Hades

Precisely.  I don’t think a timer on laying a TU down is necessary, however, I do think there should be a duration before a shield can go up.  For example, Group A takes over Group Bs area, they lay down a claim and shield.  The shield won’t go online for x amount of time. That way Group B can regroup and try and take it back.
 
However, I think x should be hours not days.  If there was a shield on the claim before it was taken, they had 2 days to prepare.

No.  Just stop.  Please.
 
NQ has spoken for player freedom.  I back that choice.
 
In the "high sec" in DU, it will be impossible to grief... since combat will be impossible.  I imagine damage to constructs will not be possible within the safezones.  I doubt collisions will be possible even outside of the safezones, as I believe NQ stated collisions may be too resource intensive to implement.
 
Also, NQ literally stated that they will open up new areas for players.

No.  Just stop.  Please.
 
NQ has spoken for player freedom.  I back that choice.
 
In the "high sec" in DU, it will be impossible to grief... since combat will be impossible.  I imagine damage to constructs will not be possible within the safezones.  I doubt collisions will be possible even outside of the safezones, as I believe NQ stated collisions may be too resource intensive to implement.
 
Also, NQ literally stated that they will open up new areas for players.

No.  Just stop.  Please.
 
NQ has spoken for player freedom.  I back that choice.
 
In the "high sec" in DU, it will be impossible to grief... since combat will be impossible.  I imagine damage to constructs will not be possible within the safezones.  I doubt collisions will be possible even outside of the safezones, as I believe NQ stated collisions may be too resource intensive to implement.
 
Also, NQ literally stated that they will open up new areas for players.

Have to love NQs vision, it truly is unprecedented in many ways.

Hi everyone,
 
It seems the DevBlog was not clear enough on some points.
We have said it many times before, and we'll continue to say it again:
While many players wants to see Dual Universe with a dominant gameplay aspect, it's important to understand that it's NOT the case. 
 
Building gameplay is as important as Combat gameplay. Not more, not less. Balancing both won't be easy and we are aware of it. No, Building is not the major feature of Dual Universe. If the Building aspect has been made first, it's only because, it was making total sense to start the development with this part: we are pretty much in R&D field regarding the Voxel technology. It was an essential piece of tech to build the base of the game: Voxels were necessary to create editable planets in the first place. Then the logical next step was to develop tools to give players to manipulate voxels. That wouldn't make sense to develop Combat gameplay before the two previous steps because, there wouldn't even something to destroy, or even an environment where the combat could happen.
 
The order in which the features are developed are NOT by order of importance.
It's just a matter of logical game development roadmap.

We have no plan to make Dual Universe a total free for all PvP game, just as we won't make it a whole game universe safe, just because some players want to explore it completely without taking any risk. While we don't plan to make our game some kind of "EVE Online 2.0", we don't want either to make a "No Man's Sky 2.0". We understand this may not appeal to everyone taste, and we totally understand that. However, if there is something that is very unlikely to change, it's the fact that there's no intention to catter to only one specific category of players. 
 
A final word about the griefing and the mindset of the community. Our point of view is that griefing mainly proliferates when it's an easy way to get rewards with little effort, not necessarily because many people really wants to play that way. Of course, there are people who like to grief just for the enjoyment of annoying other players but we are convinced they're not a majority. If game mechanics are designed in such a way that griefing doesn't give easy rewards, then griefing will be naturally limited. 
 
Why not simply remove the possibility of griefing, then?

Yes, it would be clearly easier and quicker to remove the ability to grief other players, but while we have no intention to encourage griefing, removing it totally would go against the very definition of the sandbox concept: players are free to interact in the way they want. If we remove any kind of interaction, then we are not in a Sandbox MMORPG anymore: we would be in a Theme Park one. And that is not Novaquark's vision. We want a game universe where bad behavior is discouraged by game mechanics and heavy in consequences if a player still choose to do so, than arbitrarily forbid the said behavior. We want players to be free but also to live with the consequences of their choices. That's what Sandbox mean to us at Novaquark.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

I think you’ve misinterpreted much then.  There’s all the willingness to prevent “griefing”.  It just seems like some players want NQ to do it for them... which they have with safezones
 
You can keep throwing that veiled threat around all you like, but many of us backed the project because NQ leaves so much up to the players.  It’s truly a civilization building game.
 
If some in-game mechanic made civilization all safe and dandy from the get-go... kind of defeats the purpose and we made a Minecraft in space without zombies. 

I think you’ve misinterpreted much then.  There’s all the willingness to prevent “griefing”.  It just seems like some players want NQ to do it for them... which they have with safezones
 
You can keep throwing that veiled threat around all you like, but many of us backed the project because NQ leaves so much up to the players.  It’s truly a civilization building game.
 
If some in-game mechanic made civilization all safe and dandy from the get-go... kind of defeats the purpose and we made a Minecraft in space without zombies. 

I think you’ve misinterpreted much then.  There’s all the willingness to prevent “griefing”.  It just seems like some players want NQ to do it for them... which they have with safezones
 
You can keep throwing that veiled threat around all you like, but many of us backed the project because NQ leaves so much up to the players.  It’s truly a civilization building game.
 
If some in-game mechanic made civilization all safe and dandy from the get-go... kind of defeats the purpose and we made a Minecraft in space without zombies. 

If you’re reducing a player who has wronged you to a safezone, you’re already countering them.  Safe zones aren’t a one way street, nor should they be.
 
This whole PvPer classification is getting pretty rediculous imho.  Once you step into DU, you become all of it.  You’re a pvper, you’re a PvE(er?).  The only thing that is up to you is whether or not you get involved in politics and true civilization building.  By that I mean building institutions and infrastructure to support a population.
 
You can’t spend hours creating a settlement and think people will use it.  Have to take part in politics and civilization building for that to happen.  But is that person a PvE(er) or a pvper? He built a settlement, so he’s a PvE(er) right?  But wait, he destroyed an opponent to get such a prime real estate.  So he’s a pvper right?  None of the above.

Any reputation system will have to be player made, that’s the beauty of a player driven game.  Perhaps you personally could found an institution for such a thing?  And then you could potentially use privileges to allow/disallow people from using market terminals you own, and the like.  By terminals you own, I mean organizations who abide by your reputation system.  Effectively making the safezone useless for them except for temporary respite.
 
Of course it’s likely people will have a safe market hub for all, as more demand is more profit.
 
Have to love players driven games.  No watered down experience here, we get the full tap

An all encompassing organization can lead to some of the best experiences in these kinds of games.  You end up linking in arms with people you’d never expect.
 
Good luck rhino 

All of the above.

All of the above.

They shouldn’t be easy to get either though.  If a ship is difficult for a solo player to get (in matter of hours/days even) then a territory control unit should be a week or so.
 
Land should be coveted, and every legally owned piece of land should be hard-fought for.  (Not physically of course, no PvP involved... but you get what I mean).
 
If land is easy to get, early players are going to snag everything.  And I do mean everything, just because they can.  Heck, if territory control units are a dime a dozen I’ll place them (the maximum limit) down immediately personally.  If I need to move it, I imagine that’s possible.
 
But if they’re expensive, and take a lot of effort to build... then I’ll place one down, and work on my other ventures outside of safezones.  Allowing other players to get their shares.  The more diverse amount of players that get their shares, the more that go up for grabs when they end up quitting.
 
Edit:
Honestly, I don’t think every player needs their own plot of land.  If someone can profit from making a garage for people to park their items... I imagine they will.  The fact that a safezone is there is all that matters 

I think it would work perfectly for DU.  If you don't visit the territory, you shouldn't hold it.  It would require careful planning before placing down a territory.  It would also make territories more fluid, as an old vet doesn't need, or utilize, their MSAs on the starting zone... but a new player would.  And if you have a huge market rolling in the starting system, you better be visiting more than 1ce every 3 weeks.
 
However, I do think it should be dictated by the RDMS.  You could give certain people access to the ability to manage your territory controllers.  This would be mighty useful for a large org.
 
Also, travel times will decrease as technology grows.
 
As an aside, I think it should be relatively simple to retrieve a territory control unit.
 
Edit:
I would like to reiterate, the timer should only be for MSAs and ASAs.  If your defenses can hold a territory in UA territory, by all means... it’s yours

They shouldn’t be easy to get either though.  If a ship is difficult for a solo player to get (in matter of hours/days even) then a territory control unit should be a week or so.
 
Land should be coveted, and every legally owned piece of land should be hard-fought for.  (Not physically of course, no PvP involved... but you get what I mean).
 
If land is easy to get, early players are going to snag everything.  And I do mean everything, just because they can.  Heck, if territory control units are a dime a dozen I’ll place them (the maximum limit) down immediately personally.  If I need to move it, I imagine that’s possible.
 
But if they’re expensive, and take a lot of effort to build... then I’ll place one down, and work on my other ventures outside of safezones.  Allowing other players to get their shares.  The more diverse amount of players that get their shares, the more that go up for grabs when they end up quitting.
 
Edit:
Honestly, I don’t think every player needs their own plot of land.  If someone can profit from making a garage for people to park their items... I imagine they will.  The fact that a safezone is there is all that matters 

I think it would work perfectly for DU.  If you don't visit the territory, you shouldn't hold it.  It would require careful planning before placing down a territory.  It would also make territories more fluid, as an old vet doesn't need, or utilize, their MSAs on the starting zone... but a new player would.  And if you have a huge market rolling in the starting system, you better be visiting more than 1ce every 3 weeks.
 
However, I do think it should be dictated by the RDMS.  You could give certain people access to the ability to manage your territory controllers.  This would be mighty useful for a large org.
 
Also, travel times will decrease as technology grows.
 
As an aside, I think it should be relatively simple to retrieve a territory control unit.
 
Edit:
I would like to reiterate, the timer should only be for MSAs and ASAs.  If your defenses can hold a territory in UA territory, by all means... it’s yours

I don’t really like the idea of a tiered system, as I think all units should be the same.  Other than the differences between moon and arkships.  But I do think people should get their territory ownership booted if they don’t physically visit the claim in 2-3 or so weeks.  Only for claims within safezones of course 
 
I’d also like to echo the belief that moons should be relatively scarce further away from the arkship.  Perhaps all the moons on the arkship could be safe... but further out, I want rare resources to be found on moons as well.  Having safezones gets rid of the chance for rare resources on those moons 
 
I think exploring the moons surrounding a planet and attempting to harvest them is a pretty big gameplay feature.

Or some rich troll just buys what He wants to troll others. If ppl built their monuments there it would be unfair and just Bad griefers f someone could simply outbid you and destroy the Monument (as He gets access to rdms->mine it).
 
Just put down 5 or 20 sanctuaries, spread your fleet equally and you can always bypass that too. Store loot there indefinitely, come back days or weeks later and transport everything to your main base. 
Still abuseable

Yes, clarification would be great.  I have a feeling MSAs will be found throughout the entire universe, not just the starting moons.  Simply because NQ has stated they will be discoverable.  
 
I like the idea of just the starting moons to be protected, as that creates a central hub for protection and main commerce.  But I could see them throwing a Moon here and there as safe.  The only problem is (as you say) organizations taking control and using them as staging areas.  Since they’re protected, no one would be able to contest it.  
 
I’d also hope that “afk” or inactive territory units would wiped clean somehow after something like 15-30 days.  In MSAs and the ASAs of course.

An API is cool and all, but opens Du to botters as they can (and will) use data from that API to get an edge. They should take their time with such a thing and carefully consider it - it has huge advantages but also huge downsides If not done right

Looking forward for more details and other gameplay features before setting on an opinion.
The idea doesn't look bad so far.
 
Two questions though:
With ASA (Arkship Secure Area), what allows players to move around if all tiles are claimed ? What about illegal mining / building in controlled territories ? I understood  in previous iterations that territory control and RDMS only set permissions and protect structures, but only log and prompt when someone is, for example, mining in your territory. Is this still up to date ? Regards,
Shadow

No but that's what Du is about for now and ppl should accept and realise this. 

I’d argue that if NQ said explicitly that something is going to be in game, arguing about it is pointless or invalid.
Buzzwords?  Buzzwords, lmao.  Someone hasn’t watched any of the Kickstarter videos, devblogs, or read the Kickstarter page.  Come on now.  If it’s a buzzword, it was created by NQ.
 
Thankfully a devblog will be coming out soon on the issue.  Hopefully that will dispel some of this misinformation you have.
 This is all correct.
Mind pointing me in that direction?  I’m thinking you either took something out of context, or NQ misspoke.  All of the videos, blogs, and discussions point in the opposite direction.