Vorengard

If you think the only things worth fighting over in a game are actual money and its real-world equivalent, then I've got some news for you...
 
No, but seriously. EVE has this mechanic, and a tiny fraction of the game play has anything to do with PLEX thefts, ganks, or plans to engage in such. Yes there are people who do this, but not very many of them. Their successes are few and far between, and if the ability to move PLEX was removed the game would not suffer very much.
 
I wish DACs were actual objects, but I'm not going to spend any time crying about the fact that they're not.

Not the end of the world for me - concept would have been interesting however.
 
I don't think they would have been the largest commodity stolen later on however, enough people would play it safer. Thus, see above.

75 backers showed up to their open house LAST NIGHT and played the pre-alpha on a multi-player test server.
 
How much more open can you get?

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

Found some of the unfo on the wiki, and here is how it sounds like it'll work.
 
Territory Units (TU's) are what will allow an organization to claim an area. Once that TU is in place, seems like that org will unilaterally get to decide how that zone will work. Laws, building rights, mining rights, etc. This makes sense from a "we want players to be able to build civilizations" standpoint to prevent random players from walking into your metropolis and turning it into swiss cheese with sphere voxel deletion, or crashing their ship into your base.
 
This also makes it sound as though in a hex with a TU, unauthorized players won't be able to edit terrain at all, so no mining or digging, no greifing whatsoever.
 
But before you pvp folks flip out over this, I don't thing TU's will be safe zones, i bet structures can be attacked and damaged, just not built or edited by outsiders. So you won't be able to walk in and delete the wall to my vault, but i'm willing to bet you could shoot it up and eventually destroy components that can be locked onto. We might see a system like rust where attackers can damage strictures, but it would take a good ammount of time and resources to break through defenses. A seige should take long enough that an all-nighter can't undo enough work to shrek people who have day jobs.
 
Link http://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Territory_Control

I personally like the thought of a power-dependent shield

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 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.

sooooo... its their fault for having a life besides the game?
(or for making a corp with only RL friends, or similar craziness....)
 
sounds like fair game design

Heyho,
 
in a post NQ-Nyzaltar wrote that they have 3 ideas for safezones on other planets. Here i want to share my idea.
 
In our Universe are thousand of Arkships but they all crashed.
Now when people start exploring they can find crashed (ruins of) arkships, my idea is that the community can repair those ships to create safezones like on the first planet. But to repair them you will need many resources. Maybe you can design it like a Event.
 
But another variant is that a organization can "capture" this Arkship/safezone if they have enough resources. But you will need guys who use the material to repair the ship. While they repair it the other guys have to protect the workers and the arkship. If the enemy deals enough damage (Arkship Repair reached -1%) the repair failed and it cant be repaired in the next 30mins. after 30mins another organization can try it or the same can try it again.

I understand what you are saying. I can relate to the sentiment. But what you propose goes against the statement delivered in the kickstarter video. 
I can imagine us playing this game for years what if in year 2 I decide to switch careers? Should I be forced to roll an alt every time I want to play a different role?
 
How about a miner always being at the mercy of a combat oriented player? In a game that promotes freedom and flexibility I see a hard cap system as counter productive.
 
Unless we can come up with something new and innovative I still see the Eve system as being the best solution for a game like DU.

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.

IMO this should all be controllable with RDMS:
 
For the constructs themselves:
Right to generate blueprint from construct
Right to add to a construct (voxels, elements, paint)
Right to remove from a construct
If the repairing mechanic is different from add/removing (which I hope it is, since you could repair without being able to add/remove), Right to repair
Right to trade
Right to use/interact

For the blueprints:
Right to switch between reuseable and one time use BP
Right to use manually
Right to use in a factory unit
Right to trade
If BPs are/can be contained in a physical thing, right to overwrite physical thing with another construct BP
If BPs are/can be contained in a physical thing, right to copy to another physical thing with rights identical to first BP
Rights should transfer in a specific way from blueprint to construct built from the blueprint. Either inherited from the original construct, or owner specifies rights at time of blueprinting. Owner would only be able to grant rights which he has.
 
This probably won't be an exhaustive list, but that's the general idea. Every action which can be taken with the BPs or BPing a construct should be associated with a right which is manageable by the RDMS.
 

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

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?
 
 

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?
 
 

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.

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

(Posted Friday 8th of April 2016 on the DevBlog)        Today, we want to share with you our view on a delicate topic: how we plan to monetize our game. Monetizing an online game is a difficult exercise: if it's not profitable, it dies quickly. If it's overpriced, it turns off players and the game dies as well. Adding the fact that there is no monetization model fitting perfectly for every type of game and this can give a quite serious headache to make it right, even when the guys in charge have experience in the field. Finding the adequate equilibrium is never easy. We have given a lot of thoughts on the topic, collected feedback from the community and listed a number of related critical points and checked how each model is adapted for each of them. We wanted to share our conclusion with you.   Being able to play the game without spending money   Nowadays, this is an unavoidable topic when it comes to start playing a new game. This is something everybody would appreciate. It's possible in some context, but there is always some inconveniences to balance it. But let's see how each model can answer to this point:   Free to Play (F2P)

This model has been created around this very idea. It gives the opportunity to gather a bigger community and it becomes easier for players to find people to play with. However, it is very difficult to apply it flawlessly, and it's not always a fitting model for a game for many reasons, as you will see below. Buy to Play (B2P)

This model is completely the opposite. Even if sometimes you can test for a very short amount of time the game (limited in game time and/or gameplay), a player will have to pay the whole game at some point, and it might be a paywall that turns off players with a low budget.
  Pay to Play (P2P)

This model has evolved through the last decade and yes, it has become possible to play a game for free with a P2P model in its latest form, where the subscription fee can be optional. This evolution have already been successfully implemented by major MMO games, in particular Eve Online (the PLEX system) and it's the one we are interested in. How is this possible? In any MMO community, there are generally two player categories: those with a small/tight budget for games but a lot of free time and those who have a limited time to play games but a significant budget for them. Many activities in a MMO require a significant amount of in-game money. Acquiring a large sum of in-game money takes time. Players with a limited game time generally want to skip that step if they can. The system offers them to buy a token worth a monthly sub and trade it with  another player for in-game money. Players with a low budget for games can play for free if they invest enough time in the game and gather a large amount of in-game money to buy a token from a player selling one. As there is also a free trial period, a player who is really active may gather enough in-game money before the end, and continue to play without having to spend a cent. Basically, this is the reward for contributing to the in-game Economy. Everybody wins.     Responsibilizing players for their actions   Most of the players interact nicely between them without feeling obligated to do so but a small part always like to cause trouble (especially harassment or cheating), just to annoy other people or to gain an unfair advantage. In general, the Terms of Service (ToS) and more specifically End User Licence Agreements (EULA)  exist for the troublemakers. To discourage them to generate chaos in a community, the rules put in place need to be efficient, and all models are not equal in this regard.  
Free to Play 

This is one of the biggest weakness of the F2P model: Most of the troublemakers are players who do not spend money in the game. As they haven't spent any money, they generally don't care if their account(s) are banned. They just have to recreate new ones and can continue with the same behavior.
  Buy to Play 

In a B2P structure, a player wanting to make trouble will think twice before creating disorder in the community, if their account can be banned and they lose the money they invested to  buy the game. Of course, this won't make such behavior disappear completely. There are still a few people who will behave badly no matter what, but most troublemakers will refrain themselves if they have something to lose.
  Pay to Play 

On recent P2P games some features are locked on trial accounts (especially features that could be abused to gain advantages with an unlimited number of accounts or harass other players). Once the player has invested a significant amount of time in the game or paid for it, they are no longer in trial mode. Hence if the player start a ruckus, they have something to lose.     Getting a high-quality Customer Support   For a MMO game, Customer support is an important aspect that can make the difference between a player who stays and a player who leaves. Customer support is there to help players to solve any problems they have, be it a bug (in which case CS transmit it to the devs), a question, or a conflict with another player. Again, all monetization models are not equally designed to handle the task.   Free to Play 

F2P games usually have a number of players far more important than the size of the customer support team can handle. The size of the customer support team is dictated by the global income of the company, where the size of the community is not. This tends to degrade the quality of the support, as trade-offs have to be made to handle the increasing number of requests.
  Buy to Play 

Due to the fact that each player must pay for the game, the customer support team will be able to better manage the number of requests they have from the community as a part of the money coming from each sale can be allocated to financially support the customer support team. However, for an MMO (for which we can hope a very long life, like a decade or even more) this might cover the first years but after that, the situation will be the same as the F2P game, where the sustainability of the game will rely only on the players spending in a possible Cash Shop, unless a paid DLC or expansion system is put in place to generate revenue.
  Pay to Play 

This is the only long-term, healthy way to support financially high quality Customer Support. If budgeted well, the Customer Support team should be proportional to the size of the community and should be able to handle all players without prioritizing or favoring some players before others. Having a regular income is justified for permanent Customer Support. It's also true for other production costs like, for example, server maintenance (some MMO games have cheap server maintenance costs while other have expensive ones. It all depends on the amount of computation power needed on the server side. And on a game like Dual Universe, it will be far from trivial. This is the drawback for handling technological challenges).   So what's the conclusion?   We have synthesized a bit all the things that were taken into account, but you have here all the main reasons why we are aiming toward a Pay to Play model. In a nutshell, here's what we have planned: Free Trial period: between 2 and 4 weeks. Monthly subscription (optional with a PLEX-like system) Possible (cosmetic only) Cash Shop. If deployed, we will make it in order that every month, players who have paid a subscription will be able to get some cash shop items for free.   Of course, we will remain open to discussion on this topic like any other: don't hesitate to give us your feedback on the Social Media and/or on the forum!   The Novaquark Team.

This definitely needs to be a mechanic in the game. Some sort of assurance that when people make something they are guaranteed to be the sole author of that something, unless someone else replicates it from scratch. It will really drive people to put work and effort into making awesome things. That's definitely an important factor, I know I won't have much motivation to try hard on a ship if I think someone else is just going to steal it and take credit for it. That's why I can spend so much time making things for Space Engineers like I have, because I can put it up in my name and it is there permanently with me as the author.

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?
 
 

Newbro housing:
 

I like the idea of needing to have a shipyard to build ships but I think it would suck for new players. Perhaps an extension to your idea is that different sized ships require progressively larger shipyards.
 
For a small one man fighter, you can build with just your hands but you are limited to low tier elements. You then have access to different tiered and different sized ship yards that allow you to build in bigger volumes and more advanced features.
 
Stations would be different you can build them anywhere but you cant move them and the only restriction is being out of combat