wizardoftrash

Just because we don't know how, doesn't make it impossible in the universe of sci-fi. To say that contracts should incur a delay based on how far away the parties are, or that only characters within a certain range of where the contract is being issued from can receive it... its a bit off-topic, sounds immersive, but mainly sounds like a nuisance. They borrow a great deal conceptually form Eve here, in Eve you can issue contracts instantly from any distance (I think). I'm not sure if they want that type of a restriction to be a part of the game. Now a player may need to use an Information Unit to access, form, or accept a contract (in the same way that they can remotely purchase items). Similarly, a player will likely NEED to pick up the reward for the completed contract from a container in the same way a remote purchase is. Straight spacebux transactions might not need to be picked up, it depends on how the devs envision in-game money to work.

This sounds great, though I have one small wording issue with Article 13. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each territory.This would prevent anyone who agreed to this declaration from forming any kind of restricted zone. Is this your intent? or is the intent strictly to prevent players from becoming trapped. As it sounds right now, it would appear as though a player would simply have the right to enter and build a home within a militarized zone, this would grant players the ability to obstruct nearly any construction or mining activities within an any area by right. I could be planning out my warehouse in a territory where I control the TU, and a player could simply invoke article 13 and insist on building their mud hut in the middle of my partly built warehouse? Might i suggest the following change? Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of otherwise restricted territories, including the right to safely vacate any territory prior to new restrictions with ample notice. These restrictions may not be created in a discriminatory manor.This allows organizations reasonable accommodation to restrict owned territories, while granting individuals protection from being trapped in newly restricted areas. This also prevents the basis of these restrictions from being discriminatory. I would also recommend this article become the basis of an org, joining the org would be paramount to accepting these rules, and players could use membership in this org to determine whether or not they want to trust or do business with other players.

I was thinking offline players would continue to be an in-game entity. Perhaps they become a killable/destroyable element when they log off. The ship owner could just leave them in there, or drop them off at their destination (or kill them i guess). An offline player may even have some layer of protection that an online player does not have to resist being killed/destroyed (to account for the fact that they cannot defend themselves) perhaps a 12 hour invincibility that re-sets after 24 hours or something. Perhaps TU owners can have jurisdiction to prevent players from killing offline players, who knows.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm operating under the assumption that contracts will have an in-game mechanic that enforces contract fulfillment conditions in an automated way (if person X accepted a contract, and fullfilled its conditions Y, then the reward Z is automatically dispersed through the methods described in the contract without additional player action by defailt). We would expect to be able to put a hit out on a character or ship through the contract system. Kill "Player 1" report to location Y and receive Z spacebucks contract expires in 24 hours, that kind of thing. What I'd like to suggest is that the negative of those same conditions be a possible building block of these contracts. For example, rather than Kill "Player 1" within 24 hours be the condition, "Player 1" is not killed within 24 hours also be an option in writing a contract. This would allow orgs to write insurance policies as contracts for ships, effectively provide additional incentive for a bodyguard contract, or allow players to bet on organized free-for-all arena dogfights through a contract system. This might sound like a no-brainer, in which case great! This would make the contract system more complex, and could create some confusion. Thoughts?

I would expect players considering a contract that includes DAC to be very... Skeptical. One of my orgs is built around DAC contracts, though it'll be a method of giving people that need game time DAC in exchange for time-consuming tasks rather than aquiring DAC's.

You sound like Free Lancer material then! We could use a Black Knight. But in all seriousness, as long as players aren't using a bug or exploit for their scams, I think it would be kinda neat. depending on how the contract system works, there could be some either super crappy, or super complex to hide how crappy they are style of contracts. I think this is probably also fine, since it would be kind of fun to have to either read contracts very carefully, or avoid complex contracts in-game.

^It is obvious that you simply have no answer to the objection that DAC's aren't wealth until you attempt to turn them into goods or services. Then once you do attempt to turn them into goods or services, those goods and services can be stolen or destroyed. That IS risk. You won't have magical powers of monopoly over the economy, you won't be the only person buying and selling DAC's. your actions alone will NOT have an impact in the face of large orgs and the general populace. You'll spend your time mining and earning in game currency to buy DAC's to sit on just to prove a point. Meanwhile, you'll have to spend some of your resources maintaining the infrastructure you need to keep buying those DAC's be it pirate ships, traps, or just traditional industry and other players will be buying and selling DAC's like you weren't there. You simply cannot do enough damage by yourself to make this a compelling argument.

I am a pay2win carebare and I approve of this message. (in that I agree, DAC's should not be lootable)

This makes me want to MAKE youtube videos to help promote this thing. Alas, I've not enough time to stream anything worth watching.

Hello all I am in the process of building a network of Orgs built to help make a region of space a bit more livable. The first two I've built are the Free Lancers and the Squires, but there will be more to come. The Free Lancers are a mercenary organization geared towards the PVP aspects of the game, but are not just soldiers of fortune. Free Lancers will independently pursue contracts in Defense, Law Enforcement, and War, and will do so in accordance with territorial law (within reason). Working together with orgs like the Terran Union, the Free Lancers will help keep outer colonies safe for a profit and will be a great home for anyone who wants to get in on some space battles without mindlessly griefing or piracy. As the allied orgs tied to the Free Lancers continue to grow, there may be entire colonies affiliated with these organizations, so there will be plenty of opportunities for work that directly assists your neighbors. The Squires will work closely with the Free Lancers, mining and providing refined goods on a monthly basis in-exchange for a DAC. The Free Lancers themselves will have the option to take on Squires to provide the goods needed to keep their ships and bases running. Each Squire can take on one contract per month, for a fairly large quantity of material harvested in a legal way, in exchange for that Squire's monthly subscription. This org is geared towards players that don't want to spend a monthly amount to pay the game, and don't mind putting in a few hours to cover it. These contracts will be negotiated in a way that it will be a better deal for the Squire than trying to sell their ore for in-game currency and work the market for a DAC, and far less hassle. In the future, allied orgs such as the Terran Union may even opt to take on Squires if there is enough demand. Since this contract structure is designed to cover the subscription for these players, they cannot take on more than one of these contracts per 30 days. I plan to develop an organization for Research & Development, another for Colonization, and eventually a New Player Recruitment and Training organization that will effectively serve as a charity, creating "tutorial" contracts for new players to help teach them the ropes, get them enough items to become stable, and funnel them into the Squires, Colonization, Freelancers, or an allied org depending on their play style. (and yes, I'll be re-working the logos)

I'll be starting with DAC's from the kickstarter, but fully expect to either pay the traditional subscription, or possibly go all the way to ruby before this is over with. I'll have quite a bit to trade, but I'm not really interested in relying on TRADE specifically to acquire resources, I intend on building and fighting. My mercenary org will need material from which to manufacture the ships I design, and I don't want to burn 8/10ths of my play time digging for that material. It is my intent so set up sizable raw or refined material contracts for the DAC's that I start with (after players and organizations are somewhat established). I can't be the only player thinking about this.

This would allow ship and structure designers to sell blueprints for designs without disclosing sensitive military information of the way their own constructs are built. I love to build, but I'm also excited about the prospect of Org vs org warfare. I'd love to make some very fancy looking ships, buildings, or parts of them without giving opposing military factions tactical information on where key elements are located, where TU's are located, and what the stats of my finished versions are actually like completed. Though this next bit is not strictly related to Voxel Element Blueprints, a player could instead develop civilian versions of the military crafts and structures that use different parts in a different configuration. They would look similar, but would not disclose military secrets.

Which is fine, because you don't have to use DAC. You can offer contracts that pay out in in-game currency or better yet finished goods. If you go out for dinner, and you discover that some fast food restaurants are wanting human blood-plasma as payment, sure it might suck if literally all of them accept only that. The reality is that if enough people want to go out to eat but won't give blood plasma for their meal, it won't be a viable method of payment. There will be players that want DAC, there will be players that want in-game currency, there will be players that want finished goods. Just because a resource exists that you are not interested in, does not mean that it will hurt your play experience.

Also, a great deal of these market manipulation aruments are under the assumption that players with DAC will simply try to play the market with them, or will trade DAC for in-game currency as a middle man to get some other service with in-game currency. Anyone that works in business understands that since each trader is attempting to profit, the more steps involved in trading for your material, the less profitable it will be unless you intend to travel (which will be risky as soon as the DAC's will be offloaded in a DAC unlootable economy). The smartest players will create contracts to trade DAC's for either finished goods, refined materials, or whatever service they actually want. Players that need subscriptions to keep playing will produce what is needed to fulfill the contract, and the DAC's will be in and out of the system free of price manipulation. Orgs do this internally to keep their lower rank players playing in their org: a highschooler spending 3 hours mining iron for a DAC is a fantastic deal for them, since they get another month to do whatever. Someone who works full time trading a DAC for 3 hours of in game work that they don't enjoy is a steal, since they make more at their job than that DAC is worth. The only people who should be actually worried about unlooyable DAC's are people who want the satesfaction of literally robbing players. Be it a roleplay choice not to work for an org, or because the player just wants another way to be a jerk on the internet, that is what it boils down to.

What you are suggesting is for the devs to make it possible for the players to build PVE content into a game that is all about player interaction. Shouldn't you be playing a real time strategy game? Or an MMO with some PVE? Because I'm fairly certain this game won't transform into the one you want it to be.

This is not always going to be the case. Orgs are goung ti give DAC's to their members that might not afford to play otherwise. Unlike traditional p2w mechanics, the community produces the goods and sets the exchange rate. Another player actually RECEIVES the item after the exchange. In a way, this is EXACTLY like paying real money for a skin, but that you can trade to another player for in-game gold: it is not truly an advantage because someone receives it. Manpower and play-hours will end up ruling this game. If a player has more time to spend playing, that will a bigger advantage than bankrolling. AFK raiding, mining runs, more actual experience learning and playing the game, these will all outweigh money as an advantage. Us folks with full time jobs don't scry "Grind2Win". The fact that we can get help from other players for DAC's will make it fair for people with jobs

Yep, preech the impossible!

Again, probably something they will have to iron out during beta. I'm thinking there will be tools out there for people whi want to pvp to make it easier to find other players. Radar, followint trade, etc. after players get set up we might see some really neat raiding

I think they are taking this pretty seriously. I remember how hard people worked in space engineers to try to build a self-replicating drone ship, and they could get parts of it to work, but it turns out it simply wasn't practical without mods. Even then, 5 or more drones just tanked the sim-speed. Turns out autonomous non-player self-replicating drone diseases are bad for games that want to work :/

Yeah kinda However, there will probably be large orgs that provide support to non-members, that might replace something like tutorial missions within the game (heck that kinda sounds like fun). There will probably be some very casual orgs that will take just about anybody and are genuinely good to newbies. One thing I'm pretty confident about though is that day 1 won't be like the first episode of sword art online, it probably won't be a bloodbath mad rush to sweet spots. This is the kind of thing they will be able to test out and iron out during beta, watching player behavior, finding a good way to encourage players to spread out and have time to experiment. The reason I believe that is because the prime focus of the game is building, and the devs stated that there will be a balance between pvp and non-pvp. Having players hanging out just outside the safezone with lazer snipers waiting for freshies to start their grand adventure does not represent balance.

It could be a stretch goal that they just assumed they would hit, it does seem like a core game function for ship on ship warfare to be a thing. Either way, we'll just have to wait and see

oh you

If there is TRULY no limit to the size of what you can build, who knows!

You are hilarious It talks about saving voxel elements in a library, but nothing about blueprinting or selling them. ~probably one of those "you'll have to wait and see" situations

http://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Builder_Guide Check out the sub-heading "Voxel Elements" under the heading "Elements" which is what I'm trying to discuss.