Community Portal with a system not (yet) fully implemented to take into account attempts of sabotage.
 
So for all these reasons, we don't want to see Organization pages appearing on the Gamepedia wiki.
 
Other wiki mentioned in this topic are, in our opinion, not relevant examples:
- World of Warcraft is a theme park MMORPG where Guilds are not in direct competition (sure, there are Battlegrounds and Arenas for PVP, but there is no reason to reduce the visibility of any guild, while there can be in sandbox MMORPGs like EVE Online or Dual Universe).
- No Man’s Sky is not a MMORPG. Not even Multiplayer, so there are even less reasons for this case to go wrong.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

I think we need to separate "essential game concepts" from organizations in the wiki. However, in a single shard universe, some player made content will be essential. For example, no guide to EVE Online would be complete without mentioning Jita and the vital role it plays in the game. Jita is only Jita because the players decided that it is, so that's definitely a function of player content, not the game. The content on the wiki should definitely include similar issues that are highly important to how we play the game.
 
However, adding articles about organizations themselves seems like a bad idea. Doing so will present a huge array of problems. Those articles will need to be updated constantly to represent changes in those orgs. Any org on the wiki would have a built-in advantage over everyone else simply on the basis of being more well known. By including an org you'd automatically offend any org that doesn't get included, and that could also spiral into a flame war on the wiki between orgs that hate each other.
 
Nevermind the fact that including orgs at this time seems really silly given that none of us have even played the game yet. We don't actually know what each org will be doing, who will be on who's side, and so on, because the game doesn't even exist yet. As of right now, all discussions about orgs and their function is entirely hypothetical and academic, so making a big deal about it seems incredibly arrogant.
 
So no, leave orgs off the wiki. Maybe include some player content later, but right now it's very premature. 

My only problem with this approach is the unnatural advantage it gives to those organizations. There's huge amounts of psychological research that indicates that name recognition has a huge effect on how people view other groups, what they buy, who they trust, and many other aspects of human interaction. This is why major corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to put their name on a new stadium; because every time anyone mentions that stadium, they're inadvertently building brand recognition, which has a demonstrable effect on sales. 
 
Therefor, by identifying certain organizations as "major" on the wiki, we would essentially be validating those orgs to the community. New players would be more strongly drawn to join these groups. People would be more likely to buy ships and products from these groups simply because they've heard of them before. The community itself would, to some extent, view these organizations more highly because they've been arbitrarily identified as "important". This would put smaller groups at a serious disadvantage.
 
Think about it: you're a new player cruising the market with absolutely no idea what to buy and you see two ships in your price range. One is an unfamiliar ship built by some no-name industrial corp with 6 members, and the other is a mass-market design from some major organization who's name you've seen around a few times. Even if the indy design is slightly better and more affordable, most people will buy the brand they've heard of, because their subconscious tells them that must be better simply because they've heard of it (after all, if it's good, why haven't I heard of it?).
 
Obviously this is going to happen no matter what we do, but I don't think that's a line the wiki should be drawing, and definitely not before the game has even launched. The point of a wiki is to help people learn the game, not to advocate for one group or another, even indirectly.

So far it seems like the two sides are pretty close together on the issue. We all agree that obviously some player content will have to be on the wiki, like major cities and space stations, trade hubs, star gates, and so on; and even those most strongly in favor of adding orgs to the wiki can agree that it shouldn't be for advertising or propaganda purposes. So, to refocus the discussion, it seems like the largest issue is whether or not there should be biographies for individual organizations and players.
 
In relation to that issue, first I'd like to say that arguing for or against having multiple websites is a serious waste of time. There will be multiple websites, no matter what we say about it. That's not a bad thing at all. If you can't handle searching multiple websites for information, then you probably can't handle playing a game like DU, where virtually all of the game world is a PvP zone. What's most important here is that each website be clear and useful, and it's hard to accomplish either of those goals when you're attempting to do everything. So, the wiki should be focused on accomplishing a specific goal: being a central location for people to go to get a basic understanding of topics essential to playing the game.
 
So, to go back to the EVE example: If I were to write an EVE wiki, I would definitely include a page just about Jita, because it's the most important system in the game. I'd also probably include a page on suicide ganking and smartbombing on gates, because those are important things to look out for. These are player created activities and content, but they're essential parts of playing the game, so they would belong in a wiki. However, I wouldn't write an article about specific alliances, like Pandemic Legion for example, because you don't have to know who PL is to have fun in EVE. I wouldn't bother with keeping track of who's flying where, how many pilots they have, what systems they hold, their current tactics, and so on, because those things change all the time and aren't really essential to playing EVE. Furthermore, websites like Evewho and Dotlan do those jobs much better than I could with a wiki. So, players would come to my wiki to find out about how to play the game, but they'd go someplace else to find out about the other people playing the game.  
 
Similarly, a DU wiki should focus on explaining things like the building mechanics, how to set up a Territory Control Unit, how to find the best ores, or where the most important cities and space stations are. Leave the tracking of organizations to other websites that will do so more effectively. If new players want to figure out which organizations to join, they should be going to the community portal, or some other website dedicated to detailing orgs, and not the wiki. 

So far it seems like the two sides are pretty close together on the issue. We all agree that obviously some player content will have to be on the wiki, like major cities and space stations, trade hubs, star gates, and so on; and even those most strongly in favor of adding orgs to the wiki can agree that it shouldn't be for advertising or propaganda purposes. So, to refocus the discussion, it seems like the largest issue is whether or not there should be biographies for individual organizations and players.
 
In relation to that issue, first I'd like to say that arguing for or against having multiple websites is a serious waste of time. There will be multiple websites, no matter what we say about it. That's not a bad thing at all. If you can't handle searching multiple websites for information, then you probably can't handle playing a game like DU, where virtually all of the game world is a PvP zone. What's most important here is that each website be clear and useful, and it's hard to accomplish either of those goals when you're attempting to do everything. So, the wiki should be focused on accomplishing a specific goal: being a central location for people to go to get a basic understanding of topics essential to playing the game.
 
So, to go back to the EVE example: If I were to write an EVE wiki, I would definitely include a page just about Jita, because it's the most important system in the game. I'd also probably include a page on suicide ganking and smartbombing on gates, because those are important things to look out for. These are player created activities and content, but they're essential parts of playing the game, so they would belong in a wiki. However, I wouldn't write an article about specific alliances, like Pandemic Legion for example, because you don't have to know who PL is to have fun in EVE. I wouldn't bother with keeping track of who's flying where, how many pilots they have, what systems they hold, their current tactics, and so on, because those things change all the time and aren't really essential to playing EVE. Furthermore, websites like Evewho and Dotlan do those jobs much better than I could with a wiki. So, players would come to my wiki to find out about how to play the game, but they'd go someplace else to find out about the other people playing the game.  
 
Similarly, a DU wiki should focus on explaining things like the building mechanics, how to set up a Territory Control Unit, how to find the best ores, or where the most important cities and space stations are. Leave the tracking of organizations to other websites that will do so more effectively. If new players want to figure out which organizations to join, they should be going to the community portal, or some other website dedicated to detailing orgs, and not the wiki. 

My only problem with this approach is the unnatural advantage it gives to those organizations. There's huge amounts of psychological research that indicates that name recognition has a huge effect on how people view other groups, what they buy, who they trust, and many other aspects of human interaction. This is why major corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to put their name on a new stadium; because every time anyone mentions that stadium, they're inadvertently building brand recognition, which has a demonstrable effect on sales. 
 
Therefor, by identifying certain organizations as "major" on the wiki, we would essentially be validating those orgs to the community. New players would be more strongly drawn to join these groups. People would be more likely to buy ships and products from these groups simply because they've heard of them before. The community itself would, to some extent, view these organizations more highly because they've been arbitrarily identified as "important". This would put smaller groups at a serious disadvantage.
 
Think about it: you're a new player cruising the market with absolutely no idea what to buy and you see two ships in your price range. One is an unfamiliar ship built by some no-name industrial corp with 6 members, and the other is a mass-market design from some major organization who's name you've seen around a few times. Even if the indy design is slightly better and more affordable, most people will buy the brand they've heard of, because their subconscious tells them that must be better simply because they've heard of it (after all, if it's good, why haven't I heard of it?).
 
Obviously this is going to happen no matter what we do, but I don't think that's a line the wiki should be drawing, and definitely not before the game has even launched. The point of a wiki is to help people learn the game, not to advocate for one group or another, even indirectly.

My only problem with this approach is the unnatural advantage it gives to those organizations. There's huge amounts of psychological research that indicates that name recognition has a huge effect on how people view other groups, what they buy, who they trust, and many other aspects of human interaction. This is why major corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to put their name on a new stadium; because every time anyone mentions that stadium, they're inadvertently building brand recognition, which has a demonstrable effect on sales. 
 
Therefor, by identifying certain organizations as "major" on the wiki, we would essentially be validating those orgs to the community. New players would be more strongly drawn to join these groups. People would be more likely to buy ships and products from these groups simply because they've heard of them before. The community itself would, to some extent, view these organizations more highly because they've been arbitrarily identified as "important". This would put smaller groups at a serious disadvantage.
 
Think about it: you're a new player cruising the market with absolutely no idea what to buy and you see two ships in your price range. One is an unfamiliar ship built by some no-name industrial corp with 6 members, and the other is a mass-market design from some major organization who's name you've seen around a few times. Even if the indy design is slightly better and more affordable, most people will buy the brand they've heard of, because their subconscious tells them that must be better simply because they've heard of it (after all, if it's good, why haven't I heard of it?).
 
Obviously this is going to happen no matter what we do, but I don't think that's a line the wiki should be drawing, and definitely not before the game has even launched. The point of a wiki is to help people learn the game, not to advocate for one group or another, even indirectly.

My only problem with this approach is the unnatural advantage it gives to those organizations. There's huge amounts of psychological research that indicates that name recognition has a huge effect on how people view other groups, what they buy, who they trust, and many other aspects of human interaction. This is why major corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to put their name on a new stadium; because every time anyone mentions that stadium, they're inadvertently building brand recognition, which has a demonstrable effect on sales. 
 
Therefor, by identifying certain organizations as "major" on the wiki, we would essentially be validating those orgs to the community. New players would be more strongly drawn to join these groups. People would be more likely to buy ships and products from these groups simply because they've heard of them before. The community itself would, to some extent, view these organizations more highly because they've been arbitrarily identified as "important". This would put smaller groups at a serious disadvantage.
 
Think about it: you're a new player cruising the market with absolutely no idea what to buy and you see two ships in your price range. One is an unfamiliar ship built by some no-name industrial corp with 6 members, and the other is a mass-market design from some major organization who's name you've seen around a few times. Even if the indy design is slightly better and more affordable, most people will buy the brand they've heard of, because their subconscious tells them that must be better simply because they've heard of it (after all, if it's good, why haven't I heard of it?).
 
Obviously this is going to happen no matter what we do, but I don't think that's a line the wiki should be drawing, and definitely not before the game has even launched. The point of a wiki is to help people learn the game, not to advocate for one group or another, even indirectly.

So far it seems like the two sides are pretty close together on the issue. We all agree that obviously some player content will have to be on the wiki, like major cities and space stations, trade hubs, star gates, and so on; and even those most strongly in favor of adding orgs to the wiki can agree that it shouldn't be for advertising or propaganda purposes. So, to refocus the discussion, it seems like the largest issue is whether or not there should be biographies for individual organizations and players.
 
In relation to that issue, first I'd like to say that arguing for or against having multiple websites is a serious waste of time. There will be multiple websites, no matter what we say about it. That's not a bad thing at all. If you can't handle searching multiple websites for information, then you probably can't handle playing a game like DU, where virtually all of the game world is a PvP zone. What's most important here is that each website be clear and useful, and it's hard to accomplish either of those goals when you're attempting to do everything. So, the wiki should be focused on accomplishing a specific goal: being a central location for people to go to get a basic understanding of topics essential to playing the game.
 
So, to go back to the EVE example: If I were to write an EVE wiki, I would definitely include a page just about Jita, because it's the most important system in the game. I'd also probably include a page on suicide ganking and smartbombing on gates, because those are important things to look out for. These are player created activities and content, but they're essential parts of playing the game, so they would belong in a wiki. However, I wouldn't write an article about specific alliances, like Pandemic Legion for example, because you don't have to know who PL is to have fun in EVE. I wouldn't bother with keeping track of who's flying where, how many pilots they have, what systems they hold, their current tactics, and so on, because those things change all the time and aren't really essential to playing EVE. Furthermore, websites like Evewho and Dotlan do those jobs much better than I could with a wiki. So, players would come to my wiki to find out about how to play the game, but they'd go someplace else to find out about the other people playing the game.  
 
Similarly, a DU wiki should focus on explaining things like the building mechanics, how to set up a Territory Control Unit, how to find the best ores, or where the most important cities and space stations are. Leave the tracking of organizations to other websites that will do so more effectively. If new players want to figure out which organizations to join, they should be going to the community portal, or some other website dedicated to detailing orgs, and not the wiki. 

I think we need to separate "essential game concepts" from organizations in the wiki. However, in a single shard universe, some player made content will be essential. For example, no guide to EVE Online would be complete without mentioning Jita and the vital role it plays in the game. Jita is only Jita because the players decided that it is, so that's definitely a function of player content, not the game. The content on the wiki should definitely include similar issues that are highly important to how we play the game.
 
However, adding articles about organizations themselves seems like a bad idea. Doing so will present a huge array of problems. Those articles will need to be updated constantly to represent changes in those orgs. Any org on the wiki would have a built-in advantage over everyone else simply on the basis of being more well known. By including an org you'd automatically offend any org that doesn't get included, and that could also spiral into a flame war on the wiki between orgs that hate each other.
 
Nevermind the fact that including orgs at this time seems really silly given that none of us have even played the game yet. We don't actually know what each org will be doing, who will be on who's side, and so on, because the game doesn't even exist yet. As of right now, all discussions about orgs and their function is entirely hypothetical and academic, so making a big deal about it seems incredibly arrogant.
 
So no, leave orgs off the wiki. Maybe include some player content later, but right now it's very premature. 

Firstly, the main contributors to the wiki should and do have the most say, since they are the ones actually putting in their own time to create the content.  So hats off to you.

Secondly, mentioning orgs in a game wiki is a slippery slope, when does it stop being factual and accurate and start becoming just another form of advertising?  Even cities may not be there forever. Orgs come and go and constantly updating a wiki to remain up to date seems a tad unnecessary.  I am sure there will be another site dedicated to the current galactic/political map of the game.  
 
That said, org game mechanics should definitely be in the wiki, but mentioning specific orgs, I feel should not be.  This is my opinion and I don't hold it against others if they have a differing one  

The wiki should be for two things:
game mechanics, information, data, etc.... player interaction mechanics (like @Vorengard posted above with his examples from EVE) The wiki should not be for player information: information about specific players, orgs, or alliances. That stuff is for the community site, tools, or what have you.

Why list orgs when we have the community portal which is going to be integrated into the game anyway? I mean there are 1500+ orgs, who decides which orgs make it into the list?
 
As a compromise i'd say big cities, places of interest, and general nice places to visit should be added to a separate section of the wiki so you can distinguish between the 2 easily. Even if you put a little history into the page about which org built/run/found the area then that's fine, it all adds to the player experience. And, as others have said, new players can find these places easily.
 
Also this would need some form of rules set to be able to add it to the list, like it's needs to be of a minimum size or a minimum number of player visits a day, I don't know just examples
 
If not then the list could be endless and very daunting for anyone let alone new players.

I think we need to separate "essential game concepts" from organizations in the wiki. However, in a single shard universe, some player made content will be essential. For example, no guide to EVE Online would be complete without mentioning Jita and the vital role it plays in the game. Jita is only Jita because the players decided that it is, so that's definitely a function of player content, not the game. The content on the wiki should definitely include similar issues that are highly important to how we play the game.
 
However, adding articles about organizations themselves seems like a bad idea. Doing so will present a huge array of problems. Those articles will need to be updated constantly to represent changes in those orgs. Any org on the wiki would have a built-in advantage over everyone else simply on the basis of being more well known. By including an org you'd automatically offend any org that doesn't get included, and that could also spiral into a flame war on the wiki between orgs that hate each other.
 
Nevermind the fact that including orgs at this time seems really silly given that none of us have even played the game yet. We don't actually know what each org will be doing, who will be on who's side, and so on, because the game doesn't even exist yet. As of right now, all discussions about orgs and their function is entirely hypothetical and academic, so making a big deal about it seems incredibly arrogant.
 
So no, leave orgs off the wiki. Maybe include some player content later, but right now it's very premature. 

I think we need to separate "essential game concepts" from organizations in the wiki. However, in a single shard universe, some player made content will be essential. For example, no guide to EVE Online would be complete without mentioning Jita and the vital role it plays in the game. Jita is only Jita because the players decided that it is, so that's definitely a function of player content, not the game. The content on the wiki should definitely include similar issues that are highly important to how we play the game.
 
However, adding articles about organizations themselves seems like a bad idea. Doing so will present a huge array of problems. Those articles will need to be updated constantly to represent changes in those orgs. Any org on the wiki would have a built-in advantage over everyone else simply on the basis of being more well known. By including an org you'd automatically offend any org that doesn't get included, and that could also spiral into a flame war on the wiki between orgs that hate each other.
 
Nevermind the fact that including orgs at this time seems really silly given that none of us have even played the game yet. We don't actually know what each org will be doing, who will be on who's side, and so on, because the game doesn't even exist yet. As of right now, all discussions about orgs and their function is entirely hypothetical and academic, so making a big deal about it seems incredibly arrogant.
 
So no, leave orgs off the wiki. Maybe include some player content later, but right now it's very premature. 

I would like to compliment the artists who are designing the elements.  I thought the early placeholders where good, but when I see the recent designs, I am impressed that they have become even better.  In a science fiction setting, it seems easy to make things appear either too mundane or too fantastic, but I feel the artists are getting the balance just right and giving the elements a strong sense of believably. 
 
These are obviously very talented people who put a large amount of care into their work and I thank them for their contribution to DU.

I don't know how everyone else feels about this, but I would like the ability to start purchasing DAC's now to help with the fundraising. 
 
I'm one of the people who has a high pledge already (Boosted Emerald) and so going to the next level will set me back ~$4000.
 
Instead of doing that, or having to open a second account to pledge, I think it would be useful to be able to pledge in smaller increments by purchasing DAC's now ahead of release.
 
In addition to that, I would love to be able to purchase pledges to give away. I know that technically you're not "buying" Alpha access with a pledge, it's more of a perk and a thank-you for pledging at all. However, I also know there are plenty of people out there who just don't have the financial means to be able to get into Alpha but would be valuable members of the community if they could provide feedback and help to get the word out a bit more.
 
Opening these options up would allow me (and others in my position) to continue to help the fundraising efforts, and to also help bring more people into the community. 
 
 
tl;dr : 

- I want to be able to purchase DAC's now to help with Fundraising
- I want to be able to purchase pledges as gifts to give away to help with Fundraising and to bring more people into the community. 

I was beginning to find it frustrating trying to hunt down little bits of information in videos in order to help people out so I thought that I would make a summary of the Dev Diaries.
 
December
Dev Team Territory Units Rendering/Lighting Beginning bot test server Ore Scanning  
January
Biomes Day/Night Cycle Smoother & Undo Tool Building Jetpack Engine Force Physics POV details Test server with 100s of bots  
February
Ship element redesign Some example ships Ghost Preview of elements Copy tool Started cockpit widgets (HTML/CSS) New Texture Baking Alpha moved to September  
March
Further cockpit widget work Atmospheric/Orbital Physics Improved Interpolation Detector & Logic Gates Interactive Component Demonstration (Laser Trap Puzzle)  
April
€650,000 milestone (construct vs. construct) Refined total flight Physics Ice Biome Crafting Basics Build Mode Detailed Information (w/ live element ghost updating)  
May
3rd Party Play-Testing Interplanetary Flight Work Stardust & Trajectory Monitor (Orange Sanic Rings) Artificial-Friction Generating Retro Engines Reentry Heating Effects 3D Planet map w/ hexagonal tiles Bookmarking Destination Tracking Pulser Unit & Pressure Plate Logic Component Redesign  
June
Alpha Information Building Brush Shapes Building on 2D plane Remote Ship Control Player Momentum Continuity 1000 bots & 100 constructs test server  
July
LUA scripting
Control Unit & Script Editor Window
Element Events & Functions
Screen Unit
Text & HTML/SVG
Imported Images
LUA programing
Emergency Control Unit Simple Damage Model & Repairing  

Once again, everyone is thinking about what they want, rather than what needs to be done to make the game a success. 
 
There will have to be censorship of certain content because actual real-world countries have laws about what kind of media you can promulgate. So, if there are giant billboards flashing the swastika or other Nazi propaganda, NQ could potentially face fines, or even the banning of DU, under German law. The same could be said for statements that are racist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, or whatever, in countries like France or Great Britain, or under EU hate-crime laws.
 
Personally, I don't really care. Internet trolls don't bother me much. But there are people with real power in the real world who feel differently. Furthermore, it will not be good for DU to become known as a game filled with racists and haters (which is what people will say if there's swastikas everywhere, regardless of the intentions) because then the vast majority of people won't play it. That is bad for the game for obvious reasons. I'm sure the next comment will be someone ranting about how they don't want to play with people who can't take constant Hitler jokes, but in reality a game like DU needs a decently large player base just to have a functioning economy. This isn't about you, it's about having a successful game, so get over yourself.
 
Tl;dr - There will be censorship, and that is a good thing. Your precious feelings can get over it, because DU is a game, not a free speech simulator.