wizardoftrash

is the multiplayer any more stable that space engineers?

Ah but here is where it gets neat. You can pitch the idea of a semi-infinite world, but when the server reaches its limit in generating new planets (and I'l willing to bet after some players in beta decide to fly off in different directions for as long as possible), it will simply stop generating new planets. Sure a player could continue to explore beyond, but as long as there are no voxels to be edited beyond the edge of a planet, the server will only track the player's position as relative to the nearest worlds. The player could probably continue to march into the void, but the server would prevent them from building any stations beyond the "edge". Then the universe would be effectively limited at that point, taking the shape of all of the discovered planets so far, but it would certainly not be a sphere. The furthest points will be the furthest points explored, and everywhere without a discovered world would be blank until the next expansion. I don't expect the players to really hit this limit, you can do some nifty things with game mechanics to make it very challenging to travel long distances. Especially if they decide that planets further out are also further apart.

If they are using an algorithm to build the planets in the first place, an algorithm could also name them. You might get some bizarre names out of an algorithm, but then players would have meaningful names right from the start to work with. Plus I would be willing to bet it is within reason for a system to be set up that no two planets have the same name (that would lead to some great confusion).

That is indeed what I would expect, for the contractor to have to pick up their reward at a physical location such as a Market where the employer has their goods stored.

From their open doors interview, each structure will be tagged to a player's account. Players can report structures that break the rules, and the structure may be removed. Repeated violations bans the player that continues breaking the rules

Hence my predicament. I'll likely just continue playing space engineers for now :/ KLANG, be gentle with me

I'm getting married in october, but I decided to bite down and up to ruby despite my impending financial madness. Worth it! I'm doing my part!

This game is making me absolutely itch for sime voxel scuplting sandbox and/or scifi gameplay. Any recommendations on a game or tool that is similar in terms of how building works? I already play plenty of Minecraft, and I'm not sure if I'm ready to constantly surrender my Space Engineer creations to KLANG over and over again. Suggestions?

If they released a slimmed out version of the voxel build system, you could have hundreds of "players" playing around with it and seeing what kinds of neat stuff they could make. Problem is, in the wrong hands it could just be a bottomless supply of materual for a youtuber bash-fest like the stuff bluedrake42 keeps kicking out. On the flip side though, that is how you ignight a community. Kick out an offline version with one planet, and the voxel tools that are already available and we would be posting pictures of buildings and ship components like crazy. If there was even a way to save creations that could be turned into blueprints on the incoming alpha that would be HUGE, but not a realistic thing to expect.

So you are freaking about whether or not this function will be added... in a game that won't be out in at least 2 years... And you think it'll fail if it isn't there on launch... Sure I'll bite. How much are you helping right now? What is your expected or desired result here? Do you think the devs will look at your posts and think "hey this guy who is giving us no credit is right! We'll just go ahead and promise to do whatever people ask for in the forums!" This would set a lousy precident. Up until this point they have done a great job being transparent and staying HONEST. Is your intent to start a mob or a flame war? Are you trying to cause a panic, becase i can read outrage but no real support from you there. Do you think they were proud to make ship-ship combat a stretch goal rather than a confirmed feature of their game? If I were them, that is not how I would have gone about it. I would have been less realistic or I would have straight up lied, because coming out and saying that a core element if their future game is a stretch goal is incredibly emberassing. The only explanation I may have is that they are being honest and realistic about ther current limitations, which is the opposite if what NMS did. This could hurt them, but it is incredibly brave (perhapse too brave) that they disclosed that.

I love me some Dark Souls. But when players are spending a great deal of time building, it has GOT to be less punishing than Space Engineers, and based on what we know so far of this game (can't lose build data, can't lose blueprints, can build off of market models), we should be in the clear. Anybody here try playing in a Space Engineers multiplayer server lately? One badly damaged component or setting up a little to slowly, and your base gets deleted by the cleanup script. Crash your ship into your assembler? Can't build the parts to fix or repair it anymore, and can't build any more. Briefly lose connection with the server? Your ship is now drifting max speed i the same direction without you and you spawn at your base. Space engineers is extremely punishing, so far though DU looks like it has the capacity to be a little punishing but not so bad. Lose your ship in DU? You can throw it back together right away if you still have the materials. Lose your base? Well that one woulf probably be pretty devistating, so lets hope it isn't so easy to greif

we'll get there, wether they hit the stretch goal or not it'll eventually be a part of the game. Flipping out probably won't do us much good

I'm actually expecting this to be whether it is included in the full game, or instead in a future expansion. Being subscription based means regular funds going in for expansion content. Hitting this stretch goal means having those funds available sooner, and as such having that content sooner. Also I think it would be kind of funny for there to he a period of the game before ship weapons become a thing. To hurt someone you would have to get out of your ship to do it lemme pull over real quick and give this guy a piece of my mind

Woahhhh his changes everything. Here I was expecting tab-targeting, with just health bars for the individual elements and a collective one for the construct. This though, this is really impressive, and somewhat intimidating. Now the way a construct is built will be less about cosmetic and more about function. Though part of me is a little dissapointed by that... I'm MORE excited about the possibilities of merging practical and visual design. This is a HUGE jump in the conplexity of combat from what I was expecting, far far more emmersive than eve. Brb gotta upgrade my pledge

Regardless, pretty sure Territories will be nameable (perhaps as a function of the TU). In which case people would likely refer to a planet by the name of its largest named territory. I feel like having the community name stuff tends to backfire (Looking at you Boaty McBoatface).

This is the kind of thing that could be added to their hypothetical cash shop, as it would require more server-side resources to effectively track all of these new custom "skins". A player could buy a pack of the same peaceable logo (like a sticker, or a decal) for $X, get a discount for buying an even larger quantity of the same one. It supports the game and gives us some new toys.

There was an official discussion about saving voxel shapes you have already created to your library, where you can copy and paste them onto the same structure or new structures. I'm thinking even if it takes jumping through some hoops to make a few shapes, it won't be so bad as we can re-use them again and again, or re-use parts of them to get a shape that we want. Smooth curved ships, like the Covenant from the Halo series, might be pretty tough unless there is a "roundification" tool of some kind, or the ability to create anchor points from which to stretch and push parts of a sphere or cube (like working with clay). I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of thing was already on their radar, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it comes much much later.

Something should indeed be done, that is the important part. We all want this game to be a thing, even if the mechanic ends up working differently from how we would prefer. I'll support whatever decision the Devs end up making. In my mind, it boils down to how the devs envision their game. I can't help but liken this discussion to a toddlers with forks. All of the toddlers might scream and cry that they aren't allowed to put their fork into the electrical outlet. The toddlers might think they know what the consequences will be, the toddlers could all vote and decide that collectively it should be their decision to put their fork into the electrical outlet, even if it would be far worse for them if they could. They might freak that their parents unilaterally put outlet covers on all of the outlets, but it is not a democracy. Unilaterally the devs will and should decide, it is indeed their game.

Seems legit! But in all seriousness, will enough people want to play banking simulator instead of flying a spaceship or building a deathstar? Do we even care? And for whatever reason the players who are threatening to game the market all seem to be strongly in favor of the system that would allow them to be stolen. That seems a tiiiiiny bit suspicious.

Source? digital =/= won't drop on death

Not if the currency you are transferring it for can be dropped/destroyed/looted. If the equivalent of ISK can be stolen/looted, it is not risk free. And if you are correct, and a player can just spend hours playing bank simulator instead of actually playing the game, so be it!

I think at this point, the fantasy of a lootable DAC should be considered a meme

I love how users in this thread continue to discuss DAC's as a risk-free currency when anything you turn DAC's into immediately exposes you to risk? It's almost like they ignore it because they can't find a good way to counter my point.

That's adorable

Yeahhh a bit off-topic, and that would be an extreme nuisance for players. Not the kind of thing I would be up for, too susceptible to interference and encourages anarchy. Griefers would have a grand old time if they could knock out interplanetary trade and contracts by knocking off some satellites.