SimonVolcanov

There is a good chance the devs already have a vision for this, but nothing ironed out. Sounds like a mechanic that will firm up tail end if alpha or start of beta

This seems like too many actions for unrelated parties to be responsible for. If you have a quest system that relies on many other people to take actions to ensure that you got paid, who is going to want to be responsible for all of that? What happens when those people suddenly stop caring?
 
Great job! You spent a month building the space lazer for the death star! Too bad Janet in Accounting has to sign off on your check, because she doesn't play anymore! Oh and the player you listed as a witness got the request added to his action list, but he doesn't check his email, you you aren't getting paid!
 
That would happen ALL THE TIME, often enough for players to abandon that kind of contract system. How many people started avoiding Preston in Fallout 4?
 
Just let the game handle the contract system, and work within it to improve it. If in its fully developed state there are jobs that simply don't fit in the scope of the contract system, you can always do handshake deals (about as emmersive as it gets).

The reality is there will either be an in-game contract mechanic that is enforced, or the system will break down.
 
Anybody here play rust? You know how well alliances and shops work there? Answer is really really poorly. The kinds if players that like that system and will continue to want to play it are the ones that WILL ABUSE it. If you want to play in a world where orders and contracts actually get filled, there will NEED to be a mechanic that enforces it.
 
Probably it'll work as such: there is something like a contract builder. You specify the reward and quantity, where the reward physically is, and the contract holds it until the contract either expires or is filled. You specify the conditions for success, any collateral for accepting the contract (the cost for loosing a shipment for example), and once a contract is accepted, the game itself would track success, failure, and payment. Much like the way the devbog discussed how remote purchases work, the contractor might have to physically go pick up the reward if it isn't liquid cash.
 
Eve has such a contract system, and given that this game conceptually borrows a great deal form eve, we can expect something similar here.

Wow. That's a lot of passion for something that's currently just a description on a webpage related to a game that isn't even a minimal testing functionality yet.
 
And, as for griefer orgs (I'm sure there will be some)... *sends stargate probe, flies ship through with crew... doesn't bother to build the gate.*

I'm against lootable DACs.  I DO believe the main reason they are in game is to give folks who can't afford to subscribe, a way to still be able to earn their game time. There really isn't a better reason to implement them.
 
Now don't get me wrong.  I"m not some "make it all safe candy land player".  I'm all for looting.  I'll take your resources, your ship, your house...whatever.  But I don't want to take real money from folks who can't afford to play in the first place.  How awful would that be if it happened to you?   Not only did you get ganked, now you cant even login to try to salvage some of what you lost in the first place! 
 
IMO, as long as a DAC is still a DAC it should not lootable.  As soon as it's cashed in and used to purchase something in the game, then THAT is what you loot; whatever they bought with it.  Otherwise, you WILL be stealing someone's game time.  And I just don't want people to be able to do that. 
 
I know a lot of folks take games so seriously that they want to only take game-play into account "for the success of the game" and all that.  But in the end, to me, it's just a game.  And I want everyone who wants to play it to be able to.  Makes it more fun for the rest of us.  If we allow some folks to steal other people's real money - no matter what kind of label you want to put on it -  it's only going to run folks off who would otherwise be playing the game.   It makes makes no sense and goes against the spirit of the type of gamers I like to play with. 
 
So, my vote is to just wait until someone cashes one in and then steal what they bought, if you must.  Otherwise, let players keep their RL money...sheesh!

Well, since I'm starting to become a real included member in this community, I thought I say a few things about myself.
My name is Simon, I'm 20 years old, live and Germany and am currently studying IT, but am looking for a trainee position because university is not for me... Anyway, my hobbies include videogames, coding, fantasy literature and watching My little Pony, my favorite music is metal and Nightcore and in the end I spend way too much time on the internet.
 
EDIT: Also, my love for huge walls and underground shelters that stretch for miles is unrivaled...
 
Simon Volcanov
CEO of the Volcanov Corporation

How about a huge hovervehicle? I mean, the upkeep would enormous, but with enough people and solid administration, it would be possible

How about a huge hovervehicle? I mean, the upkeep would enormous, but with enough people and solid administration, it would be possible

Yeah, this is a good plan

I wonder what games the OP's community approves... not WoW (game tokens)... not Star Citizen (cash purchase of game credits with a limit per time)... not Entropia (real cash economy - that one is certainly pay to win by any standard)... I was gonna say Runescape would quality - back when I was playing it they were stalwarts against pay to win... but gold farmers beat them and now they have a game token system (like WoW - a lot of their recent changes seem like WoW-light.). And of course, Second Life with game money on an open market - not that there's a clear way to win there.
 
Maybe I just don't travel in the right game circles, but I can't think of anything that would meet the OP's standard.

No need to write walls of colourful text. Idea must be simple and understandable.
 
If to choose from A, B and C, I choose A. And no doubt. If there would be clear point (option D): "DAC become lootable 1 hour after first trade operation between players", then I would choose D.
 
I don't know any PLEXes and not interested in. If I see "lootable DAC", that mean DAC could be stolen after player spend $/€.
Thanks,
Archonious

It's say good luck finding games to play. Because none of them with anywhere near the scope of DU are going to fit your criteria.

Construct v construct will definitely come. Only question is when. If we make the stretchgoal: On release. If not: Shortly after, because this might be the most demanded feature

So you say that fully automated constructs should be possible but take much more time?
 
That's interesting and work in the case of automated factories or mining, but what about automated defense mechanism or automated exploring mechanism that needs real time reaction to avoid utter destruction? Then that won't work.
 
I don't think it will become grindy and tedious to refuel or replenish the necessary resources because of storage : it will be a task to do only every X hours/days.
Plus it will limit the size of these automated constructs because everything would scale with size and in particular the frequency you will have to refuel.
It would work as a soft cap limit.

If DAC's are not lootable there would not be a need to transport valuable materials from one location to another. You would just sell your materials at location A, buy a DAC [or multiple] and travel to location B and use the DACs to buy new materials.
 
Obviously there would still be situations where you would have to transport the raw resources, i.e. establishing a new outpost somewhere. But it a lot of cases you could just digitize your belongings and have someone else do the hauling. You would avoid most of the risk, and in turn a lot of the emergence.
 
 

 
If people feel the urge to take a stroll with their [126*19,95€ =] 2.513,7€ shuttle, then I see no need to not let them.
 
Letting DAC become a safe way of moving wealth across the universe would rob the game of all that ensues in interplanetary bulk transport, and in turn make any freighter redundant, except moving resources into a new area.
In my opinion this would break more than it would fix. Add a warning saying something like this: "Redeeming this item will create a physical item, this physical item can be lost. Please ensure your safety while carrying this item"

Is this really what we've come to? Slinging insults back and forth at one another?
 
We're trying to have an open discussion about this to find a way that makes both sides happy, because there are passionate people on both sides of the issue (you wouldn't be calling people scumbags for disagreeing with you otherwise). 
 
Regardless of if you agree with their playstyle or not, those "scumbags" are going to be in the game one way or another, and they are just as much paying customers as the rest of us. Trying to exclude things that appeal to that style of gameplay simply because they make us uncomfortable thinking about isn't the right way to go about it. 
 
It's not like I don't have anything riding on this if they were lootable items, I'm getting 80 DAC's with my pledge and if I lost them all in-game that would be on me.
 
I mean really, look at at my posts here, do I really seem like the kind of person that's going to be a pirate? I'm interested in much deeper gameplay than that. Though I understand that it's an important element and style of gameplay that needs to exist. 

I can understand why people want them to be non-lootable, which is why I am in support of the "compromise" myself.
 
I think that alleviates the fears of backers that they will lose their DAC's that they paid for, and gives an incentive for kickstarter backers. 
 
There would certainly be a large supply of kickstarter dac's coming into the market as the game launches, but after a while they would disappear from the market and their value as a non-lootable item would be negated by the fact that people are mostly buying them to use them rather than hoard them.
 
Post-launch DAC buyers would have to be aware of the terms of buying them, and it's not such a difficult mechanic that it's impossible for people to figure out. Eve has managed to survive with their plex model for quite a while now. 
 
 
 
I might even be in favor of a mechanic where DAC's can't be destroyed, but rather they are dropped or kept in your inventory when you die based on some other probability.
 
I would also be in favor of a mechanic where DAC's can't just "disappear" because they're not looted in time. Rather they could return to the inventory of the person who dropped them. 
 
 
I just don't want to see a situation where they become a secondary form of currency or way of storing irrevocable value to an asset simply because they can't be stolen. 

And today on people trying to sound smart while talking about nothing....

If you buy it for yourself, you can use it at anytime, however if you want to trade it to someone else you have to convert it into an ingame item to trade to someone else.
 
If someone buys it from you, they don't have to fly to you to get it to use it, they can just select it from their assets inventory and activate it from wherever they are in space. 
 
So the only point to converting one into a game item is to trade it to someone else on the ingame markets. However trying to physically fly that ingame item to somewhere else takes on the risk of losing it.
 
In eve there is a maximum distance for which you can place buy orders on markets, so people inevitably fly stacks of them out to deep space to sell on hard to reach markets. When the population of a given region of space changes, people inevitably end up moving those PLEX to different markets to try and sell them. They, however, are taking on a huge risk to try and move such a valuable item in hostile space. The reward for doing it through could net someone 10%-20% more in profit than they would in other regions of space. 
 
 
 
Perhaps a good balance might in fact be to allow DAC's to be lootable after they have been traded, but I would lean towards the mechanic that makes them lootable once they enter someone else's inventory. That would prevent people from selling DAC's to someone far away and then immediately stealing them. I can see a whole slew of issues that could arise from that type of mechanic though.
 
I still think the Eve system would work fine for DAC's. If we want to trade them, we take on the risk for bringing them into the game as items, if we want to use them we don't have to turn them into ingame items at all to redeem them. 

I'll continue to say, I think they should have followed the Eve Online model.
 
- PLEX does not have to be converted into an ingame item immediately
- You do not have to be in the same station as your PLEX to redeem it
- You do not have to bring it into the game to redeem it
- If you convert it to an ingame item, you can trade it to other players
- If it is an ingame item it can be stolen while moving it through space
 
 
Why do people move PLEX through space if they can just redeem them from wherever they are? 
 
That is a question nobody will ever really have a concise answer to, but it's something that happens and many people suffer the consequences for taking that risk. 

Yeah. So why make them unlootable? If someone feels the need to risk their DACs, let them

Okay. 

In-game money are not physical , unlootable = Currency

DACs are not physical , unlootable = Premium Currency.

What kind of subscription game gives out Premium Currency? None, as PAY2WIN is the realm of Free-to-Play games.

 

Honestly the best way would be to have them digital until you want to use or sell them, then they become physical, a smart seller would protect them until they are collected and a smart buyer wouldnt buy too many rand risk loosing in game currency when they are stolen. No risk to the original transaction this way (from the sellers point of view)

I thought Kiklix disbanded COPS due to the "main forum troll's efforts", whoever that troll may be.
 
Robyn of Locksley and his Merry Men fought against a tyrant (a person ascending to the position of a king or a leader without any regard for the line of succession or protocols involved in leadership). Who was the unlawful ruler Kiklix fought against exactly?
 
 
Money is not the only way to be paid. You can trade services for stuff. You should be asking for "contractual payment in kind", AKA, you are hired to do something or fetch something or deliver something, and you get an implant as a reward as stated by the contract upon completion of the job you were hired for. That way, a DAC can be issued as a payment for a really tricky mission, like destroying 30% of a player's asset (ships, house, factory, etc.). You can also, barter for stuff. Trade a ton of banans for a ton of mangos.
 
 
I get the feeling some guys really don't know much about how economics work by this point...

Where to start - I guess IMO - no free kills (you're gonna have to work for it )
 
If we're going to talk about this, we can't limit ourselves to the idea that it's all pure PvP only. DU's setting (whether or not it's reflected IN GAME) literally will have millions of people in it.
 
So Lone Wolf's aside (having been one myself in games - it's the risk you take against reward in PvP)... Let's look at some basic realistic principles - NPC's are a good starting point. In ANY RL environment, you have consequences to an action.
 
If you show up to blat some player's city (or even an org's city) when they are "AFK", reality would point out that PEOPLE LIVE THERE. And they won't just be passive about things. The NPC populace would react - some would fight back, some will run (causing attackers and defenders logistical headaches) etc. Other orgs and NPC's would also move to take advantage - you'll get White Knights joining the defence. You might get other Orgs or NPC's attacking your bases while you're blatting the AFKer.
 
Sieges and attacks on settlements (as opposed to pure raiding - in and out) should take MONTHS. Really. Unless you want to nuke the place from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure after all). They should not be lightly entered in to. They should be expensive endeavors. They need to be planned, you need intel and stuff.
 
IT SHOULD BE HARD, and it SHOULD be rewarding if you succeed.