wizardoftrash
-
Posts
777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by wizardoftrash
-
-
I will just answer about this assumption. Free of you to say to me I'm off-topic. Do you realize making a real-time transaction at thousands of km of distance is inconceivable, I mean too easy to fit the game? In reality you can't send a message like that. I'm with the team that's for the physical transactions and the sightless transactions at planet's gear capability range (possibility to create internet down in the earth linked to wi-fi bays, satellites with antenna relays on earth, antennas for short-distance transactions). Thanks.
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.
-
Then your pilot is offline.....Or gunner.
I think the question was: Will you spawn in the ship when you relog, or will you spawn in space where the ship was when you logged off? Obviously, it has to be ship-fixed. Maybe a cryo-chamber of sorts that authorised people will be bound to automatically
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?
-
So its ok to scam DAC?
But...not ok to loot. *shrug*
Strange world we live in.
(Not intended to start a flamewar, just an observation)
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.
-
Even if we both whole-heartedly disagree on the DAC issue with each other, you do seem like the kind of guy I would have no issue to hang out with.
/raises_glass
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.
-
WHAT PART DO YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND? LET THE CAREBEAR SECOND LIFE PLAYER FURRY ASIDE FOR A MOMENT.
^This is Blatantly unnecessary.
Can you read? (No apparently).
You buy DAC for 15 USD = That DAC is Digital, thus unlootable.
You want to sell DAC in game on the marketplace? = Make DAC physical, put it up on an auction, or sell it directly (preferable in a safezone).
That DAC = sold.
DACs are NOT direct subscription.
A subscription costs = 13 USD
A DAC costs = 15 USD for the sole privilege of being subscription that can be sold in-game for in-game currency..
They are different things.
^They are the same thing if a player is relying on them to cover their subscription.
Nobody will steal your real money DACs as long as you keep them digital / unlootable.
^ "AS LONG AS" is an operating phrase here. Somebody will get this wrong, and it'll be a serious PR problem.
What happens to the DAC past the point you sold it, doesn't affect you the least.
If the buyer is a guy or a gal that wants the subsciption, the consume it on the spot. But if it's me and I want to hoard the DAC, I hav to go and place it somewhere saf, away from the marketplace that may be robbed in te future for X, Y, Z pirate reasons.
^With Arkification and safe zones, how often will this even come up? why would the devs expose themselves to so much bad PR and code in different states for how DAC's behave in different circumstances for a narrow line of play?
It's me the system prohibits from enacting economic warfare without risks.
^There is always risk. Risk that DAC's become devalued, risk that the things you try and sell the DAC's for get destroyed or stolen, risk that people won't buy your DAC's or get destroyed on their way to buy.
It's like saying "oh the guys on Wall Street that nearly crashed global economy back in 2008, they should be let go free."
AGAIN (since you seem to be the kind of person learning by indoctrination) ,
DACs being Digital = unlootable.
To sell DAC = make it physical.
If your DACs are digital, nobody can rob you.
Also, If a person asks you to come and sell them the DAC in the middle of Detroit's ghettos, at night and you go there and get robbed in the process, you are an idiot.
At this point, you made it clear that you also know jack about smuggling. If you knew, you would be capitalising on DAC deliveries to sell your org hard.
But hey, you are an economics' peasant.
What you don't get, is that I won't grief people with ambushes that destroy their ships. I will grief people with economy. And you are advocating on me to be impossible to be stopped.
^So you are trying to threaten us into agreeing with you, by what you'll do to us if we don't agree with you. Won't you do that even if we do agree? Empty Threat is empty
A griefer in a ship, you may blow up, or gank up to.
A griefer in a market though, you need to be able to steal their wealth from them. And DACs being unlootable, makes my wealth impossible to steal.
^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 love the way people throw out the term "Pay to win" to try and support their point of view or opinion. Then throw out the label "Carebear" if you do not agree.
Anyway, I voted I agree with them not being lootable. Because there is no safe way to keep them once purchased if they were physical. That scenario only helps bandits, not everyone, therefore making them "Pay to win" if they're physical, by benefiting one set of playerbase O.O and if you don't agree , you're a carebear
lol, thanks
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)
-
On the market I think you are right because I dont think NQ will allow DAC to be used as the price of goods.
But in 1 on 1 deals for things that matter? I hope you are right and that I am wrong.
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.
-
With all of that said and seeing valid points on both sides.
What fun is it going to be when people start asking for DAC as payment?
Sorry I dont see the fun in that
Dual Universe is supposed to be seperate from real life. Paying in DAC is literally breaking the 4th wall.
To me, thats not fun.
Regardless of my ability to afford DAC.
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.
- Deacon, GalloInfligo and Archonious
-
3
-
The "only player can mine things" sure might makes self-replicating robots more difficult to do but not impossible :
If robots (scripts) can sell items and load/unload cargos, then you would have to build one or multiple autonomous factories making popular items, selling them on the market and from the money generated acquire the resources needed to run the money-generating factories and the robot-generating factory. It would take a while but it would work.
In any case there would be multiple ways to make it stop :
- Destroying the factories
- Attacking the cargos of goods
- Harassing the factories enough to make the productivity drop to the point where they would lose money (no more money and they can no longer operate)
- Devaluation of the price of the items used to generate money (again to make their productivity drop)
- Total annihilation with superior forces
- ...
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.
-
Don't get me wrong because i still think DACs are far from being overpowered items that gives huge ammounts of unfair advantages to certain players. No, my point is that athough it has limited use in giving advantages (basically it improves your in-game credit to get stuff faster from the markets), it's still a P2W mechanic. I just think it's wrong saying it's not P2W because the whole point of it is using real money to get in-game privileges (and i'm not talking about just skins for your weapons), otherwise no one would bother to buy it.
The devs explanation as to why they implemented said system is solid, logical and i'm totally ok with it. But no matter how little the advantage is, it's still a P2W mechanic in my view.
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
-
Ma'am, the original buyer is guaranteed his money's worth of in-game cash. The buyer can consume the DAC on the spot.
Option B or C, makes sure people who don't need DACs and want to hoard them, run a risk of doing so.
Read the PLEX description, it's what the DAC idea originates from.
Scenario :
You buy a DAC. You yell on the chat : "WTS (Want To Sell) DAC. X-number Spacebucks. Only serious PMs".
You then wait. A buyer shows up, you figure out the price in bartering and they come to your location.
What do you do? You REDEEM the digital DAC, make it an item (that can be looted) and then sell it to the buyer.
You got your worth of in-game money for the DAC you bought.
Now, let's say the buyer is not one of those who need the DAC because they can just fine afford their subscription. They plan on hoarding the DAC and resell it at a later date to CRASH THE ECONOMY (totally not my plan, I swear).
Those people, run the liability of keeping the DAC. It's a physical item, thus, they need a safe place to hide it and wait the opportune moment that they can sell the DAC at 10 times the price you sold it to them.
That's what option C or B prevents. People who want to haord DACs and run no risk on their business. You know, "real economy driven by the players". When a good like a DAC cannot be stolen, that DAC becomes a pay-to-win item.
We are advocating on the RESELLING of DACs and price-fixing.
Yes, me and many other people, are in the game for the market manipulation. We are gamblers. And we want risks and rewards.
If DACs are unlootable from those who buy them low from you and hoard them to dominate the market at a later date, the game has a broken economy.
Option B and C, guarantee the original buyer their money. Thy guarantee the people playing only with DACs, get their gametime if they consume it on the spot. BUT, it prevents the art of price-fixing, from becoming a no risk business on reselling DACs.
DACs are digital until the ORIGINAL BUYER TURNS THEM PHYSICAL ITEMS. Until then, the guy who paid REAL MONEY, is safe and sound. Their DAC is unlootable.
If you can't get this, don't whine when I crash the in-game market and rob all the "poor people" off their money because I'll have the largest market-share on DACs.
What will NQ do? Ban me? Is it not a real economy they advertise the game on? I can hoard and PRICE-FIX via market dominance. You know, real-life tricks.
Oh, and before you say "Devs add money in the game". No, they want a stable amount of in-game money in circulation. If I gather over 70% of that money by price-fixing DACs and exploiting people, they can do nothing to stop me. Why? Because if they add more money into the game, I can reintroduce MY money into the game and cause a very VERY unstable and uneasy experience for people who lack the ability to deal with economics, numbers and supply / demand.
What will the Devs do? I played the "Realistic Economy" they advertise the game on, I didn't hack or cheat. I exploited the game's mechanics to the maximum.
So, if you want DACs to be unlootable, know that I have the patience to do this. A lot of people are unhappy with the fact DACs are unlootable and they back my motion to crash the game's economy on launch, while taunting everyone with things like "I got 1000 DACs on my person but you can't take them from me because they are unlootable, lelelelelelelel".
We are willing to go that far to make some economics' peasants see the light.
Bottom-line is : Don't make my price-fixing plans uncounterable. Ask the Devs to make reselling DACs for a higher price have a risk for the diabolical Twerkmotor who may try this. That way, people can send war-bands after my secret bases in hopes of getting my wealth away from me and also, gives birth to things like BANKS and IVNESTMENT FIRMS (a thing that I actually did in WoW to get money, cause only peasants farm and do daily quests).
Be a hero. Vote for Option B or C.
Yep, preech the impossible!
-
This brings up another question: if people are able to get away and prepare to easily in the beginning, will there be any conflict? Lack of conflict could be just as damning as no conflict, as conflict will drive the economy. The key will be balancing conflict in the beginning so that there is enough conflict to get things moving but not so much as to affect the play-ability of the game.
NOTE: By conflict I mean both pvp and competition for resources
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
-
Wait, this isn't a joke? you are actually suggesting this?
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 :/
-
Wow, a lot of people replied to this post. Anyway. As for the argument of, "so be it", I worry about the growth of the game. You see, DU is a single shard MMORPG. A game of this genre faces the challenge of remaining a viable choice for newer players after the official release; if a game becomes too sophisticated or advanced or out of reach for a new player simply due to how much it has progressed or how much control the players already in the game have, that game will die. There needs to be a certain balance maintaining the playability of the game for new players. Who would want to play a game where everything, from resources to economy to gameplay, is controlled by in-game organizations? Sure, you can argue lots MMORPGs are like that; it is well known that games such as Guild Wars and World of Warcraft have had tremendous success despite having huge guilds. They have storylines, DU does not. Storylines and quests allow more advanced players to move on into further stages where they will not be of huge influence to newer players. DU is a sandbox game; everything we will have is run by us. (Even in EVE, there is CONCORD and NPC marketplaces for newer players) Imagine logging into DU only to be faced by constructs and marketplaces built and run by Large Organizations and the be told that there is no in-game system for your protection; stepping outside the ark ship, you see no way of guaranteeing your own growth aside from joining an organization. Maybe that was how it was meant to be.
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.
-
-
really? you didnt understand? i cant help you sorry
what do you think blueprints are for?
google the definition of blueprint maybe
its not the same definition as pokeball i can tell you
oh you -
Actually self rotating planets would be great for the dynamic and would support the project of creating a spatial elevator (even though I'm suspicious on how possible it could be achieved and supported.
If there is TRULY no limit to the size of what you can build, who knows!
-
your answer is in your question
you are quite out of rare species
stay like that, otherwise there will be not much to instinct in that universe
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2016/02/20/builder-gameplay-voxel-tools-elements/
You are hilariousIt 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
Contract Fulfillment: Negative Condition
in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
Posted
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.