Schoff

I can't say whether this is old news or already sorted--I'm following DU but I'm not on the forums too much. Great topics though. Here are a few of my thoughts on the subjects-- Travel I like the idea of travel being slow, but I wouldn't expect NQ to implement a 12 hour travel time between solar systems. I could imagine it taking 3-5 hours between systems, but that's a complete guess. Obviously, this will be dependent on the speed your traveling, which is likely to rely on the type of tech/ship you are flying. Regarding stargates--I understand your position on not wanting them in the game, but I don't think that's the answer. NQ needs to cater to the masses, and people want to be able to travel to different areas of the game without signing up for a 5 hour excursion. Nothing to fret over though--we are not likely to see these in games for at least many months upon release. Hell, I doubt NQ will even have the features designed/implemented upon release. It will take time for people to build the technology on Alioth, let alone travel to another system to link the two together. I'm hopeful that NQ will spend some time balances stargates when the time comes. I doubt they want them to only be dominated by a single org. Big Ships Couldn't have said it better. While there will need to be empty space to house cargo, they should certainly be filled with equipment. Having prerequisites for certain equipment, or safeguards against damage/malfunctions via installation of backup/complimentary equipment is a great idea to "fill" a space ship. That being said--they shouldn't be filled for the sake of being filled. Everything should have a reason, and the various pieces/types of equipment should be scaled/proportionate compared to the ship as a whole. Blueprints Sorry to burst your bubble, but don't expect blueprints to go anywhere. I understand your concerns regarding certain designs becoming the "go-to" for the planet, but that's merely one of the results of a crafting/manufacturing system them puts the control in the player's hands. Hell--if someone makes a "perfect ship", why shouldn't it be the go-to for the planet? That's a function of the player-made economy. There will always be people that will make their own ships, even if it's a minor variation from the norm.

Eating and drinking shouldn't be necessary to survive. They should be implemented, but used for buffing crafting, pvp, other traits. I would like a system similar to Star Wars Galaxies. The items provide another layer to the player-made economy, providing a whole market for players to be involved in. Harvest/manufacturing/distributing--all these things would be managed by players. It's a great content creator, but it doesn't need to be something everyone needs partake in if they don't want to.

In the KS comments (too many to sort through) and in a livestream where JC answered a bunch of questions. Don't have the time or desire to go hunting for it. EDIT - NVM, someone linked it!

It's been said many times that Alpha will not happen until after March. Saying Jan-May is misleading. Alpha is expected in Q2 of 2017.

I'd stay away from saying early 2017. I know you qualify it with "not before March", but some people see "early 2017" and stop reading. Additionally, it's not really early 2017 if it's after Q1. Just say Q2. That implies April-June.

I get what you're saying, but I think you aren't taking into consideration the size of the planet and how that will provide many different areas for essential (valuable) resources. Organization are going to distance themselves and get their bases set up, and no one really knows the complexities of the territory system when it comes to capturing, securing, and attacking/defending. We do know that it's not going to be something that you can pull off in a few hours, so it will take significant planning for an organization to completely take control of another's territory. For me, it's about the game being established under the premise/gameplay style that results from having CvC combat. This means lots more coordination among friends to secure important areas, whereas without CvC, and player can come waltzing in without a care to what's around them. Simply put--there's a lot less to worry about. Some would argue that's a good thing, but I like challenges and creating opportunities for coordinated organizations to begin taking control of certain areas/aspects of the game. It's important to note that there are a lot of great organizations out there. Not every organization is out to reign with an iron fist.

Much of what you're asking about will be handled through the Rights & Duties Management System. Check out this devblog if you haven't read it. Essentially, when you buy something from a market, you will be able to designate a 3rd party to interact with the market and access the goods you purchased. What UI will this be done through? No one knows. But the system is there. I believe the system can be specific enough as to limit the ability of the 3rd party to only pick up the item, put it in their ship, and drop it off at the buyer's specified location. The 3rd party carrier will not be able to sell the item or trade it to someone else, for instance. I don't think anyone can speak to exactly how this would work in-game, in terms of what proximity the ship needs to be from the container. Presumably, the radius will be enough to where landing won't be a huge concern. Remember though--ships aren't going to come right away. The first markets won't even have ships in mind. Maybe they will require market owners to invest in the infrastructure of the market, creating landing pads and ample room for their customers.

Hate to say it, but I agree. I loved the hidden hangar and the feel of the area. Then I see 3 people creating a few boxes and adding a few pre-made items. Then we get a wonderful top view (0:38 second of the video) and see the wings aren't even symmetrical. :facepalm: Not a fan of minimal-effort videos. While I have no doubt the KS will be funded, I think it could have gone much better with some more solid videos where you can see there was an effort putting the time in.

Agreed with Pang. DAC's are meant to be used for subscription time for the official game. Not alpha/beta testing versions of the game.

Is this not confirmed? It seems like skill caps are something they intend, given they are allowing you to have 3 characters. If not, I hope there are skill-caps too. Even if they are relatively high and allow for unrelated specializations.

975,431

I too agree with Lethys. All your stuff is taking up resources and you're (probably) training skills most of the time when you're offline. It doesn't make sense to not be charging the consumer for that time.

Welcome! There are a lot of good topics/idea floating around on the forums. Start taking a look and getting involved!

I think NQ should have a repository of hundreds of potential names. Let the person who discovers it pick from the list of names, or allow them to input a suggestion and have NQ approve it.

Seriously? It's your tact that is lacking, Twerk. And your grammar/ability to form sentences & paragraphs, but that's another problem. The first thing you say is: "Welcome to the forums. You are a freeloader." That's a real great way to welcome someone to the community...

Seriously though. Such BS that Twerk gets away with posting shit like this. Regarding the OP - please check the many other threads/discussions that address the subscription model. At the end of the day, a single purchase w/ microtransactions is not enough to keep such a large-scale game going multiple years while also not being pay-to-win. Server costs, development costs, admin/customer service--the list goes on. It just won't work, and it's not going to change. Do know that there is an in-game alternative to buying subscription time called DAC's. This will be an item you can buy with in-game currency and redeemed for 1-month of subscription time. This is a good compromise for the game being subscription based.

This is a good point and leads me to believe that NQ's decision is heavily influenced by not wanting griefers, and less about whether it's possible from a resource/server stability perspective. I can't say I disagree with them -- but, as we discussed, I would love to see some type of damage model for certain aspects of the ship to avoid players flying around without a care. Great chat -- I'm going to sign-off from this thread. Let's hope NQ sees this and does something of the sort! o7

This is where I believe it becomes too demanding on the client/server to process all of that information. You can imagine the physics needed to calculate the damage caused by CvC, especially when trying to simulate the result on a voxel level. Which is why I was suggesting a more scaled down version, that looks to certain components and changes their values, instead of making things graphic heavy. But, even with "my" system, it doesn't mean it's still doable from a technological perspective. End of the day--of course they could implement CvC damage. But it would tank the server and performance. Just as a free-shooting system isn't really possible, and they need to instead use a target-lock system. At least, that's they way I understand it.

I realize the terminology may not be correct, but it seems there is/should be a difference between fall damage and collision damage. The differences seem obvious enough, but implementing a system to differentiate collision vs. fall damage may be a problem. For me, though, it seems more important to implement a system to capture/inflict fall damage. As you said--you shouldn't be able to drop out of a ship and take no damage. This is where a simple 'fall damage calculation' could kick in. But then it becomes difficult to differentiate falling verse colliding. Maybe it's only when a player (not construct) hits a surface. Instead of looking at it on a construct level. Regarding CvsC collision damage -- I completely agree that zero implementation would take away from players having to act with a certain level of care. Maybe they can come up with a more simple system to damage the functionality of certain aspects of the ship. For instance, if you hit your main engine (or in the area), your engine's maximum power would be reduced by a certain percent. This would scale down to a minimum level, depending on the amount of damage. So, no changes to voxels, but collisions still having an effect on a ship's performance. They could apply this to other aspects of the ship, like thrusters used for turning--damaging them would make you turn less effectively, or certain weapon systems (overheating, rate of fire adjustments, etc). Then, to address performance, you can make the collision system only process this calculation if the collision was hard enough. So, now the system isn't overloaded with minor collisions that would deal 0 damage. Just a thought.... and I have no clue if that's possibly to implement in a way that isn't too resource intensive. But surely, it's better (from a resource perspective) than having to calculate voxel damage/destruction.

I'm not so sure that fall damage cannot be implemented if CvsC collisions aren't in the game, if that's what you're getting at. It seems that a calculation to determine impact with the ground could be simplified (impact speed > xxx amount = damage). Again--I'm not certain, but I think this is different than CvsC collisions and implementing voxels being destroyed, area of impact, destroying/editing construct/terrain based on impact, etc. Regarding collisions in general, I'm happy with the decision not to implement CvsC collisions. I forsee way too much trolling if that wasn't the case, especially when it comes to people flying ships into buildings. Additionally, if they were to implement a collision system that required massive amounts of armor that essentially made it not feasible (compared to other crafts), then why even have it in the game? If there is such a disadvantage to creating a 'ramming ship' (which I agree, there would need to be), only very few people will make one at all. At least, I think. At that point--it seems better that the time/resources are spent elsewhere. Just my .02. This is a great thread, and I appreciate the format you've established for the discussion.

This is my TL;DR to a discussion on this topic, part of which is quoted in the OP. TL;DR Lootable DAC's, but implemented in a way that there is no use risking DAC's from the start of the game. Make them easily traded within the planet/star system without any risk. After a few years/many months, there becomes a need to transport DAC (risking them) to new planets/star systems. This creates gameplay around DAC's being lootable. It creates a market that charges premiums for transported DAC's, but provides a means for players to acquire cheaper DAC's in safe zones. This creates more gameplay (aside from transporting/trading/providing security), as players need to travel (public transportation) between systems to retrieve their discounted DAC, unless the decide to pay a premium for DAC already in their system. ___________________________________________________________________________________ To elaborate on this: I think a lootable system noted above, where players are safe to trade within the planet, would be beneficial to NQ and the community in the long run. It's clear that a lower supply will increase the price of a product. In-game, we would see DAC prices on newly established planets be much higher than the starting planet. It's a fair assumption that people who migrate to the new planet would need to purchase DAC's after a certain amount of time. So, they either pony up and pay the premium, hitch a ride back to lower-DAC planet, or pay NQ directly in real money. So it looks like this: Pony up and pay premium: Everyone makes out. The buyer, knowing he was going to a new planet, took a risk at having to pay a premium for DAC's. Such is life (quite literally, that's how it would work). The seller makes out like a bandit, but deserves it! He/she had to risk DAC's on a lootable transit. But with risk comes reward (or ruin). And, in the end, it's better for NQ, because players remain in the game and there is a greater desire for the sellers to purchase DAC's for resale, because there is a lucrative market. ​Yes, if they were nonlootable each player would still be playing. But that last point, about the lucrative market, is an important one. Hitch a ride back: Obviously, the player can't be stranded on the planet. They would need to be allowed to travel back to the Arkship on the new planet, and get a ride back to the low-cost DAC planet. Even when he/she has no game time left. But, that's easily implemented--allow the player to walk around and board craft, but not be able to interact with anything but a Market. This would be a great way to allow people to check out what's going on in DU, but require the purchase of DAC's in order to partake in anything but looking around. As noted above, in the TL;DR, this promotes transit as a career, which is better for the community, which is better for NQ. Pay NQ: Well, no reason to go into this one.... I'm a big proponent for lootable DAC's but I'm certainly not looking to screw over some poor schleb leaving the Arkship when the game goes live. That simply can't and won't happen. But, that doesn't mean there is no other way to implement lootable DAC's. You just have to be creative. Edit-- And, in the meantime, players who don't want to bear any risk can buy/sell DAC's all they want in save environment. Back on the starter planet. And, over time, the once "new" planets, that are now estblished, become eligible for DAC's to be purchased right on the planet. This would bring equalibrium across the markets, for those deemed eligible to purchase DAC's right on the planet.

5,600 backers support subscriptions. Please, please don't compare DU Kickstarter to Star Citizen. I'm a fan of Star Citizen, but the games are very different. And just because SC went viral on Kickstater/internet doesn't mean every good/potentially good game has to in order to be a success.

He should be ashamed of himself for suggesting H1Z1 would cater towards SWG vets.

Edit your post then! Explain that while you would like it to be non-sub, you understand why it has to be. If that's the case, of course....