Limyaael

Make your own. Everyone has their own sets of morals independent of their own country's rules.
 

A cursory glance at the poll's question makes it very much sound like you want people to follow a set of laws. But since you think people have misunderstood (maybe you should have elaborated in your opening post) let's overanalyse your question.
 
"Should we create community laws - some kind of unwritten space laws that define good and evil in the world of DU? For example - destroying an unsecured construct is not legal."
 
"Law" and "not legal" make it sound like these will be enforceable rules. Like the Geneva Convention. But then you mention "unwritten" - is this like the British constitution, in which it's more a set of rights defined over dozens of documents and hundreds of years, or do you mean literally unwritten, and thus not legally enforceable in any way and completely unrelated to the first part of the question? Then you mention "good and evil" - moral concepts. Are you talking about defining community morals? By unwritten rules? So what, don't be a dick to people?
 
I do understand that English may not be your first language (although with a name like Gerald and going over your previous posts, it certainly doesn't seem like it) but I don't see how you could think people would interpret your question in any way other than "Gerald_Deemer wants DU to have game encompassing laws that will affect everyone". If you wanted to talk about morals, or something other than the rule of law, make it more clear.
 

Can't rule if the police will kick your pirating ass out of the city. If you wander outside of the safe zones, and aren't armed, expect to be robbed. If you're in a city of pirates, don't be surprised when one of them scams you.
 
The frontier will always resemble the 16th century - mostly lawless, fairly difficult living. Want to make it rich and live an easy lifestyle? Live in the inner rim of systems, which will resemble the 20th century's politics more, of mostly stable nations occasionally warring. This stable lifestyle will need to be defended with the lives of many and trillions worth of ships and weaponry, but the alternative is a wild west lifestyle of shoot first, ask questions later. Stable business will arise in cities (and will be one of the reasons cities will grow, their relative safety), traders will find inner worlds a safer area to trade in - but more populated, so they're potentially going to make less money competing with many other traders.

And it's more than just this. Travel in DU isn't as easy as Eve. Or at least as easy as other people have made it seem.
 
Getting to another system will involve:
1) Starship capable of warptravel
2) A crew for said ship (I doubt if you're going to get a lot of cargo that it will be a tiny soloable starfighter)
3) Stargates between the origin and target systems (especially relevant if you live in an isolated empire that restricts international travel)
 
You might want to buy the restricted gun from a foreign system, but it'll involve you getting out of your own system and smuggling the weapon back yourself. Isn't it just easier to pay someone else?

NQ have stated that while they'd like to implement such moveable elements so that mechas can be made ingame (not that they would be effective, but they'd be fun to pilot for a bit or to form a sport around), such elements aren't even close to priority as of yet.

So, if implemented, maybe slowly over time, you lose this "mana" or calories, and everything you do takes longer. You are slower to move around, you mine slower, and build slower. It never kills you, but slows you down. A lot of survival games have fast hunger/thirst loss. I feel like in a game like this, it would be very slowly so your game time doesn't revolve around eating and drinking water. The more you do in a short span of time though, the faster your mana drains.
 
If this becomes a thing though, it should be far down the road, focusing more on the bigger aspects like building and exploring. Put this up on the fridge and fetch it later when thinking of new levels to add to the game.

When you go to create an organisation the website warns you that all the organisations will end up in the game - I'd wager that they're going to use something like that down the line.
 
 
Noooooo. The whole point in giving them the vague name of "organisation" (as opposed to company, guild, corporation or nation) is that they can be anything we want them to be. Want to be a mining company? Fine. A religious order that worships the idea of blasting out into the unknown to discover as much as possible? Fine. A group to set up monthly gatherings of the 3D mega-chess game you've created in secret in a building somewhere in Alioth's megacity? Fine. Creating abilities for organisations just limits their purposes and further shoehorns people into making them synonymous with "company" or "government".

When you go to create an organisation the website warns you that all the organisations will end up in the game - I'd wager that they're going to use something like that down the line.
 
 
Noooooo. The whole point in giving them the vague name of "organisation" (as opposed to company, guild, corporation or nation) is that they can be anything we want them to be. Want to be a mining company? Fine. A religious order that worships the idea of blasting out into the unknown to discover as much as possible? Fine. A group to set up monthly gatherings of the 3D mega-chess game you've created in secret in a building somewhere in Alioth's megacity? Fine. Creating abilities for organisations just limits their purposes and further shoehorns people into making them synonymous with "company" or "government".

When you go to create an organisation the website warns you that all the organisations will end up in the game - I'd wager that they're going to use something like that down the line.
 
 
Noooooo. The whole point in giving them the vague name of "organisation" (as opposed to company, guild, corporation or nation) is that they can be anything we want them to be. Want to be a mining company? Fine. A religious order that worships the idea of blasting out into the unknown to discover as much as possible? Fine. A group to set up monthly gatherings of the 3D mega-chess game you've created in secret in a building somewhere in Alioth's megacity? Fine. Creating abilities for organisations just limits their purposes and further shoehorns people into making them synonymous with "company" or "government".

There are probably a hundred threads on the forum now on the payment model...
 
Since this is your first post I'll try and clear up the issue for you, although you're not going to like the answer.
 
Most of this is summarized in this dev blog: https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2016/04/08/monetization-player-happiness-and-economic-viability/
 
The whole point of Dual Universe is that it is a single shard persistent -online- game. Trying to distribute a standalone offline game would change fundamentally the entire development model, as it is being built specifically for online play. We're talking about trying to wrap up all of the server-tech in a standalone offline game engine only to cater to people who don't want to subscribe to play, effectively splitting up the development efforts for a player base that isn't even going to contribute to the rest of the game.
 
 
The whole reason it looks like an "Amazing Experience" is because it is an online shared universe with players from all over the world, none of that would carry over to a single player game. 
 
 
tl;dr - Offline single player b2p isn't going to happen. 

But what if you're attacking a territory where you don't own anything and everyone on the other side of the only available stargate is hostile?
 
You can't create unassailable fortresses simply by virtue of owning all the land in the system. There needs to be some way to crack even the toughest of nuts.

And it's more than just this. Travel in DU isn't as easy as Eve. Or at least as easy as other people have made it seem.
 
Getting to another system will involve:
1) Starship capable of warptravel
2) A crew for said ship (I doubt if you're going to get a lot of cargo that it will be a tiny soloable starfighter)
3) Stargates between the origin and target systems (especially relevant if you live in an isolated empire that restricts international travel)
 
You might want to buy the restricted gun from a foreign system, but it'll involve you getting out of your own system and smuggling the weapon back yourself. Isn't it just easier to pay someone else?

How is he describing that at all? You want to get maximum profit out of your products, and you're trying to sneak it passed the TU's border patrols guarding their home system. If successful, you get to the black market on the homeworld's moon and sell for maximum profit. Considering that people going to a black market in such a heavily patrolled area are probably desperate for the item you can mark it up a bit too. This isn't about PvP, or P2P (who are you giving money to in this situation?), it's about being clever and evading superior enemies.
 
 
Organisation X has decreed that only merchants registered with its new Trade Agency will be allowed to transport weapons throughout their territory and sell it in their markets. The taxes are lenient, but the heavy price for registering increases all costs on weapons in the territory. A clever smuggler can pass weapons around while pretending to cargo rice between planets, make a profit, and have buyers who won't have to pay as much.
 
It's not going to be "drugs are bad, m'kay, we've banned them". It's going to be organisations' bureaucracies trying to squeeze more money out of their economy, and people who want to combine the danger of espionage with the profits of trading to make some money.

How is he describing that at all? You want to get maximum profit out of your products, and you're trying to sneak it passed the TU's border patrols guarding their home system. If successful, you get to the black market on the homeworld's moon and sell for maximum profit. Considering that people going to a black market in such a heavily patrolled area are probably desperate for the item you can mark it up a bit too. This isn't about PvP, or P2P (who are you giving money to in this situation?), it's about being clever and evading superior enemies.
 
 
Organisation X has decreed that only merchants registered with its new Trade Agency will be allowed to transport weapons throughout their territory and sell it in their markets. The taxes are lenient, but the heavy price for registering increases all costs on weapons in the territory. A clever smuggler can pass weapons around while pretending to cargo rice between planets, make a profit, and have buyers who won't have to pay as much.
 
It's not going to be "drugs are bad, m'kay, we've banned them". It's going to be organisations' bureaucracies trying to squeeze more money out of their economy, and people who want to combine the danger of espionage with the profits of trading to make some money.

Crews will start to form more naturally once we get to the game. Pirates will band together, military members will be assigned to ships, and loads of people will realise that you can't play the game solo easily.

It only ruins the economy if the centres of the economy are the places being destroyed.
 
 
And in converse, you can only sustain such a long total war when large industrial areas aren't being destroyed.
 
If organisations go into massive wars to fight over a few planets on the outskirts of their respective nations, there'll be a massive, long war. If one side manages to firebomb their enemy's industrial zones, expect the war to be short.

The fireworks sounded like two armies firing all their muskets at once...
 
Happy New Year from Melbourne, everyone. Come join us in the future.

The IBO have mentioned that they're doing "insurance," but from reading their statement it sounds like they're focused on cargo insurance more than other kinds. Of course they could expand later.
 
 
You cross the line from being a slight nuisance to a constant detriment to parts of society, civilisation will attack. I mean, in the early game the ring at the edge of the Arkzone will be one of the most tense places in the universe. It's prime piracy territory. Keep that raiding up once that area turns into a city and it's the jurisdiction of the police and they'll hunt you down. It's just an example, but you have to understand that people will respond when their bounds are overstepped, not yours.

The IBO have mentioned that they're doing "insurance," but from reading their statement it sounds like they're focused on cargo insurance more than other kinds. Of course they could expand later.
 
 
You cross the line from being a slight nuisance to a constant detriment to parts of society, civilisation will attack. I mean, in the early game the ring at the edge of the Arkzone will be one of the most tense places in the universe. It's prime piracy territory. Keep that raiding up once that area turns into a city and it's the jurisdiction of the police and they'll hunt you down. It's just an example, but you have to understand that people will respond when their bounds are overstepped, not yours.

The restricted, cheaper Kickstarter pledges aren't available, but the slightly more expensive ones are still available to be bought here. NQ have said this portal will at least stay up for another month, potentially longer. The cheapest alpha access (available sometime during the first half of next year) is the €120 Digital Gold pledge, but beta access is available (sometime in 2018) with the €60 Silver pledge.
 
Welcome to the forums.

Why should there be a mechanic that forces players to fight? Why not let players take care of that stuff? This is a sandbox, you can do what you want. There should not be any mechanics that force something upon you - players should force you.
 
And they will

I really want to hear about this, safe zone mechanics are one of the things I'm most interested in at these early stages.
 

From the perspective of promoting emergent gameplay, I think the first option is better. It creates more transport jobs to explicitly move people from safe zones to organisation headquarters (even if you have to jump through multiple safe zones to get there) than being able to jump straight to another org's homeworld. it also promotes turning every individual safe zone into trading ports over time. I can see them being harshly fought over as well, but over time they'll be more valuable for economic activity after a single org takes over, or multiple orgs agree to a truce.
 
The whole idea about warping between safe zones is a great idea either way though. Prevents Alioth from becoming the centre of the universe so harshly.

There will be a maintaining cost to occupy some space in a Safe Zone.
One possibility would be to have Aphelia becoming some sort of neutral landlord for safe zones.
The more available space become scarce in a safe zone, the higher the maintaining cost would become.
But this is just one idea among others.
Anyway, it's necessary to have a maintaining cost, to avoid many problems:
- the risk to see a rush from some players to claim all space everytime a safe zone is discovered and activated
- the fact that space in safe zones might be occupied by players who have left the game and won't come back
- the fact that organizations use safe zones abusively as invulnerable headquarters
(but for this, we have already a few other ideas of game mechanics to dissuade the use of safe zones for this purpose).
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

Well, given some people in here are not familiar with the Local Chat in EVE, I will explain real quick so you can understand.

Local Chat, is the chat in which you join upon entering a star system in EVE after a jump. That may seem non-important, when you realise the chat covers the entire star system. That means people can simply check Local and have advanced intel of your presence on the system before they can actually have a scan of your ship (which in Wormholes it's needed, since in Wormholes there's no Local Chat). Even in an invisible ship, you will still show up in the Local Chat.

Now, the arguement can be made that in EVE's universe humanity has colonised the star systems nad put up comm-arrays and all that. But in DU, it's not the case. So, here's my proposition.

Comm-Arrays, set up by a faction, enable a Local Chat within a cerrtain radius of them, with the Comm-Arrays acting as radars as well, meaning, that if you set up a Comm-Array, you got both comms for the masses that are not in your org's chat (like traders for example), with the org owning the Comm-Array acting as the adminstrator of said chat. I mean, if I want to be the Emperor, I must have a way to censor people within my Empire. I R ebil.

Said comm-arrays, of course, can only detect ships not cloaked, and cloaked ships, above a certain mass, will show up in the Local Chat, but not on the radar of the faction owning said comm-array, so no cloaked battleships sneaking up to comm-arrays.

A string of Comm-Arrays, that are interconnected, could even enable an entire star system to have a common chat room - which I guess most EVE veterans will find as a proper excuse for nuking at least ONE of those arrays to stop the scam-spam on said Local Chat in a trade-hub.

Beyond that, said arrays can act as an alarm, for when an enemy fleet arrives at your system, so your fleet can mobilise in time. Likewise, said enemy fleet may want to send forward a scout in a stealth-ship, to take down one Comm-Array by hacking it, in order for the fleet to arrive without being immediately detected. Every second counts on a blitzkrieg after all.

Furthermore, said arrays will need repair, which is an excellent reason to have jobs and duties like maintenance, with a monetary incentive for people to do said jobs, while factions would have a pretty good reason to pay high for such jobs.

One extra feature, could be for the Devs to have asteroids refresh high value minerals if no Comm-Arrays are present, with less and less quality asteroids refreshing on the system the more Comm-Arrays are present, thus creating the Risk / Reward nature of EVE's high-sec (ultra-safe systems), low-sec (relative safety system) and finally Null-Sec, which is pretty much the Australian outback.

Down the line, if NQ decides to add Sovereignity Towers for a faction to lay claim on a star system, said Comm-Arrays can be used for that, via an "upgrade" system, but that's just an afterthought.



Sorry for the long post, here's an astronaut potato :

Again a little advice:
Watch the videos, read the devblogs and read the AMA section here on the forums.
 
Don't start a thread every time you have a question unless you really can't find anything.
 
Teleportation wasn't mentioned. Perhaps it's possible but imho it would be op

Most of my comments will be concerning ships designed for military use, as I think they're the ones that will be most harmed by an approach allowing easy use of automation. If I don't mention another specific type of ship, I'm probably talking about military vessels.
 

Purposefully vague. Early game "large" ships will be in the range of smaller crews numbering in the dozens. It won't be for a few years (probably after the stargate network and a few profitable worlds are established) until capital ships with crews >50 will start being used.

Crew size won't be about some vague number. These things don't need to be simulated here - they're actually happening and can be a part of interesting tactics.

Pulling some numbers out of nowhere, let's say your organisation is at war with another similarly sized one, and you encounter large battles on a regular basis. Analysing previous battles, you've found that on average your fighters become damaged enough to require repairs at a rate of 0.25/min, and the average repair by a well-trained engineer takes two minutes. Thus, your engineers should have constant downtime in battle and really, you only need one, no? However, perhaps you're a little cautious and instead prefer to have a crew of three engineers so that in the event of an uncharacteristic set of damages, you can still get all your ships out into the fray as fast as possible. This will be more expensive (you need to hire the engineers, buy their equipment, etc.) but it could end up saving your ass. But if you can't acquire the funds, or your boss doesn't consider it important enough, your ship now costs less but could have problems.

This game will have accountants, or if not dedicated members, accounting.
 

Depends what you're doing. Are you controlling a cargo freighter with few weapons, having hired a mercenary company to protect you through no man's land between two warring factions you're smuggling between? Sure, having automatic weapons might work, and you probably don't need to be an extraordinary pilot. Just keep those shields up and watch your engine.
 
Are you controlling a dreadnaught ready to go into battle? You'll be fine getting there, but in battle you'll want proper navigators telling you exactly what's going on, a commander to coordinate everything, dedicated engineers for the engine and for your fighters' maintenance, people on comms to communicate with other ships, a first mate to help oversee everything, and gunners to control all the firepower on the ship to fire at the same time. An automated ship will be used once in battle, get utterly routed, and then no organisation will ever buy the design again because it's terrible and the free market will render automatic ships extinct.
 

It's not that it won't be allowed, but you are intentionally crippling your ship in a battle. People can't rush from the bridge to the engine room on a 20km capital ship. You can't have one person mount all the guns on each side of the ship at the same time to create a coordinated attack on the enemy's capital ships. They can't be coordinating the attack run of your fighters *and* repairing the damaged ones in the hanger bay.

Out of battle, automated ships will have a place. Freighters, diplomatic ships, people with enough money to burn and hire mercenaries, they'll all be able to use automated stuff for most things, but even then you probably want a small skeleton crew to run things more efficiently.
 

This is a problem real life ships face and one good commanders will have to effectively solve. How do you keep a company's morale up? How do you entertain them between battle? Most ships have a smaller amount of the crew manning the basics between battles with other members sitting down playing card games. No one sits at a gun all the time.
 
This is what will make good commanders invaluable. They won't just be good at coordinating attacks and battle tactics, but at having a presence and keeping their men in high spirits.
 

Once again, it's not "you must have multiple crew members". It's "sure, go solo, but you will die". Two friends might be able to coordinate what they want to do better than a nation can, but the nation has the power behind it to actually get these things done.
 

 
Furthermore, ignoring why solo/skeleton crews will be less efficient, how will solo players even be able to build ships like this? It would take forever to gather all the materials for a ship so large, let alone to script all the elements and connect them to a bridge. It just seems like an enormous waste of investment, especially in a game all about working together to rebuild humanity.

This game is about rebuilding society. Building stuff, destroying stuff, exploring and interact with other PLAYERS. It's not about killing stupid npc for a grind