wizardoftrash

You could have a title system similar to early SWG, where once you max out a skill group you gain a title from that skill group saying "Master Hacker".

IDEA: A way to visually identify what players are proficient in key skills, and inversely, a way to show the players around you what your specializations are.
 
Concept: Characters could have cosmetic items, or skins for their suit/tools, that are unlocked by reaching skill benchmarks in specific areas.
 
Fleshing it out: Each skill category (Piloting, guns, scanning, mining, refining, engineering, etc) could have a skill icon associated with said skill. At a certain benchmark, you unlock the ability to wear that icon on your character's suit, or on an article of clothing. This would tell the players around me at least one set of skills I'm proficient in for the purposes of forming loose teams, and also inform them at what level of proficiency I am in that skill.
 
The Engineering skill for example might have a Wrench icon associated with it. A soon as a player becomes proficient in Basic Engineering, they get access to the Wrench Icon as an accessory for their space suit, which would place it on your character's back and on the upper left-hand side of your chest. As a player progresses to Engineering Rank 2, that wrench icon changes to have a #2 incorporated in it, or a wrench with a stripe across it or something, showing the players around you that you have Rank 2 proficiency in the engineering skill.
 
A character could only have 1 skill icon equipped at a time, but they could switch between them. This would be useful for ORGS because they could use it to display who a ranking member is within an org. The Cheif Engineer for example might be the only player permitted to equip "Engineering Rank 4" because an org could decide to use that insignia to show who the ranking officer is at any given tame, same for military roles.
 
I see this as being especially useful though with players who are meeting each other for the first time in-game, and are divvying up tasks for a play session. If I volunteered to be our crew's scanner, I'd equip my Scanning rank insignia, the miner would equip mining, engineer would equip engineering etc. That way we know by looking at each other which one of us is supposed to do what, and players that want to join would know what skillsets we might be missing, or might be able to show us that they are better at scanning than I am for example by equipping their higher rank insignia. It might make cooperating on-the-fly more efficient.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but my favorite argument against creative mode is that it makes ship building harder. If you want a good ship, you have to pay for it, or work for it. It makes the entire ship economy more interesting, deeper, and profitable for those that are good at building ships. If anyone could easily design a ship to perfection, there would be no need for good ship builders, except for unimaginative replicas like x-wings or the Enterprise. Without depth, to building, the ship market becomes worthless. 

I feel like creative mode would kind of spit on the spirit of the game being single shard : /

Because of several reasons we alreday discussed here. In lenght

Well yes, because again: DU doesn't aim for single players. Nor does DU aim for creative mode players. DU does aim for MMO players.
And introducing such a creative world (it rly doesn't matter that it gets deleted or smth) is just against everything DU wants to achieve
people aren't forced. People are informed that: 1) there will be safezones where you can build and do stuff unharmed and 2) everything outside will be PVP, except if PLAYERS do protect other members. So noone forces you here to build outside. Noone forces you to play DU. You get a game with certain mechanics (which are clearly promoted and which are clearly visible to anyone) - so no, you can't complain afterwards that there is no creative mode on some seperate server
 
edit:
and stop saying you don't want a seperate server for it when you have written that on multiple occasions
 

Critics claimed "it occured" and "it is a game"

None of what you stated there answers the primary negative impact that it would have, that is for every player spending time messing around in creative zone, that is a player who isn't actually playing the game. They aren't in the world space, they are not contributing to societies, and the only thing they are adding to the world is blueprints.
 
people are going to be building all the time as it is, blueprints will be everywhere, and having a way to produce blueprints in-game without any access to the material de-values blueprints as a commodity.
 
by far the most dangerous thing suggested here though is the idea that you would be able to test pvp with multiple players in creative mode. That would badly fracture the player popularion, as the only pvp-minded player left in the actual world then would be pirates and conquerers. All of us folks who want to fight, but who don't take any pleasure in ruining other people's creations would be playing effectively a whole other game in creative instead of bounty hunting or joining a militia.
 
the backbone of this game is the number of people actually playing it. If you are testing blueprints, you'll need the resources and space to do so. If you are testing military tech, it'll need field tests. That's just what an emergent gameplay environment is all about. If that's exciting to you, join a military tech development org (heck I started one, the Alchemists, and thats exactly what I plan on spending my time doing).

None of what you stated there answers the primary negative impact that it would have, that is for every player spending time messing around in creative zone, that is a player who isn't actually playing the game. They aren't in the world space, they are not contributing to societies, and the only thing they are adding to the world is blueprints.
 
people are going to be building all the time as it is, blueprints will be everywhere, and having a way to produce blueprints in-game without any access to the material de-values blueprints as a commodity.
 
by far the most dangerous thing suggested here though is the idea that you would be able to test pvp with multiple players in creative mode. That would badly fracture the player popularion, as the only pvp-minded player left in the actual world then would be pirates and conquerers. All of us folks who want to fight, but who don't take any pleasure in ruining other people's creations would be playing effectively a whole other game in creative instead of bounty hunting or joining a militia.
 
the backbone of this game is the number of people actually playing it. If you are testing blueprints, you'll need the resources and space to do so. If you are testing military tech, it'll need field tests. That's just what an emergent gameplay environment is all about. If that's exciting to you, join a military tech development org (heck I started one, the Alchemists, and thats exactly what I plan on spending my time doing).

So far there or no wheeled or biped vehicles in Dual Universe and I am not sure if they will ever have them ? Not enough information has ben released on this subject so far.
 
I do have a idea for now if your interested and I have seen this in other games and maybe you have also : so far the only vehicles we have seen for ground use or hover vehicles so you could try something like building a hover tank and then designing something like a mecha upper torso on top.
 
 
Necron Destroyer
 
This is what I could find quickly but I am sure you have a better idea of what I am trying to say and I  have seen other games that use hover style mecha's. Could be a interesting project for you if your interested?

I absolutely agree that PVP is a key feature in the game, but to say it is the most important feature is an overstatement. It defiantly needs to be present, and its the thing I'm most excited for above all else in DU too (I'm aboslutely jazzed to build military tech).
 
However, the destructive capability of individual players, and even groups of players, has to be pretty limited for a game to actually build anything that resembles a civilization. If it is too easy to destroy, and too difficult to create, then it would only take a few very destructive players to destroy the work of dozens and cripple entire cities. One of the many reasons we don't see large clans doing large scale battles in Space Engineers (apart from the fact that it would melt the servers) is because of how destructive ramming is. A dirt cheap ship can cripple a large station (built to withstand traditional weapons) just by ramming it at the normal max speed (which is pretty low).
 
In Eve though, its easy to repair and replace ships. It will be far harder to do so in DU, so for there to be player-built civilizations (as the devs intend) it will have to be harder to destroy than to create, and you can do that in a game.
 
Anybody who expects they will be able to play around a little, hop into a ship, and play through battle after battle after battle is totally delusional. There will be serious limitations in how many large fleets and large structures can be built in a given time, since it all needs to be made by players. Theoretically there will be a time where ships can be mass-produced in factories, but that will still be much more work and complexity than the click of a button.
 
I think we'll see that TU's and the ability to set protections and laws will have a serious impact on the number of "murder-hobo" players that'll enjoy the game. There will be parts of the universe that feel a bit more like Rust (where clans are routinely killing off newbies for little-no reson and raiding each other all the time), but those battles will be more like skirmishes and less like the huge wars in EVE.

NQ talked about the possibility for a "creative mode" for building yes, but not for an offline mode. If the game functioned on any significant level offline, piracy, modding, and private servers could become an issue. Monetization could become an issue (as it would be challenging to get the "offline" class of player to pay). And again most importantly, people using creative mode would therefor not actually be logged on, they would not be participating in the same game as the rest of us.
 
The main reason that we have something *like* creative mode during the pre-alpha is due to the lack of a crafting system, and the need to test construct mechanics including flight on a large scale with many players (and the easiest way to do that apart from spawning a bunch of free ships, is by giving everyone all the parts).
 
An offline mode simply might not be possible, especially if so much of the game's mechanics are server-side.

It really only works with Empyrion and Space Engineers *because* the game is built to be run single-player and run like garbage in multiplayer. If you take a game like DU that isn't built to be run in single player, there is just no easy way to simply add single player without creating serious problems. And then what, you end up with a free modded version of the game getting shared on 4chan and private servers popping up that look more like 2nd life and all that work is for nothing.
 
Now the ability to use creative mode to blueprint a construct while online, I could see that being a feature that could eventually be added post-release (having a prototyping bay or something), however it would get pretty dang complicated if you also needed to be able to test those constructs. Its one thing if you are plopping down voxels and elements you don't have just to produce a file, but for the game to make an instanced version that works gets tricky, and opens up the door for potential exploits.
 
I think the way constructs will behave during the construction process should be pretty predictable, and between in-game tutorials, wikis, and safe zones, there should be plenty of ways to mess around with building constructs that doesn't involve creative mode equivalent.

Pretty much this. Apart from someone stealing the Legate's actual login credentials (which would be a ban-worthy offense), the only real way for an org to lose something of tremendous value is for the legate to actually surrender the goods, or for claimed tiles to be physically attacked (TU destroyed, and construct cores tunneled-to and destroyed).
 
If someone is running a democratic org, then I guess the org could get Trumped (where someone tricks people into voting for them, and then actively erodes the org from the top). A military org could suffer from a coup (where a higher-up commander sabotages a tile, destroying a TU and core from within permission'ed areas).
 
But really the smart way to go is to be the single legate with permission on the structures guarding TU's, and guarding key structure cores, and distribute permissions to other facilities accordingly. Split up treasuries, and divy-up the rights to use those treasuries across several trusted members. Maybe even only play with people you know IRL, or elect only people you know IRL to high positions.There are plenty of mostly low-risk ways to avoid some of this stuff.
 
 
I do think though that there is plenty of room for major thefts and security breeches due to cyber warfare in-game. I'm talking character-based hacking and stealth skills, hacking implements, EMP weapons, ID scramblers (to behave anonymously) and ID spoofers (so that you can act with permissions from another specific player). If these implements are in the game, then the org-infiltration espionage and corporate espionage is not necessary for large heists.

Could be that a couple of ATV members that were backers broke NDA. Not sure though

My guess is that this probably won't happen. I bet a significant part of the essential game functions are server-side, which would make this basically impossible.
 
EDIT: Also, it would be then *easier* for people to do their building offline, drastically cutting the number of players that would play online at all. You'd end up with a class of "player" who plays offline only just for creative mode.

I woke up early for the test and [Redacted]

I woke up early for the test and [Redacted]

I woke up early for the test and [Redacted]

Pretty much this. Apart from someone stealing the Legate's actual login credentials (which would be a ban-worthy offense), the only real way for an org to lose something of tremendous value is for the legate to actually surrender the goods, or for claimed tiles to be physically attacked (TU destroyed, and construct cores tunneled-to and destroyed).
 
If someone is running a democratic org, then I guess the org could get Trumped (where someone tricks people into voting for them, and then actively erodes the org from the top). A military org could suffer from a coup (where a higher-up commander sabotages a tile, destroying a TU and core from within permission'ed areas).
 
But really the smart way to go is to be the single legate with permission on the structures guarding TU's, and guarding key structure cores, and distribute permissions to other facilities accordingly. Split up treasuries, and divy-up the rights to use those treasuries across several trusted members. Maybe even only play with people you know IRL, or elect only people you know IRL to high positions.There are plenty of mostly low-risk ways to avoid some of this stuff.
 
 
I do think though that there is plenty of room for major thefts and security breeches due to cyber warfare in-game. I'm talking character-based hacking and stealth skills, hacking implements, EMP weapons, ID scramblers (to behave anonymously) and ID spoofers (so that you can act with permissions from another specific player). If these implements are in the game, then the org-infiltration espionage and corporate espionage is not necessary for large heists.

I woke up early for the test and [Redacted]

Critics claimed "it occured" and "it is a game"

p2hf - pay to have fun
p2cu- pay to catch up
obydss-overpay because you did something stupid
obyal-overpay because you are lazy
bsaeig-be smart and earn in game
blsh-buy low sell high
 
Heck. nothing catchy so far. Anybody came up with some more acronyms of possibilities?
 
I actually hit like buttons on both sides of this spectrum because this is what it is for me. It's obvious how Visa works and as long as you can pay with it for in game goodies you can benefit. But as long as game provides equal opportunities and possibilities to earn in game there is always a chance it's a Visa Uber players that feeds a market but its them being ripped off by skilled players. Usually because they too lazy, ignorant, not skilled enough, because they can or simply... people playing for fun and want to catch up. 
 
I don't care about definitions. As long as there is no item shop that will put Visa guy ahead of me because there is some gear I will not be able to acquire any other way, most of people are happy with it. Sure, maybe more cash will give you more raw materials faster, you can employ some workforce etc. But at the same time, there is not guarantee for Visa player of success on any level here. I do agree however this should be transparent and obvious to anybody who making decisions.
 
And I believe DU will provide more opportunities for fair chances to everybody to compare to EVE. But there is no way to have a perfect solution. One have more cash another time on his hands. Both are precious commodities in MMO games. Period.
 
 

Critics claimed "it occured" and "it is a game"