Semproser

lol Bullnosing is rounding a hard edge-face into a semi-cylinder. Like this:

I wouldn't worry about it, this forum is basically designed for overthinking things. Any discussion about experience with the game is under NDA and we've barely got 4 hours worth of (some very old) footage and descriptions with fairly little actual gameplay. What else can we do but overthink things

Good answers guys, thanks for chiming in.

But why bother with the risk. Why have a bank in an area that could be attacked when you could put it in an 100% safe invulnerable area. People can camp outside non-msa bases too, but they can also attack it too. Does anyone know how raw resource to general currency or other usable items will work? (like buildable ATMS, markets/general markets - where?) Will you really ever need to take things out of their safety?

I've gone through that and I'm still not seeing a reason anyone would ever put time into building OUTSIDE a safezone, therefore what ever will there be to do PVP with? Why DOES someone build something outside the safezone where they can't be raided and cant lose their stuff - hence how can raiding or war ever be a viable option? Surely you can just mine your stuff cheaply without any non essential structures and transport the goods frequently, leaving little to ever plunder. If a secret and evil organisation wanted to steal from the USA then they rob a bank, not steal a lumberjacks wallet while he cuts wood.

found this info: A Territory Unit is an inventory item that allows you to claim a hexagon of land in the game. When on a claimed hexagon, only the owner of that Territory Unit can build upon it. However, please keep in mind that this does not protect you from a player’s direct assault. There are two kinds of Territory Units: Normal Territory Units Sanctuary Territory Units Normal Territory Units can be crafted or bought using in-game currency up to a certain limit. They are restricted to: Normal territories, which are the large majority of the game space. In a normal territory, all offensive actions are allowed. Guarded territories, which are territories under the protection of the Arkship and will be located around it. In a guarded territory, players may not initiate any offensive action. Normal territories owned by players are subject to rights management such as restrictions on mining, crafting, and building. By default, players can build, mine, and craft on unclaimed normal territories. Sanctuary Territory Units are restricted to the Sanctuary territories. These territories are located on special moons called Sanctuary Moons. In a sanctuary territory, players may not initiate any offensive action. Sanctuary territories owned by players are subject to rights management such as restrictions on mining, crafting, and building. By default, players cannot build, mine, or craft on unclaimed sanctuary territory. Sanctuary Territory Units can be purchased through the future in-game shop using real currency up to a certain limit. Upon starting Dual Universe, each player will receive a free Sanctuary Territory Unit in their inventory. For more information about territory protection mechanics, you can read our DevBlog post here. But it doesnt address my later PVP concerns or group vs personal use questions. That last part is weird though, as alpha 2 backers ("Contributors", 60 Euro) seemingly wont get one?

Hi all, So with the new support packs coming out, one of the reasons you might get one pack over the other is the "Sanctuary Territory Unit (STU)" Their description is as follows: Territories located in a Moon Secure Area are called “Sanctuary Territories”. A player can claim a Sanctuary Territory with a Normal or Sanctuary Territory Unit. (Note: Sanctuary Territory Units are bound to account). The precise role and application of Sanctuary Territory Units will be explained in more detail at a later date. On unclaimed Sanctuary Territories there are no offensive actions and nothing else is allowed. On claimed Sanctuary Territories there are no offensive actions and everything else is subject to RDMS. No valuable resources are available in the ground (only dirt and soil). in the faq page and: Sanctuary zones allow players located in it to build, socialize, store items, and do commerce. Note that the Sanctuary Territory Unit items can only be used within safe zones located on moons. Please refer to the FAQ for more info. So I guess the idea is that we can set up businesses/shops/bases/certain types of cities in these areas, but I feel like the likelyhood of people clumping together to build commercialism outside of the biggest clans might be quite low. So what exactly does Novaquark have in mind for these tiles, and more importantly: how do you get them without buying into the alpha. Also if tiles are account bound does this mean they are more for personal and not intended for group use? It says "will be explained in more detail later" but faq like these are rarely updated timely, so do we already have said update? Another fairly big concern of mine here: what stops people doing mining in dangerous places cheaply without real danger when they can just set up cheap mining and then transport goods into safezones? Why would anyone NOT do this? Therefore, how can attacking/raiding anywhere ever be lucrative? Thanks in advance!

To be honest the audio there seems like it was edited in rather than in-game. Which wouldn't be unreasonable as the video wasn't exactly a tech showoff, it was just a quick tribute. We very rarely see games with interactive audio that's quite that realistic in terms of action, and DU is still really early in dev. If it is from in-game then its quite exciting.

Really good comments guys, thanks. If they do end up adding clouds like the video @Tango_Lima just posted then I will be very happy indeed. As for what you guys want first, I feel like that's fairly irrelevant as the graphics/world building guys really shouldn't also be the backend server guys, so this isnt the kind of thing that would stop the other progressing. And I dont expect or event want work on this any time soon, I just thought its worth discussing. Actual gameplay should come first before anything else at this point. Thanks @MookMcMook for the info, I wasn't aware they'd said anything about clouds before hand.

Specifically clouds. Hi all, So I've noticed from all the DU videos that at the moment clouds are seemingly just a single flat model held at a height, and frankly look awful. I assume they're just placeholders, but id like to know if DU intends to make more advanced clouds. As silly as this seems, I think clouds in a single-shard open-world space/planet game are actually going to be fairly important in terms of graphics, as you'll see them from basically every angle. And so far, most games (especially space/planet games) completely get clouds wrong and just have these cheap awful white texture blobs in the sky, or none at all. For example Warthunder, which (when in planes) takes place at above, in and below sky level - yet has fairly bad looking clouds (despite being a fairly pretty game otherwise). Just as a reference, take a look at Horizon: Zero dawn's clouds (link below). They're absolutely gorgeous. And it's suddenly very easy to mistake the ground underneath them ISN'T REAL. Wouldn't it be amazing if we could have clouds like these? Devs, do you think it could be possible? Thoughts everyone? Horizon: Zero Dawn clouds:

Lets hope so.

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

Looks like I accidentally duplicated the post when making it, sorry! Can someone remove the other two please? I cant find a way to delete them

Hi! I'm just wondering if we'll have tools within the voxel system to make bent surfaces/faces/lines. For times you want to make a ship that looks very curvy, you'd want to actually bend the voxels with a system rather than try to cobble together loads of straight lines yourself. Example: You want an arching column (a "parabola") over the top of your ship. You want it to look like a perfect arch and for it to be easy to do ideally. From all I've seen so far, you'd need to just build lots and lots of straight cuboids to build the shape. What i'd quite like to see is having a 3 point vector line that bends approximately. Is this going to be implemented in the building system? Example pics: 3 points, start, middle, end - program "curves" between them. https://imgur.com/a/flT3o So my first question is if we will have base tools to create curved things like that. My second is whether or not we'll be able to make advanced faces, for example moving vertices of a polygon before creating the voxel object, much like conventional 3D modelling of polygons. Thanks!

Hi! I'm just wondering if we'll have tools within the voxel system to make bent surfaces/faces/lines. For times you want to make a ship that looks very curvy, you'd want to actually bend the voxels with a system rather than try to cobble together loads of straight lines yourself. Example: You want an arching column (a "parabola") over the top of your ship. You want it to look like a perfect arch and for it to be easy to do ideally. From all I've seen so far, you'd need to just build lots and lots of straight cuboids to build the shape. What i'd quite like to see is having a 3 point vector line that bends approximately. Is this going to be implemented in the building system? Example pics: 3 points, start, middle, end - program "curves" between them. https://imgur.com/a/flT3o So my first question is if we will have base tools to create curved things like that. My second is whether or not we'll be able to make advanced faces, for example moving vertices of a polygon before creating the voxel object, much like conventional 3D modelling of polygons. Thanks!

Hi! I'm just wondering if we'll have tools within the voxel system to make bent surfaces/faces/lines. For times you want to make a ship that looks very curvy, you'd want to actually bend the voxels with a system rather than try to cobble together loads of straight lines yourself. Example: You want an arching column (a "parabola") over the top of your ship. You want it to look like a perfect arch and for it to be easy to do ideally. From all I've seen so far, you'd need to just build lots and lots of straight cuboids to build the shape. What i'd quite like to see is having a 3 point vector line that bends approximately. Is this going to be implemented in the building system? Example pics: 3 points, start, middle, end - program "curves" between them. https://imgur.com/a/flT3o So my first question is if we will have base tools to create curved things like that. My second is whether or not we'll be able to make advanced faces, for example moving vertices of a polygon before creating the voxel object, much like conventional 3D modelling of polygons. Thanks!

Ok just gonna inject some science here: In real life, space absolutely "has gravity". Gravitational fields are in fact, huge. You've probably been thrown off by the concepts of Earth satellites appearing to have weightlessness while in orbit, and games that employ the same phallusy. People in satellites appear weightless because of the orbit they are in, not because Earth's gravitational pull is no longer present. Its the fact they are zooming around the earth at 17,000 miles per hour that fights the force of gravity exactly with centripetal force. If the forces weren't cancelled exactly, the satellite wouldn't be in orbit. So for example, if you build an extremely large tower from the ground with a platform at the top at the same height as a satellite in orbit (low earth orbit), you would be able to stand on it just fine, you wouldn't float away. At those distances the affect of Earth's gravity would be very similar to as on the ground. So for the sake of decent gameplay, most games don't implement true gravity, otherwise you'd spend the entire game constantly fighting gravity (orbit in real life is extremely difficult), and turning your ship so you're not stuck to the wrong walls all the time (most just use the "gravity generator" mechanic meaning gravity is just down on whatever vessel, cancelling any other body's gravity) Now the space station in that video was seemingly above the same point on the planet, meaning either it was in geostationary orbit, or the dev's aren't implementing a true gravity system (same as almost every game there is), and the space station was just sitting in some sort of "orbit zone" outside the planet's "pull zone". That and gravity blocks. If it were in geostationary orbit, you should still experience the "weightlessness" without gravity control tech.

I feel like just about everyone is missing the point here.

That's where I think you're wrong. You can do so very much with planet generation - there's a reason people STILL play survival minecraft. Every time you adventure or create a new world, everything is different enough to make a difference. This time you found a really cool cliff-side to put a house in with a great view. Or a particularly big canopy in the jungle. Or suspend your house from a rare natural bridge over a lava filled canyon. Build a lighthouse on a neat little rock formation just out to sea. Or perhaps find the perfect sized island to start a resort.

Ok thanks I'll correct that

Of course naturally you actually DO want bland AREAS, just not entire planets. Salt planes for example can be very bland, but definitely have their place. Like this: http://www.colinsnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/017-08.jpg

No, I think what they've shown so far of planets has been amazing and is exactly on the right track. But so far, there's only a handful, and they have all be handmade as far as I know. The temptation therefore, is when they have more planets later they put less work into them, which could lead to bland planets. As to the suggestions that "people will make the planets interesting" that is really quite naive. Sure you could build a really nice city there, but outside the city the place would still look horrible. And who wants to build a city in a really ugly place? And what of the other several thousand miles of planet that isn't going to have stuff build on it? Flat brown bumpy spheres don't make interesting gameplay. Also do I think they might intentionally make boring planets? Yes! As you can see from the other comments, everyone at the very least wants variety and therefore there needs to be a spectrum, and hence something at both ends. No Mans Sky and pretty much every other space sim has done it intentionally, why wouldn't DU? All I'm saying is including gulleys, creeks, canyons, pillars, rivers, spikes and rock formations can make a bland wasteland into an interesting wasteland. If you need another example, take Mordor from lord of the rings. Mordor is desolate and dead but it sure as hell isn't uninteresting *EDIT: Planets have supposedly been generated so far.

No Mans Sky had a problem with its randomly generated worlds. They made the mistake of including "bland" worlds into possible generations, which of course lead to many planets being quite simply boring, and not at all fun to be at. The fact is though, you can create "empty" and even "desolate" planets without at all making them bland, and that is something I wish for you guys to work on. Take these examples: Boring and bland: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Sd196aUcsdY/maxresdefault.jpg https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6913193/No_Man_s_Sky_20160808124504.0.jpg http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/nomanssky2.jpg https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6940179/No_Man_s_Sky_20160813163904.0.jpg https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6913187/No_Man_s_Sky_20160808122632.0.jpg http://freedesignfile.com/upload/2017/01/Desolate-planet-Stock-Photo-03.jpg http://img10.deviantart.net/d5c2/i/2016/184/e/2/desolate_planet_by_mkschmidt-da8kmm5.jpg http://earth-chronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/e38994e188b2b90cbdfe83783e7c1f14.jpeg http://vikrambahl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-05-25-06.41.10.jpg Desolate but interesting: http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/conan_exiles_desert.jpg http://media1.gameinformer.com/filestorage/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/imagefeed/featured/hellogames/no-mans-sky/tidbits/snowscape610.jpg https://nomansskymods.com/wp-content/uploads/cmdm/171711/1489028980_vistyi-ipgendal-1600x900.jpg http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/nmstoxic.png https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/aa/81/16/aa811629750f10578a2e0376a656b8d5.jpg https://rickihobson.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/themartian.jpg Somewhere between the two: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1935zystffyuojpg.jpg http://www.cosmographica.com/spaceart/assets/binary_sun_wall.jpg http://static.nautil.us/259_cfa0860e83a4c3a763a7e62d825349f7.jpg http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/2/26/Utapau_surface.png/revision/latest?cb=20130202035123 https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fw-dog.net%2Fwallpapers%2F2%2F19%2F310215788420531%2Fsummer-planet-satellites-comet-starry-sky-desert-mountain-rock-plants.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fw-dog.net%2Fwallpaper%2Fsummer-planet-satellites-comet-starry-sky-desert-mountain-rock-plants%2Fid%2F229622%2F&docid=VX_b8EN917obSM&tbnid=3aJkyyC_fcTlEM%3A&vet=1&w=1920&h=1200&bih=768&biw=1536&ved=0ahUKEwik3YCT4c7SAhUDuRQKHTsqBTYQxiAIFygD&iact=c&ictx=1#h=1200&imgrc=3aJkyyC_fcTlEM:&vet=1&w=1920 The differences between the two aren't big at all, it all comes down to the small details. So I urge you to attempt to make sure that even the empty and desolate worlds are somewhat interesting to settle on, because just because someone wants to set up a mining colony on the richest source in the sector in a kind of badass way living in the badlands where life is cold and harsh, doesnt mean they have to just be looking at uniform brown boring ground. This kind of thing really sets the atmosphere for these kind of games. Thanks for your time.

They have said at the very bottom of the kick starter and in the newsletter that CvC is a stretch goal to be done after hitting 500K, but they have never specified how much the stretch goal is. I want to know. And now they've hit 500k, its the next big thing to ask. Anyone have any solid numbers?