wizardoftrash

"because science" is always a good reason. I've been pushing "0 friction shielding" as a reason for collision damage to be a non-thing, but I've seen to many people wine about immersion breaking game mechanics that I made a false assumption about your stance. Sounds like you've got a good explanation there though

There will be a process by which players can "report" a construct that violates the rules (boob-structures, etc). If it is found to be obscene, it will get deleted. If a player continues making obscene constructs, they can be banned. (This is something that was already discussed in an interview). So it is true we can't stop people from building flying penises, but they can be deleted if a moderator finds it in violation of the rules, and the player will get banned if it continues. pretty decent solution

Jet bike? Jet bike!

We have had so many threads about build protections and greifing, I recommend using the search bar to check a few of them out! Basically there will quite a few options to keep builds and stuff safe. Anything outside the save zone can be potentially attacked, damaged, or destroyed, however it might end up being inconvenient enough to raid a well-designed base that this will be a non-issue except during times of war, and that would probably only really apply to large orgs with public assets. Trust the devs on this one: they plan on striking a balance between PVP and non-PVP. Raids will be possible, but like Rust, it will probably be possible to build a base so inconvenient to raid that it wouldn't be worth it (except large orgs vs large orgs).

Pixels out for Harambe

OH WOW, this is glorious! Deff an impressive build for a pre-alpha! and to think, players are going to be able to build much much bigger than that in the actual game. Voxel Element Blueprints would also speed this process way way up after some initial work making modular corridor sections and outer plating designs!

Nice slippery slope argument (only the 5th time I've seen that exact rebuttal in this forum). I don't even feel the need to answer this one anymore, since combat is already a planned feature and collision damage is not a planned feature. And yes, it's just fine to use "it's a game" to break immersion, every game does that. How many games force your character to go to the bathroom or sleep? "it's a game" is a great reason for a dev not to include a feature that just shouldn't be there. The devs want this to be a game where we focus on building and exploration. They do want pvp to be a thing, but they have already explained the reasons why they don't want weapons of mass destruction to be a part of it. It is too much damage, without enough warning, without enough to prevent it, in too short a time. Players will be able to destroy someone's excuisite palace, but they'll have to do it with lazers, railguns, and missiles. They will probably need several players, dedicated battle ships, and some time to kill: long enough that someone in the palace could send out a distress signal, fire up automated defenses, or warn org-mates to log on and man battle stations. Balanced PVP allows for that. It kind of sounds like this is the game you really want to play, rather than DU

We will be able to "craft" our own gear, but we won't be designing our own gear with voxels and elements. Character equipment (like elements) will be meshes designed by the devs. There will be options, we will be able to "craft" them, but it will be like any other MMO in that we won't sculpt them or anything like that. The player driven end is the Constructs (ships, structures, stations, etc). This is not quite like 2nd life where players really can make their own everything, and that might be for the best.

The most recent update shows the construction of a large freighter ship by multiple players, looks FANTASTIC

Since Construction Units determine the size of what can be built with them, we might see a system where someone owns a TU, and sets up a bunch of Construct Units like City Blocks. The player that owns the TU might restrict the right to build new construct units there there, but sells the rights to the existing TU's, allowing payers to set up structures for homes and places of business within the TU.

There will be game mechanics for build protection, and it will likely be a feature that is a part of TU's (Territory Units). Unauthorized players will not be able to build anything or edit voxels (for example, dig or mine) in areas where a player or org owns a TU. And it is true, players will still be able to attack constructs outside a safe zone, but there will probably be additional measures a player can take to protect their stuff. There will be some mechanic for shielding, which will require power, but a well protected structure would probably be impervious to smaller avatar-held weapons as the rate in which the shield regenerates will probably exceed the rate of fire of the weapons. If a player will want to break into your base, they will likely need explosives or a type of weapon built to damage constructs (not unlike Rockets and C4 in rust). The devs mention continually that they will be taking measures to balance PVP and Non-PVP, so it will likely be inconvenient enough to destroy structures and large constructs that a player will have to invest quite a bit of time and resources just to break into one, and may not be able to destroy the whole thing. Similarly NQ stated that though PVP will be permitted in the game, Greifing will not. There will be some system for reporting players who harass and destroy without anything to gain other than making players suffer or for players who exploit game mechanics to trap players or make it otherwise impossible to play. They aren't inviting a murder-hobo culture in the same way Rust has, "Rebuilding civilization together" is the motto after all. Plus there are several orgs that are planning on building big cities that are either in the safe zone, or that will be well protected from pvp-ers and greifers. Plus by the time players will have the ability to do Construct vs Construct combat (where you have the highest capacity to destroy structures), we will probably also have automated defenses of some kind to make greifing and raiding more challenging.

Illustrations? reference diagrams? Notes on graph paper? Talented builders usually start the planning process with physical sketches, scale info, layout diagrams. A user could produce those documents and have a player actually build the thing.

1 - CvC (yes this is a point of contention, but it feels like a high priority). 2 - Robust Contracts, scripts that can generate contracts 3 - Cosmetics shop (more income = more features) 4 - Space TU's 5 - map function that includes TU's and territory groups 6 - saddle-mount cockpits (for jet bikes) 7 - flashy doodads, decals, and other construct swag 8 - easter-egg content 9 - non-weapon combat systems (tractor beams, target scramblers, missile countermeasures, etc.) 10 - non-character items in cosmetic shop (alt skin/coloration for ship shields, thruster vapor trails, decals, etc)

Perhaps in a world where the slogan isn't "Rebuild civilization together", sure. games=/=real life

As someone who doesn't have a ton of time to play games, a skill training system that is mainly passive is ideal for people who work full-time. People who are playing actively will have plenty of advantages in the realm of resource collecting, building, and being able to protect their stuff by spending more hours not AFK. Plus designing skill level-up systems that are tied to use are more technically demanding. Each skill area would need a list of activities that trigger xp gains. Players would have to spend time grinding an activity to get the skill high enough to do anything consequential, which will affect player behavior. Lets say for example I want to train weapons skills so that I can participate in Law Enforcement. Will I have to risk my stuff to do PVP just to get my skill higher? Would I need to spend some time as a deepspace pirate just so I have stuff to attack? Would there need to be fight clubs built just for players to grind their skills? That all seems a bit odd to me. And for building. Would I need to make a bunch of inconsequential structures out of low-tier material so I can actually build the base that I want to get my level high enough? A use-to-improve system will force players to spend a bunch of time doing inconsequential things just so they can eventually do the thing they want to do. In Skyrim for example, the best way to improve smithing isn't to continue making better and better equipment, you just grind out iron daggers until your skill is high enough to take the good perks. They are designed to keep it immersive, but in practice they break immersion. A system like the one that is currently proposed (more like Eve) will encourage players spending their time actually playing the game, instead of players grinding so they can eventually play it the way they want to. It will be enough to grind for materials

The devs won't be adding weapons of mass destruction because the focus of this game is building, and players could lose too much too quickly. This has already been addressed pretty much. To dish out a ton of damage, you'll need a ton of players, a ton of time, and a ton of weapons-fire (once Construct vs Construct is a thing). That way deconstruction is as labor intensive than construction (or more labor intensive).

OHHHH MAN this looks FANTASTIC. It reminds me of being able to build large structures out of Small Ship blocks in Space Engineers, but much much quicker because of the voxel tools they have shown us so far. I really dig this. Question is, the way they paint-over squares in the video, will we be able to do the same with the edge of the slant shape (to "stamp" on a triangle)? And how would these paint tools work with subtracting from the construct using the erase tool? are the "painted" designs only surface deep? I could see there being some really slick ways to add a ton of visual detail if painted on patters are only surface deep, as you could have a dark material color, paint on a light surface, and then "etch" a design using subtraction to reveal the dark underneath. I'm willing to bet that the paint tool is a shortcut for swapping out the material or block type for the voxel, so probably not going to work the way that I hope here, but still, so far this is looking fantastic!!!

Well what would make it silly is if the hat were sitting directly on top of the space helmet

Nice jetpack pun! Also, though it might be a bit silly for the style they are going for, but something like a hat would be a great thing to add to a cosmetic shop (inb4 TF2 had collection simulator). But in all seriousness, running around with a colossal sombrero would be fantastic.

I disagree =\= stop talking Similarly, I would argue against the notion that scrutiny is not in the spirit of suggestion topics. You have heard your fill users asserting that this isn't going to make it into the game. You have dodged the assertion that collision damage was sacrificed to the altar of stable multiplayer (despite that being the dev's reasoning for not incuding it). I can't prove to you on a technical level that what you are proposing is infeasible, and you disregard feedback outside of the technical as not constructive. It kind of sounds like your mind is made up, and as such it seems like there is nothing left to discuss. PS: have you considered offering to volunteer for NQ and desing their collision mechanics for them? Having an extra pair of hands might alleviate the strain of building the game they actually said they wanted to make. Edit: spelling

My fiancee is going to be thrilled that there is already a female character model. That is a friggin beautiful update!!!

Update18 though, THAT is a tasty looking update!!!!

What is even the point of this thread now? Devolved really fast... How about you guys vent somewhere else? http://screamintothevoid.com

Casually overlooked that the main features of DU are all pretty much there so far, and the main features of LM was an MMO that got canceled

The trouble with a game company trying to be really transparent, is that sometimes the unfinished pre-alpha looks like an unfinished pre-alpha. This video is pretty much what I expected, except I wasn't expecting multi-player-construction to even be in their pre-alpha. It isn't pretty, but very effective.