wizardoftrash

Pretty sure I read that pressurized environments are chalked up as "would be nice to have, hard to do, might be considered in the distant future".
 
The serverside calculations required would be intense in our rather fine-grained voxel-world. Not really feasible for an MMO in this day and age. I'd love if it was otherwise, there could be so many cool features coming along with pressurized interiors vs the vacuum of space, but alas that's just not a realistic goal for this game.

I think what Phroshy meant was that the modelers can stay busy making alt-textures and meshes and other bling while other aspects of game dev continue. It is hard to say what their pipeline is, but if the main elements end up meshed and textured, and numbers are still being balance tested in beta, the artists could work on bling.

I don't consider this to be a premature discussion, because they brought up the premium cosmetic shop within the context of Alpha and Beta players. They mentioned that as an outlet for those players to continue to support the game, without charging Alpha and Beta players a subscription. It is their intent to make cosmetics available at a very early stage, hence my bringing it up.

I think this thread has confused two elements of the game:
 
The Core Unit, which is what determines the size and type of construct (small ship, large building, etc) provides the max build area and the ID of the physical object
 
And Power Unit, which serves as a fuel tank or battery for player and construct systems.
 
For now, we have only seen one power unit deployed in a demo, and it was deployed in the sample ship. We may find out that there are different strengths of power units, different classes meant doe each size of construct, and we may even be able to place more than one in the same construct.
As it stands though, there is no specifics on how it works, but we may find that it is not the power unit that determines the ship's stats, but what elements are on the ship.
 
It might be that for a 100% speed ship, you've just got to have high-tier engines, but that a common Power Unit won't power high tier engines. Balance and specialization may determine what combinations of power units and elements will translate to ship stat blocks.

Just consider the consequences of day 1, when 20% of the player base starts with 6-20 months worth of DAC's that they cannot protect. The most involved members of the community, who's kickstarter usernames are public and probably their ingame usernames, can be targeted harassed and hunted down for a chunk of their kickstarter pledges. That seems ridiculous right? Hence the distinction.
 
I just don't understand why being able to steal DAC's is so important. A player can inject DAC's into the economy for goods and services, and you can undo their work and steal their goods. Isn't that equivalent? Is that not good enough? If the answer is no, wouldn't it just boil down to wanting to be able to digitally steal someone's wallet? (kek that's too bad not going to happen).
 
Lets imagine a world where you can't steal DAC's (you know, the world as it's currently going to be)
Lets say at month 6, Territory Units are in high demand and are very resource intensive to build (TU's). These are physical elements that can be built, bought, sold, transported, stolen, destroyed etc. We reach a point that there are enough DAC's in the market that people are willing to trade DAC's for TU's. They are each worth roughly the same spacebux, another currency that can be stolen, destroyed, etc, and they have been equivalent for about a month and are likely to stay equivalent for a while.
 
Why isn't stealing a TU enough? You can turn around and trade it for a DAC. The guy you stole it from traded a DAC for it in the first place. Sure, the demand for TU's could go down, or the supply could increase and hurt it's price, but its the same for DACs. The only real division between stealing DAC's vs TU's in this scenario is that one has an IRL dollar value.
 
So is this boiling down to you guys wanting to be able to really mug people in a video game? That's how it seems

Just consider the consequences of day 1, when 20% of the player base starts with 6-20 months worth of DAC's that they cannot protect. The most involved members of the community, who's kickstarter usernames are public and probably their ingame usernames, can be targeted harassed and hunted down for a chunk of their kickstarter pledges. That seems ridiculous right? Hence the distinction.
 
I just don't understand why being able to steal DAC's is so important. A player can inject DAC's into the economy for goods and services, and you can undo their work and steal their goods. Isn't that equivalent? Is that not good enough? If the answer is no, wouldn't it just boil down to wanting to be able to digitally steal someone's wallet? (kek that's too bad not going to happen).
 
Lets imagine a world where you can't steal DAC's (you know, the world as it's currently going to be)
Lets say at month 6, Territory Units are in high demand and are very resource intensive to build (TU's). These are physical elements that can be built, bought, sold, transported, stolen, destroyed etc. We reach a point that there are enough DAC's in the market that people are willing to trade DAC's for TU's. They are each worth roughly the same spacebux, another currency that can be stolen, destroyed, etc, and they have been equivalent for about a month and are likely to stay equivalent for a while.
 
Why isn't stealing a TU enough? You can turn around and trade it for a DAC. The guy you stole it from traded a DAC for it in the first place. Sure, the demand for TU's could go down, or the supply could increase and hurt it's price, but its the same for DACs. The only real division between stealing DAC's vs TU's in this scenario is that one has an IRL dollar value.
 
So is this boiling down to you guys wanting to be able to really mug people in a video game? That's how it seems

I would give you a like, but I'm out of likes.

Voice chat could be a premium feature for subscribers only. VoIP takes a not inconsiderable amount of server resources, so it makes sense from economic POV, too.

Pretty sure the main supporters od stealable DAC's are the kind of greifer scumbags who make any gaming community a more toxic environment, motivated by making the game more miserable for other players, and aren't satesfied with just blowing up their stuff and killing them, but by pushing them out od the take entirely.
 
Hate to be the one making a strawman argument here, but I don't think we want that kind of player. Rust is a (hilarious) hellhole, and I'd rather not have that kind of experience here too.

I too would agree with this comprimise, despite that I disagree with theft of DACs more or less unilaterally: especially since new players aren't going to accidentally end up with DACs.
 
As long as the game cautions players that purchase DACs that they can be lost, and that the kickstarter DACs (which there will be a glut of and no good way to protect) are untouchable.

People are debating almost as if the dev's haven't already decided.
This reminds me of the debate that emerged when Gaia Online had released details of the RPG, and people lost their minds when the RPG would have nothing to do with their avatar items. There was a debate, however the devs were already mostly done with the game.
 
So what's the goal here, is there some plan to mass-withdraw unless they change this? Because I'm not seeing that either

I'm willing to bet that there are going to be some assets worth more than a DAC eventually. Not sure how intense building a Territory Unit will be, but if someone's got a TU on a very rare material, mining rights on that spot will probably be worth more than a DAC. As long as there are some worthy scarce tech and material in the game, there will be plenty worth stealing.

Pretty sure the main supporters od stealable DAC's are the kind of greifer scumbags who make any gaming community a more toxic environment, motivated by making the game more miserable for other players, and aren't satesfied with just blowing up their stuff and killing them, but by pushing them out od the take entirely.
 
Hate to be the one making a strawman argument here, but I don't think we want that kind of player. Rust is a (hilarious) hellhole, and I'd rather not have that kind of experience here too.

there will be other loosable valuable goods dont worry
 
if you wanna play money, play THTpoker

Yes, I support their decision against lootable DACs for a variety of reasons:
I can't imagine the grief of spending money on DACs and losing all of it shortly after in-game. That's the stuff that can quickly turn players away, presumably those that are especially willing to spend a lot of money on the game. Safe zones, like around the arkship, are apparently planned to be rare and far between. Trade with DACs would almost certainly only be happening in those safe zones if DACs were lootable, possibly giving safe zones an enormous economic edge beyond what they already inherently are going to have anyway. I'd rather there be several big markets with player-enforced security outside the safe bubble, the prospect of all trading hubs being located in safe zones feels pretty bleh. Unlootable money and DACs make active trading hubs outside safe zones much more feasible. DACs are a form of currency, and RP-wise it only makes sense to me that currency would be all digital so far in the future. The counter-argument concerning emergent gameplay feels weak to me, personally. Presumably you can still steal pretty much anything else, and there should be plenty of trade ships whizzing about moving all kinds of goods and resources, some of them bound to be very valuable, too. Looting crates of titanium and a cache of missiles makes for a better story than nicking someone's chequebook anyway.

if DAC are stealable then it will become a physical curency, so much more than just a pass to the game, generating lust and abuses in all the bad ways
 
For example new players aware of nothing, carying on a freshly aquiered from a Steam promotion package, 20 Dacs without really knowing what it is, but for them just a 2 monthes subscribtion to the game, and loosing them on the first day?
 
What would long time players say to this new player?
- Its your fault, you should have read the 20 topics about on the forum and devblog before playing?
- You must join us on the behalf of our hole mighty organisation we will secure your future 15€ spent?
 
This topic is a joke right? 
 
How would NQ reach 100 thousands players if the 5000 first players from alpha already planning to literrally scare the shit out their pants the  995 000 that will join at realease
 
Be realistic and stop thinking you are already the Emperor of the Universe, but do compromises for this game to be THE game that will fit a majority not a minority

Yea money being digital means only physical goods can be stolen and sold for digital money. The dev stating that DAC's will pretty much also be digital as well. there is 2 precious commodities that we wont need protection for.
 
Edit: Someone said something about eve system, they are digital until they are loaded into your account inventory for use. This means you can store excess digitally and only move or activate what you need. If you sell them they can be stolen up until the buyer uses them meaning no loss of real money for either player but a loss of digital currency for the buyer.

I'm pretty ok with DAC being virtual currency, unable to be stolen. Only players that could argue here are scammers. You can earn DAC by killing and looting players -> selling their stuff -> buying DAC from market, it will just need a little bit more work...
 
This decision is not having worse effect on emergent gameplay than existence of DAC at all, yet developers need to live from something and keep developing, so existence of DAC is understandable. And to developers who are reading this... don't worry - the negative voices are usually the loudest. But it doesn't mean that majority of players agree.

-

That settles it I guess.
 
I wont lie I enjoyed the idea of DAC being an item you could loose but concidering the many comments in this thread NQ seems to be right in knowing what people want.

I feel this discussion isn't going anywhere. The matter of hard timers or miracle shields and how necessary they are can hardly be discussed in isolation, as so many other aspects of PvP are hinging on it. For example:

How easy is it to destroy voxels in foreign controlled territory? How big of a hole can I make with a bunch of rockets and bombs? How expensive is the ammo? Can I even damage voxels at all, or only constructs? How easy is it for the defenders to repair the damage? Does the game memorize the blueprint so I can just bring the materials and the holes get filled up more or less automatically?
How easy is it to locate the Territory Unit? Does it show up on my HUD when I'm nearby? Do I need special scanners to help me locate it? Or do I need to find it manually, eyes only? This can be a considerable effort on a 1 km² stretch of land.
Can territories change owner immediately or is there a timer during which only the defenders / last owners can reclaim it?
These things make a big difference to base planning, sieges and general PvP.

 

Imagine for example if it was fairly difficult to destroy voxels in enemy territory. Even as a solo player I could deter most random griefers quite easily by digging a deep hole in a mountain, filling it up with thick doors and bulkheads, and plopping my Territory Unit at the very end. An attacker would need time and maybe explosives to get in there and take the territory from me.

 

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

 

In such a scenario a magical bubble of immunity wouldn't really be necessary, imo. Instead, just a spontaneous idea, maybe instead my stuff could always be vulnerable, but broken elements could have a timer during which I can repair them at reduced cost, including the Territory Unit. Let's call this timer survivability. The amount of time granted for this could be determined by the local infrastructure.

 

Imagine if you could juice up this survivability of your elements with special elements that use up a lot of energy, say for a maximum of 24 hours (if you have a lot of them and supply them all with energy). An attacker could go straight for the Territory Unit, break and besiege it while the survivability timer is ticking, and considerably reduce the time by either breaking power plants or directly breaking our magical survivability elements (say the timer goes down to half an hour when all the supporting infrastructure is gone). When the timer runs out for each broken element, it explodes and is gone; when the Territory Unit is gone, the attackers can plop down their own, thusly claiming the territory as their own.

 

This way war would be costly: You need some manpower, you need to destroy and rebuild some valuable infrastructure (and not just the Territory Unit). Battles between equals can be long and fierce, yet powerful organizations can steamroll the little man in an hour or two (a good amount of time imo: It's long enough that they are unlikely to just gank someone's home while passing by, but short enough that there is little to no arbitrarily waiting around during an actual siege). If your neighbour doesn't play the game anymore and doesn't bother to log in, you may just break his Territory Unit and wait for the next day to claim his land.

 

If your organization is limited in its global reach (and thus in its time of the day where anyone is online) you can invest in massive infrastructure that will effectively make it impossible to take the territory without your rivals either pulling an all-nighter, or by outgunning you to a degree where you probably wouldn't have had a fighting chance anyway. Or you can try and take it back next day, or take one of their territories. Your enemies have to sleep, too.

 

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

 

Yes, this still leaves the problem where certain timezones have an advantage over others. But I agree with HelloKitty that formally declaring war and then twiddling thumbs for a day is also a bit lame. I'd much rather have a system where you can spontaneously get into the action at any time, but random passers-bys can't just take over my homestead without at least a bit of time and effort (they can still cause damage and grief on the go if they want). That's the kind of balance I'd like to see.

 

The game probably needs a notification system telling you the names of everyone that attacked your constructs (or even just cratered the terrain in your territory), so you can repay them in kind or hire mercenaries.

you better be able to at least hit objects and damage your ship, maybe not like SE and damage that specific part. 

Found some of the unfo on the wiki, and here is how it sounds like it'll work.
 
Territory Units (TU's) are what will allow an organization to claim an area. Once that TU is in place, seems like that org will unilaterally get to decide how that zone will work. Laws, building rights, mining rights, etc. This makes sense from a "we want players to be able to build civilizations" standpoint to prevent random players from walking into your metropolis and turning it into swiss cheese with sphere voxel deletion, or crashing their ship into your base.
 
This also makes it sound as though in a hex with a TU, unauthorized players won't be able to edit terrain at all, so no mining or digging, no greifing whatsoever.
 
But before you pvp folks flip out over this, I don't thing TU's will be safe zones, i bet structures can be attacked and damaged, just not built or edited by outsiders. So you won't be able to walk in and delete the wall to my vault, but i'm willing to bet you could shoot it up and eventually destroy components that can be locked onto. We might see a system like rust where attackers can damage strictures, but it would take a good ammount of time and resources to break through defenses. A seige should take long enough that an all-nighter can't undo enough work to shrek people who have day jobs.
 
Link http://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Territory_Control

I would assume that there will be a way to build your own safe zones, or to ensure that your structures are in some way protected. That could even be by making the siege process time-consuming and expensive enough that people will not want to bother siegeing someone unless they are relatively sure of their ability to profit from it.
 
So long as buildings are hard to destroy and relative safety is attainable, people will go out and build things. Look at games like Rust, where you're never really 100% safe anywhere. People still built elaborate, massive castles and towers and palaces even. Don't worry too much about killing off the carebear content with hardship. Similarly, don't make the game so safe that it's nothing but a different-looking Minecraft or Space Engineers.
 
In summary, if I wanted to play Rust, I'd go play Rust. If I wanted to play Space Engineers, I'd go play Space Engineers. DU should be something in between.

As a fan of similar sandbox games, it always burns me up that raiding people's base while they are offline is the primary means of aggression. Rust, Space Engineers PvP servers, minecraft etc each provide some potection against players looking to raid your base while you are logged off, but it usually is not enough. Some space engineers servers had a rule of not attacking/greifing people while they aren't logged on to defend it, but it often went uninforced. With Rust, you needed either several small huts with your gear equally split up and hidden to mitigate losses, or have a huge team maintaining giant walls 24/7.
 
From an immersion standpoint sure, it makes sense that it would be easier to raid a zone if no one is guarding it, however scifi characters don't physically dissapear from their empites to work a 9-5.
 
In a traditional MMO, your character doesn't exist while you aren't loged on, however with controlled zone, there should be some type of protection. I'm guessing this is where the territory system sets in?