Phroshy

The painting ability will be in the game. It's in the pre-alpha build, though it was quite new on 20/09, so we didn't have access to the ability.
I know there will be rough painting, but for the precise ones for the moment I don't know. As Captain said, it would need more precision.

I don't think anything official has been mentioned yet, at least I don't remember seeing anything.
 
One thing I can say, I presume mining will only be done with tools that immediately move the mined resources into your inventory or your cargo hold, rather than physical ore objects being created like in e.g. Elite: Dangerous or Space Engineers, in order to reduce the load on the server.

Hi,
 
NQ very often speak about nice looking ships. But after I played Space Engineers survival mode, I realised that it is hard to build something nice looking if you do not have solid plan. Even if you have it, there are lot of rebuilding and resizing durring the process. It is real pain in ass for many players (if not for all).
 
If to look for some requests, people require something like "Creative Mode". It is very necessary for many of players, to create something nice looking. But since we would have only one world, it is impossible. But I would like to share my vision, what can be created.
 
Designing Facility - what is that?
-This is end game block, similar as Respawn Unit or territory Defence Unit. Expensive and available on high levels of researches.
 
What is main task?
-Designing Facility is special programm which allow to design and create blueprints.
 
How it works?
In my vision, player enter program (yes, this is like sub world, but physicly player still in global one-shard world). This program looks like infinite surface*, no walls, no roof. Only floor. Visual example:

As soon player enter this programm, he/she can use all sort of items and blocks (if they are available to use - unlocked (if game would have locked items)). No resources needed to build, everything for free. This can be fully client side, because player do not produce anything at all (NQ knows more about server side and client side, so I leave it for them).
 
So player can design any size, any ship or building. Move object up and down (necessary).
 
What is player control in this program?
-Player moves freely in this surface area, like in god mode. I'm not sure will it be available fly through the object itself, this is question about game opportunities.
 
What happens if I want to make blueprint?
-As soon object is ready, player can create blueprint (will it be for free, I don't know). It works similarly as making blueprint from ready ship. As soon blueprint is ready, player will need all necessary resources and items to create it.
 
Can I uload blueprint to make some changes?
-I think, if system like this can create blueprints, it easily can upload players blueprints for upgrading.
 
_____________________________
* - block could be upgradable. For example, level 1 allowes 50x50 (meters) surface, level 2 150x150, level 3 500x500, level 4 2000x2000, level 5 unlimited. When every level is more and more expensive and require more energy to run.
 
The main goal, to give tool for creative people (and not very creative) to design nice looking ships or building. If you are designer, you must know, that final version of object require a lot of changes durring process. So that's why, designing (nowadays) is digital and only then physical.
 
Thanks,
Archonious

Creative mode - nope.
 
Designer mode - definitely yes. You will be able to work on your blueprints in some kind of virtual space.
 
In my eyes these two are the same, but what developers thought was simply that the game will have only one shard, one mode, so there will be no other separated mode like Creative. But it doesn't mean there won't be same functionality that Creative mode would offer, it will just be as a tool inside the game, not standing aside. This game needs players to be able to build more complex construct blueprints and they already confirmed that.

I can see the 2 sides of the debate having valid points.
 
On 1 hand if cash keeps entering the system we might end up with a bread costing millions of credits. Ala Mobutu's Zaire back in the day.
 
On the other hand if the amount of currency is fixed you might end up with a situation where you cant buy a bread for 1 credit. I mean the 1 credit being undividable to reduce into the price of a bread. Leading to a situation where you have to fall back on barter trade. Wich sounds good at first glance but it is an unwieldly system.
 
Personally I dont know what the best solution is.
 
Perhaps some form of hybrid system.
A fixed circulation with periodical injections of credits in proportion to the active amount of credits in circulation. Hoarding and inactive accounts are factors to take into account as far as I understand the situation.

I imagine it would be possible to make it a peer2peer network, maybe with an extra check with the server about who's in hearing range in local chat. This would probably reduce audio quality, but then NQ's monthly server costs wouldn't be so heavily dependent on how chatty people are feeling.

So once that certain threshold is reached, no more currency will be generated by the game? Won't  that be ruff on an expanding player base ? Can't an organization decide to start hoarding currency, making it harder and harder for others to sell items/obtain currency? Is this another "Emergent" gameplay option, or am I just not seeing the big picture?

Wall of text +1  ")  But yes I hate racism, bigotry etc. as well, and will not tolerate it.  not signing this though, I didn't read it all the way through

Hi everyone,
 
It seems the basic rules of this thread have been vastly ignored.
In return, all posts who weren't following these rules have been archived.
 
So as a reminder, I repost it there:
 
 
If you want to present cases that illustrate your point of view, do it in your post.
If you think a case raised by another player is not relevant, you can do it, but do it in your post by explaining why as shortly and clearly as possible.
Don't reply to each other each time someone says something, this inflates the topic, making the task to keep in check what are the most important points difficult.
 
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

I think the comparison with real life breaks on the scale of time.
 
In real life regions dont flip ownership as fast as potentially in the game.

I don't mean to be Debbie downer here, but if multiple organizations are planning the same thing already, then you'll have to reconcile all those people and get them working together if you want to succeed.
 
This idea would probably be more successful if there was a single person in charge that everyone trusted to run the thing fairly, like Chribba in EVE. Otherwise there will always be something to gain for someone by messing with the project, starting a competing industry, etc.

Nyzaltar already quoted my main points against lootable DACs, so I don't need to repeat myself. While I find the compromise agreeable from a purely game mechanical POV, I still feel it's a pointless waste of development effort for something that is bound to have so little effect on the game.
 
I'd like to add something different, though, directed at Nyzaltar and the team. I believe someone already mentioned it in the last (unofficial) thread on the subject, but this topic of lootable DACs or not is probably not quite as hot or as important to the community as it might seem from the furious debates. There are just so few gameplay elements yet that are really set in stone, so when NQ announces something that does sound like a definite decision was made, naturally we will all latch onto it and tear it apart.
 
DACs are maybe the first thing we are able to discuss in a factual manner, rather than the pure pie-in-the-sky speculation we are left with concerning almost everything else in the game at this point.  
 
 
 
Well, now I'm baffled that nobody else thought of this yet, or at least I haven't seen this idea. Sounds like a pretty straightforward alternative.

I think they were referring specifically to blueprints. The master blueprint that builders get from their creation is indeed planned to be unlootable.
 
If you're selling (or giving away) copies people can still loot those, though.

Nyzaltar already quoted my main points against lootable DACs, so I don't need to repeat myself. While I find the compromise agreeable from a purely game mechanical POV, I still feel it's a pointless waste of development effort for something that is bound to have so little effect on the game.
 
I'd like to add something different, though, directed at Nyzaltar and the team. I believe someone already mentioned it in the last (unofficial) thread on the subject, but this topic of lootable DACs or not is probably not quite as hot or as important to the community as it might seem from the furious debates. There are just so few gameplay elements yet that are really set in stone, so when NQ announces something that does sound like a definite decision was made, naturally we will all latch onto it and tear it apart.
 
DACs are maybe the first thing we are able to discuss in a factual manner, rather than the pure pie-in-the-sky speculation we are left with concerning almost everything else in the game at this point.  
 
 
 
Well, now I'm baffled that nobody else thought of this yet, or at least I haven't seen this idea. Sounds like a pretty straightforward alternative.

Nyzaltar already quoted my main points against lootable DACs, so I don't need to repeat myself. While I find the compromise agreeable from a purely game mechanical POV, I still feel it's a pointless waste of development effort for something that is bound to have so little effect on the game.
 
I'd like to add something different, though, directed at Nyzaltar and the team. I believe someone already mentioned it in the last (unofficial) thread on the subject, but this topic of lootable DACs or not is probably not quite as hot or as important to the community as it might seem from the furious debates. There are just so few gameplay elements yet that are really set in stone, so when NQ announces something that does sound like a definite decision was made, naturally we will all latch onto it and tear it apart.
 
DACs are maybe the first thing we are able to discuss in a factual manner, rather than the pure pie-in-the-sky speculation we are left with concerning almost everything else in the game at this point.  
 
 
 
Well, now I'm baffled that nobody else thought of this yet, or at least I haven't seen this idea. Sounds like a pretty straightforward alternative.

Nyzaltar already quoted my main points against lootable DACs, so I don't need to repeat myself. While I find the compromise agreeable from a purely game mechanical POV, I still feel it's a pointless waste of development effort for something that is bound to have so little effect on the game.
 
I'd like to add something different, though, directed at Nyzaltar and the team. I believe someone already mentioned it in the last (unofficial) thread on the subject, but this topic of lootable DACs or not is probably not quite as hot or as important to the community as it might seem from the furious debates. There are just so few gameplay elements yet that are really set in stone, so when NQ announces something that does sound like a definite decision was made, naturally we will all latch onto it and tear it apart.
 
DACs are maybe the first thing we are able to discuss in a factual manner, rather than the pure pie-in-the-sky speculation we are left with concerning almost everything else in the game at this point.  
 
 
 
Well, now I'm baffled that nobody else thought of this yet, or at least I haven't seen this idea. Sounds like a pretty straightforward alternative.

The devs decided to implement DACs because they wanted to prevent goldfarming. So I think that's all it should be. Allow player A to buy DACs from player B, who bought them from NQ. The DACs would become "soulbound" to player A. He cannot resell them. He must redeem them. DACs would not become another currency ingame, but they would still serve their purpose to combat goldfarming. Only those who need to use DACs for game time would buy them, so they would redeem the DACs immediately, making being lootable, or not, irrelevant.
 
As a second opinion, I would agree with DACs being lootable.

I'm strongly for unlootable, safe DACs.
 
Main reasons:
 
1) Lootable DACs will lead to rapid escalation of hatred in our community and poisoning of overall game atmosphere by constant fear.
2) In-game trade development will be crippled by need of using only safe-zone hubs.
3) Players, who enjoy suffering of others (and present in every game) will be extreamly motivated to do their worst with lootable DACs.  
4) Many people will not take lightly loosing DACs and quit the game, with very bad feelings. DACs cost real money and its simply immoral to take them from people just for "game mistake". They will be pushished enough by loosing inventory/ships.
 
Thanks.

I am against having Loot able DACs in game. for the following reasons.
 
1)  It is assumed that once you use it to add to your game time, its a timer, so if you know you are going to be off line for an extended time, you should have the ability to buy them when they are cheap, and hold onto them for when you need to use them.
2)  It is not IMHO emergent game play to loot these, as they have no real game world purpose so why should a character even want them?  Resources on the other hand, yes a character would desire that.
3)  This whole market crashing BS can still be done safely using the safe zones or other methods as described by GrandMasterApex.
4)  If Credits are non loot able, which has a real presence in the game, why should DACs not also be safe?  It is more emergent game play to demand the ability to loot credits.
5)  IMHO it is a better plan to resolve these complaints of hoarding, by making these items only able to be sold or traded ONCE.  This solves almost all of the legitimate complaints against keeping them non-loot able, but also lets players hold in game purchased ones till they need to use them safely.  This will also stop scams and griefing people buy luring them out to remote PVP areas with extremely low prices, to only be pounced on after they are purchased.
 
I also think it is ridiculous to be taking so much of the community's time and NQ's time discussing this now when the release of the game is 2 years out.  I would much rather have the NQ team focusing on building a great stable Alpha, and construct vs. construct combat, you know the important EMERGENT game play.
 
 Also I thought since most of the PRO loot able arguments were coming from EVE players and supporting how great it works in eve I would share the following link.
 
https://community.ev...ges-on-the-way/
 
In particular this part of it.  "The PLEX Vault will allow you to move PLEX safely throughout the universe rather than having to move it in a ship."
 
So i personally consider all "this is how it works in EVE " ETC. arguments invalid since it no longer is the way EVE works.  Also I would like to add that if it was working so well why did CCP change it and should we also then consider the why and the route they went.

I'm still indifferent, and frankly shocked that we're still discussing something that will have little to no actual impact on game play
 
 
 
 
 
Apparently these 2 simple instructions were unmanageable for a large part of the community. 
 
- Explain only in one post your point of view (and edit it if you want to add something). Of course this doesn't count for replying on further Novaquark posts in the thread. - No flaming, no provocation toward any other participant of the topic.

I think I read somewhere that gravity on planets, for now at least, looked like what you describe @Malicious -
 
like, if you were to remove the bottom half of a mountain, the other half would stay up... I hope they're looking to fix that, but on the other hand it's a huge hassle to code something that comes close to natural gravity.
 
As for OP's question; idk, but i'm totally on board for customizable gravity when it comes to space stations.

Ha, I would definitly like to see pretty much everything suggested so far.
 
I think showing a time lapse of 1 or 2 players building a bigger construct could be cool.

@Phroshy:
In one of the dev blogs
 
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2015/09/18/lua-script-and-distributed-processing-units/
 
they actually talk about plans for something you would call more "hardcore" physics ("...Engines are real (they physically push your ship where they are, with the power they have)"). So if they manage to implement it as planned, thruster positions will matter.
Most likely this would also mean, that the cornering capabilities of ships won't depend on gyros like in SE.

Hey Everyone,
 
We need some fresh pledges in the Kickstarter. 
 
My thought is, there are surely areas that NQ hasn't addressed in their videos and updates that certainly interest different types of gamers. 
 
What would YOU like to see NQ comment on?  (You know.  Things that will bring in more gamers.)
 
I'd like to know more about LUA scripting. 
I'd like to know how sensors are planned. 
I'd like to know a current list of mesh elements, their functions, and data that's returned.
 
 

The devs already mentioned i. An interview that center of mass vs center of thrust will be a larg component of how ships will handle in the game.
 
Now DU won't have any mass-speed-based collision physics like Space Engineers has, since it is not a physics simulator. They will be able to afford to make thrust more complex if they aren't tracking collision for crash damage each second.