wizardoftrash

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.

Indeed, there is really no more need for this kind of discussion. NQ has pretty clearly laid out how they want to proceed with monetization, and even though they are borrowing from EVE's system, enough of DU is wildly different form EVE that I don't think this is really going to be an issue. Even at release, there is no way that the player population will be able to support players (plural) injecting $200 worth of DAC into the market at a time and still value the DAC highly as a commodity. We have no idea how much quanta will actually be floating around, or how easy it will be to get given that its introduction to the market will be carefully restricted. NPC's will not be a bottomless supply of money in DU, that makes it pretty much impossible to compare the two game's economies, especially since the DU economy hasn't formed yet.
 
Plus DU has to go through alpha AND beta before DAC's even exist in the economy. Whole versions of the game will be playable without the impact of DAC's whatsoever.
 
Given that Quanta will not be readily available, and that we don't really know what the capacity will be for the NPC traders to distribute quanta, I suspect that DAC's will likely be traded for raw or finished goods instead, or as payment for a fulfilled contract. *mostly* I suspect it'll boil down to DAC's being traded for time not spent mining/refining material. I suspect that the players that are willing to inject money into DAC's as a currency will be using it to "catch up" to players who have more free time, probably professionals and/or people with a family or other hobbies (like myself).
 
Now that being said, this has been discussed to death, but there isn't going to be a way to form a valid argument that the monetization scheme is somehow bad for players without any good data. DU is different enough from EVE that data from EVE is bad data.

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

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.

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

Indeed, there is really no more need for this kind of discussion. NQ has pretty clearly laid out how they want to proceed with monetization, and even though they are borrowing from EVE's system, enough of DU is wildly different form EVE that I don't think this is really going to be an issue. Even at release, there is no way that the player population will be able to support players (plural) injecting $200 worth of DAC into the market at a time and still value the DAC highly as a commodity. We have no idea how much quanta will actually be floating around, or how easy it will be to get given that its introduction to the market will be carefully restricted. NPC's will not be a bottomless supply of money in DU, that makes it pretty much impossible to compare the two game's economies, especially since the DU economy hasn't formed yet.
 
Plus DU has to go through alpha AND beta before DAC's even exist in the economy. Whole versions of the game will be playable without the impact of DAC's whatsoever.
 
Given that Quanta will not be readily available, and that we don't really know what the capacity will be for the NPC traders to distribute quanta, I suspect that DAC's will likely be traded for raw or finished goods instead, or as payment for a fulfilled contract. *mostly* I suspect it'll boil down to DAC's being traded for time not spent mining/refining material. I suspect that the players that are willing to inject money into DAC's as a currency will be using it to "catch up" to players who have more free time, probably professionals and/or people with a family or other hobbies (like myself).
 
Now that being said, this has been discussed to death, but there isn't going to be a way to form a valid argument that the monetization scheme is somehow bad for players without any good data. DU is different enough from EVE that data from EVE is bad data.

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.

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

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

I heard from an unnamed ATV member, on an unnamed forum, that...
 

Indeed, there is really no more need for this kind of discussion. NQ has pretty clearly laid out how they want to proceed with monetization, and even though they are borrowing from EVE's system, enough of DU is wildly different form EVE that I don't think this is really going to be an issue. Even at release, there is no way that the player population will be able to support players (plural) injecting $200 worth of DAC into the market at a time and still value the DAC highly as a commodity. We have no idea how much quanta will actually be floating around, or how easy it will be to get given that its introduction to the market will be carefully restricted. NPC's will not be a bottomless supply of money in DU, that makes it pretty much impossible to compare the two game's economies, especially since the DU economy hasn't formed yet.
 
Plus DU has to go through alpha AND beta before DAC's even exist in the economy. Whole versions of the game will be playable without the impact of DAC's whatsoever.
 
Given that Quanta will not be readily available, and that we don't really know what the capacity will be for the NPC traders to distribute quanta, I suspect that DAC's will likely be traded for raw or finished goods instead, or as payment for a fulfilled contract. *mostly* I suspect it'll boil down to DAC's being traded for time not spent mining/refining material. I suspect that the players that are willing to inject money into DAC's as a currency will be using it to "catch up" to players who have more free time, probably professionals and/or people with a family or other hobbies (like myself).
 
Now that being said, this has been discussed to death, but there isn't going to be a way to form a valid argument that the monetization scheme is somehow bad for players without any good data. DU is different enough from EVE that data from EVE is bad data.

What the.. You guys still discuss 'bout p2w or not in that way?

You miss the Topic! It's still Pre-Alpha and we have such toxic thread here!
 
Please return to a reasonable, logic discussion below my post. Thank you.
 

There is an opportunity here...
 
I think usernames by-default should be displayed and easy to see. Characters should be easy to identify, ships too.
 
However, there should be items that can scrample or spoof ID information, and consequently items that can un-scramble them. For example, a player could invest the XP and levels into stealth skills on the skill try to be able to use a purchased scrambler (and like any other tool or module, it would require energy or have some sort of cooldown or something). This would let them be anonymous for a period of time, or kick out a dummy name, or censor the name. heck, a really strong/expensive version might even kick out a name of your choice (framing other people).
 
But this would be a huge hoop to jump through, it would have to be a big enough hoop so that people couldn't just set up a burner account just to mess with people, or make trial accounts and run around spoofed.

i am fairly certain that this has already been addressed and decided by NQ. my understanding is you will have a "first" and "last" name.

If I go to one of my town's microbreweries for a beer, and I pay cash as to not get caught up in the $5 minimum, after a reasonable tip (20% plus round up to nearest dollar) it ends up being about $5. I do that just about every week when I'm taking a break from painting miniatures at my friendly local game store.
 
so yeah, $4 will buy you a really nice craft beer at a brewery, or a pair of pretty decent craft beers if you ate buying 12 packs and breaking it down by unit.

If I go to one of my town's microbreweries for a beer, and I pay cash as to not get caught up in the $5 minimum, after a reasonable tip (20% plus round up to nearest dollar) it ends up being about $5. I do that just about every week when I'm taking a break from painting miniatures at my friendly local game store.
 
so yeah, $4 will buy you a really nice craft beer at a brewery, or a pair of pretty decent craft beers if you ate buying 12 packs and breaking it down by unit.

Agreed here. Basically every new monotization thread devolves to a couple people begging and pleading and two dozen regulars going in and saying "no" a bunch of times.

Also this argument is a bit of a hair-splitting fest.
 
Willing to pay to play for a period of time, but not willing to shell out for the price for a full month... There is no way the monthly sub is so expensive that it warrants alternative/smaller options. Either the game is worth its full fee or its not, fortunately once the game is actually released, a player would only need to "waste" 1 month's fee to discover that the game isn't something they like.
 
In this case though, the monthly fee is about as much as a Magic the Gathering player spends in a *week* drafting. This is about the cost of going to the shooting range once for a short session if you add in the cost of ammunition. This is the price of 1 decent meal at a restaurant, or an OK meal if you are drinking. This is about the cost of seeing 2 movies, or 1 movie and snacks at a theater.
 
Consider that so many leisure activities cost this amount in 1 session, but this fee pays for the full month. Even if you only play 1 weekend session per-week, that's 4x the entertainment-hours-per-dollar as those activities listed above.
 
I'd say we've exhausted this topic by now.

Also this argument is a bit of a hair-splitting fest.
 
Willing to pay to play for a period of time, but not willing to shell out for the price for a full month... There is no way the monthly sub is so expensive that it warrants alternative/smaller options. Either the game is worth its full fee or its not, fortunately once the game is actually released, a player would only need to "waste" 1 month's fee to discover that the game isn't something they like.
 
In this case though, the monthly fee is about as much as a Magic the Gathering player spends in a *week* drafting. This is about the cost of going to the shooting range once for a short session if you add in the cost of ammunition. This is the price of 1 decent meal at a restaurant, or an OK meal if you are drinking. This is about the cost of seeing 2 movies, or 1 movie and snacks at a theater.
 
Consider that so many leisure activities cost this amount in 1 session, but this fee pays for the full month. Even if you only play 1 weekend session per-week, that's 4x the entertainment-hours-per-dollar as those activities listed above.
 
I'd say we've exhausted this topic by now.

Also. OP seems to think the devs will make more money if those "on the fence" players have a way to play per-hour, but the reality is that the number of players for whom the monthly subscription is a deal-breaker is very very small. The devs stand to lose only a handfull of players at a discounted rate by sticking with a monthly sub, but stand to lose a lot per-player of the people who would happily pay the monthly sub if that was the only option.
 
flat-out, the devs will lose money.
 
I'd rather they collect that money and use some of it to improve the game.

There we go, so you aren't even the example of a player who would play if it were pay per hour, but wouldn't play if it were a normal subscription.
 
So where are these mysterious potentially lost customers then, and are there enough of them to out-weight the loss in revenue for players like you who don't need pay per hour but would use it if it were cheaper. This is a no-brainer, don't rock the boat.

I believe there is room for some variation in mining speed/sizes, but I'm not of the opinion that the speed shown is too fast, or too large an area. Without the ability to mine with a construct (like in Space Engineers), then there is no real way to "work up-to" mass-mining. In Space Engineers you can build bigger and bigger mining ships, making your task of excavating a lot of earth easier. NQ doesn't have any plans at all to allow constructs to mine, which means it'll all be by-hand, one shape at a time. This is very very slow compared to even a "small" mining ship in SE.
 
That being said, this is an MMO after all. I'd love to see there be different variations of mining module for the nano-former. We might discover that in order to mine certain minerals, you need a higher-tier mining module that mines a smaller area, but can pick up heavier ores. We might find that there is also a higher tier nanoformer that can dig a much larger area, but only lighter ores as well, and a successful minor might alternate between two or three mining modules during a mining run. Perhaps there might even be a very high tier that is big, quick, and can pick-up everything but the heaviest ore.
 
Plus you've got scanning to think about too. In SE, it requires almost no investment to actually detect specific ores, you just add the right part to your ship and you can detect them. The biggest chore was actually finding sources of each ore. In DU though, scanning will be a skill that you spec into and invest gear in. That alone might be enough to keep mining entertaining.

Hate to break it to you, but the full subscription is a "fair price", even if you can only play one session per week. Compare it to other forms of leisure activity, it is not uncommon to blow the full price of the DU monthly subscription in just one session of other leisure activities. I find the price to be fair despite the fact that I'll be able to commit one, maybe two, evenings per-week to play at the most.
 
play or don't, that's up to you.
 
Not to mention, those of us who have the money where the price is no-object, often don't actually have the time to play a ton. Those of us who can actually afford to spend money on DAC's to use in contracts in-exchange for the stuff we'd have to grind for. The folks that actually do have the time to play tons and tons of hours (students, underemployed) woundn't be able to afford an hourly rate that would be player-footprint neutral.

Which is better, devaluing your own product by letting less-dedicated people play, or provide a better experience for all players?
 
You are making the argument that a significant slice of the potential player base will just opt not to play if there is no per-hour option. Sounds like you are one of those players, and given that you aren't a founder or a backer, that means that you aren't a customer. Why should they or any of us listen to you? 
 
"hey but it worked for someone else"
and NQ isn't CCCP. DU isn't EVE. this is a doozey of a false-equivalency.
 
Most of us are here to play the game we are paying for, we aren't here to play EVE.

Also. OP seems to think the devs will make more money if those "on the fence" players have a way to play per-hour, but the reality is that the number of players for whom the monthly subscription is a deal-breaker is very very small. The devs stand to lose only a handfull of players at a discounted rate by sticking with a monthly sub, but stand to lose a lot per-player of the people who would happily pay the monthly sub if that was the only option.
 
flat-out, the devs will lose money.
 
I'd rather they collect that money and use some of it to improve the game.