AccuNut

True, but it depends on how/if they decide to implement those. If they make them really hard to build or very expensive, it might not be feasible. Still, it would be neat to have it work that way, you could make the equivilant of vacuum tubes like the ones they use in bank drive-throughs, but with gravity!

Very true, and a convincing argument! I agree, this would eliminate a lot of the confusion, since the "planet name" is staying the same, but would still allow for some kind of naming. Here is yet another option: the original discoverer gets INDIRECT naming rights with the final name being decided by regional or planetary vote. Here is how it would work: someone discovers a planet. At this point the planet is given a procedurally-generated designation or name.(HS4-RD, Yavin-IX, etc.) The way I understand it, the universe (multiverse?) will be divided into "regions" containing multiple planets each. If this new planet is in an established region, he can call for a vote right away. He suggests a name, and it either passes or not. If not, he can continue to suggest options until one does pass, or he gives up and transfers naming rights to someone else. If it is a new or unestablished region,(meaning; a region needs X-number of players in it to become established,) then he can either wait for it to become established, or call for a vote from the nearest established region. This system would avoid stupid and organization-based names,(for the most part,) give the original discoverer the satisfaction of choosing the name, and get a large amount of the community involved in the process. Alternatively, it could be a planetary vote once, say, 60% of the planet is claimed.(Not necessarily controlled.) This option unfortunately still leaves the door open to an organization discovering a planet, then flooding it with their own people so that any name they choose passes, but it is another way to do it. Or even a combo of one of these and the prefix/suffix/inix idea. The name is chosen as above, but can be partially modified like you suggested! However they decide to do it, I think there should be recognition given to the discoverer. Maybe some fine print under the planet name whenever it is displayed: "discovered by: XXXX". Gotta say Semproser, genius idea on the fixed name with prefix/suffix/inix being rename-able! Just so long as it still comes up by it's fixed name when you are searching the planet database for it.

How about the ability to harness the wormhole as a stargate? It obviously has a power source of its own in hyperspace, that is what causes it to open. So what if you could construct a stargate around the entrance and force it to stay open, running partially on the hyperspace energy and partly on a normal stargate energy source? The trick then would be to find a way to control the pattern of the exit, since, if you could do that, there would be no need of a stargate at the other end. (At least to get there, you would need to build one to get back.) Or, You could accept the activation pattern, ( open 10 minutes, closed 10 days,) and have a part-time stargate for free! Again, though, you would need a way to force it to link with other stargates instead of it's normal cyclic exit locations.

Sorry, got caught up in the moment. Basically, I was saying that any construct that has gravity in more than one direction (like a planet, where it pulls everything toward it's center, even if you are on the bottom of it,) would have trouble if it got too close to a planet. Using the cube city as an example, if you were standing on a side facing the planet when this happened, the planet's gravity would overpower the cube city's gravity on that side, and you would "fall" off the city and onto the planet. The only way I see to prevent this would be to create a device that can somehow bend gravity from an already existing source. It could be a gravity generator or a planet. It could even bend the gravity 180 degrees so that it is working aginst itself. With a system like that, the gravity generators on the cube city would no longer be competing with the gravity from the planet, since your "gravity bender" is using the planets own gravity to cancel itself out. For example, let's say the planet is pulling on you with 1000 pounds of force, (I know this isn't how gravity is measured, but it is easier for me than using the real equation,) and your gravity generators are only pulling on you with 500 pounds of force. This means the planet is pulling on you twice as hard as your generator. So in essence, your construct's gravity is at -500 pounds. The gravity bender acts like a mirror, reflecting that 1000 pounds of force back toward the planet, 1000 - 1000 = 0, which means your gravity generators are back up to exerting +500 pounds of force on you, keeping you safely anchored on the surface of the city. I hope that makes sense. I apologize again for the techno-babble in my previous post, looking back, I can easily see how it was confusing. If there is any part of this explanation that you don't understand, just let me know and I will try to clear it up.

First off, I see a lot of potential for the ideas posted here. I think that quite possibly, all of the repair concepts that have been mentioned could be used. Also, if a player wants to perform in-battle repairs, there would be a risk, but that is when his team needs to work on protecting him. Just like there are different kinds of engines and weapons, there could be different kinds of repair tech, each with advantages and disadvantages. Maybe the repair arms could handle massive hull repair quickly, but not system repairs. Meanwhile, nanites might be able to do the system repairs, but be insanely slow at armor reconstruction. It would really open up the possibilities to have multiple repair forms. It would also give birth to methods of slowing down an enemy repair procedure: EMP systems (Electro-Magnetic Pulse, in case you were wondering. ) to knock out the nanites, residual energy damage to armor blocks that inhibits new material form bonding, etc. As to energy transfer, that is an interesting concept. It could be used for more than just shield recharge too. You could have a ship that utilizes some exceptionally powerful energy weapons, but doesn't have the energy storage necessary to use them for extended periods of time. But if there is a recharge ship nearby..voila...longer shoot-time. As far as "energy leaching" goes, that would, again, give rise to counter-leaching systems. Even if their leaching tech is more advanced than your defense system, there is a chance you could "overload" their ship by sacrificing a large burst of energy directly into their leach mechanism. (If you can't defend against it, you will eventually lose it all anyway, right? ) Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is extending an energy shield to encompass another ship. Energy drain would be immense, but it would provide yet another option to consider when building/using a support ship. "Do I want to shield my ally and do minor/slow repairs, or large/fast repairs with no extra protection?" And then there is the question of remote-controlled constructs and/or autonomous drones. If NQ does implement those, they could be used to repair/shield/recharge ships in combat with less risk to the actual support vessel. Enemies would have to get creative with their tactics in order to take out the drone "mother ship". This is definately an interesting topic, and one I hope NovaQuark considers.

That is a cool idea, you might even be able to build a gravitational "tractor beam" to draw in/hold other objects or ships.

I think independent gravity generators is a good idea personnally. As has been mentioned, it would allow for a bit more creativity and efficiency with regard to large space-born objects. Also, how else do you explain the fact that you are walking in a ship, as opposed to floating? However...there are some potential issues if your multi-directional gravitational construct (cube city, for example,) floats too close to a planet, since the planet would then exert more gravity than the generators. That is unless they incorporate a "gravity re-director" that can take a current gravity source and "bend" it in a different direction. Then you would just basically use the planets own gravity to negate itself, while your gravity generators kept everything in place.

How about stairs and escalators? I think that could add a pretty neat effect to the larger ships. Maybe lift platforms? They would be kind of like elevators only with no physical lift mechanism, more of an energy booster deal. They could also function as mini, pre-programmed transport within the ship, moving both vertically and horizontally. Just select a destination and it will get you there.

I agree! That would be super cool if it actually sounded like a radio system! On the flipside, it could make it difficult for someone with a junky microphone to utilize any type of voice chat. Maybe as an option that can be toggled on and off? Another cool idea is a slight echo for intercom systems within the ship itself, not ship-to-ship. It might be a little difficult if you wanted absolute realism, (bigger room/hallway, more delayed echo,) but if all you do is a standard echo for all intercom speakers, it wouldn't be that hard.

I think it would be cool to have a couple "classes" of stargates, like in the TV series Stargate SG1 and Stargate to Atlantis. A "normal" gate that only relatively small ships could fit through, ( like the "puddlejumpers" from Atlantis,) and then a Supergate that could handle transporting entire mother-ships. The advantage would be that the smaller gates would be less expensive to build and use less power, and could even be portable. But, they would have much less range than a Supergate. Maybe they would also require a "cooldown" after each jump. That would really open up some possibilities for back-door sabatoge by an enemy, since they could build a small, unobtrusive gate behind a moon or such, and send ships through every now and then to spy or strategically harrass their opponent. This is kind of like the secret gates that were discussed earlier, and would be detectable when they came online and for a short period after they shut down. Also, it would be neat if they incorporated a "dialing sequence" (again; Stargate SG1/Atlantis,). Especially if they incorporated the "alien" gates, they should have a different dialing sequence/operation than a human-built gate.

That is pretty neat! Just spitballing here, but that could even be used by organizations to create protected trade routes. All they would have to do is watch the ship traffic via an active map like the one you posted. Then they could go about setting up some kind of automated defense system or regular patrols along the route. Again, not sure if that is even practical, just throwing it out there. :-)

Both of these are interesting suggestions, but have some previously mentioned pitfalls. Mainly, it allows the planet name to change multiple times, and almost continually if the right conditions are met. This could become very confusing to players as they travel the known universe. It would also wreak havoc on any type of industry that delivers goods, since "Lot 98 on Planet Zorg" just became "Lot 98 on Planet Whatcha-ma-call-it". Especially if a particular name is popular, any given planet could receive the same name at different times. For example: let's say 5 different planets are to be named. On those five planets, the majority of the people like the name, "Asgard". Only one of them can be named Asgard, and the rest find different names. Fast forward six months, and the vote to retain the name Asgard doesn't pass, or another organization takes over and renames the planet. Meanwhile, on the neighboring planet of Sardis, (which originally wanted the name Asgard,) the controlling organization/majority of citizens realize that the name is no longer being used, and hastily rename their own planet Asgard. We now have two planets in the same system, in the same general​ area, (yes, I realize they will still be light-years from each other,) that have been named the same thing at some point. And this could keep happening until a new fad name surfaces, then the cycle starts all over. I see this becoming very disorienting to anyone who is trying to find a certain planet, and just plain annoying for everyone else. It would be the equivalent of being given an address to go to, and getting to the area only to find that all the streets, even the name of the town has changed! You would be totally lost. That seems to be one of the major concerns of non-permanent planet names, and I think it is quite valid.

True, but that might not work out too well for some people; markets for example. They don't want to have their defenses blow a customer out of the sky just because he doesn't have a transponder or doesn't have it on. Still, if you have the option to set up your auto-turrets that way, there might be a way to set them on "Reactive" mode, where they only shoot at something/someone who attempts to damage something on the property. (This is kind of off topic, but it would also be cool if they created a way to detect weapon systems activation. That could act as an additional safety measure since your defenses could come online and be ready to fire if the person actually does shoot.) I don't think what is being discussed is necessarily tricking the game​, just other players. You have a point about automated defenses, maybe the pirated transponder displays a friendly signal, but can be detected anyway by automated defense. Also, if they do allow transponder signals to be copied, they should also create some sort of tech that defends against it, and some that can detect a counterfeit. It wouldn't be all that unrealistic, kind of like the rolling codes a modern car's computer uses to verify that the key someone is trying to use is actually authorized. If the code it gets doesn't match the algorithm used for that car, no dice. The more sophisticated a copycat defense system is, the more technologically advanced a pirate ship would have to be to hack it.

Good point, good ol' private enterprise at work! Absolutely true! This will be the main focus of A.S.T.R.O.(see signature) as it should be for all markets! A good market is one that knows it can rely on return customers, and therefore doesn't have to wring every possible cent out of every transaction.

To hearken to the contract thread I was referring to, that would require an in-game mechanic that automatically rewarded a player the designated reward for completing the bounty. If that were the case, then yes, that aspect could work. My comments were directed toward the possibility that NQ decides not to set up contracts that way, in which case there would have to be a way to prove the job was completed.

You make some good points, it would be virtually impossible to create an automatic system that keeps track of anything more than direct military-type attacks. On the flipside, it could at least be used to show whether an organization tends to be aggressive with it's military. I personally don't have a strong opinion either way, just stating my observations.

Having the data on individuals only be available for a limited time is not a bad idea for the public side of a reputation system, since, as has been mentioned, it would allow someone to "clean up their act" if they so chose without an​ obvious ​stigma following them forever. However, for a personal reputation log, I think that info should remain available to the log owner forever. I guess it would become a kind of hybrid public/word of mouth reputation. That way if someone performs a big scam, then stays clean for six months until his rep for that job is erased, then, using his newly-cleared reputation pulls another big scam, and so on, his private reputation would eventually catch up with him. But if someone truly stays in the clear, he could build a solid rep in both the private and public charts, and eventually people would disregard his "old" behavior.

I agree with Limyaael and Kythium. It would add more realism to have it in-game, especially if they incorporated a few realistic limitations to ship communication. I have played other games like Arma 3 using a TeamSpeak channel, but only when in-game chat is acting up. Using third-party software excludes those who might not know what you're using, which channel you are on, etc., not to mention it is more of a hassle as Kythium pointed out.

Good point, except the enemy could simply turn off their transponders before approaching your construct. Still, if someone is stupid enough to leave it on.....

That depends on how this reputation thing would work. If it is meant as a means of keeping members of organization A informed as to their current status with organization B, then yeah, maybe. If it is meant as a general reputation that could be viewed by organizations X,Y,and Z before they decide whether or not to do business with them, then not really. The mole from A, who planted himself in B could just attack members of organization X. He would not be harming his own organization, only X, and the reputation of A.

The concept of bounties was covered a bit in another thread about contract systems, although I don't think they talked about organization-wide bounties. Seems like an interesting idea, but a little harder to operate than it sounds. First, how does a player prove they actually killed a member of the other organization? Next, how many times is the bounty good for? Once? Twice? No limit? Lastly, assuming you could prove you killed them, even if it is only good once, that would take a pretty hefty sum on the part of the contracting organization to pay all the bounties. Not to say it couldn't be done, it might just be harder to do than you think. It would be cool though, since it would give rise to bounty hunters who fly around seeking those with a bounty on their heads!

Good point. Nonetheless, it would be a nice feature for a property owner/organization police to have. I don't think it would be hard to implement either, just create a sort of "speech permission" on private/organization property that is automatically granted to everyone unless they have been property muted.

Hmmm, this might be a neat idea! It might be hard to prevent pirates from copying a transponder code though and using it to wreak havoc on unsuspecting players or ports. Unless each transponder signal was somehow registered in a central database, and no identical signals could be produced without consent from the original owner. It would be cool to look at your radar screen and know exactly who is flying a particular ship, assuming they have the transponder on. It could also play a role at busy ports in granting landing permission, just like an airport in real life! It could also be used as a decoy. Lets say you are flying a stealth ship, and as an extra level of protection, you create a sattelite of sorts that can be deployed. This sattelite would be relatively cheap, with no stealth tech; you WANT it to attract attention. If you added an active transponder to it, it would create that much better of a distraction, so while the opponent is focused on the decoy, you can slip past undetected. Or..... It could be used to create an illusion of a large number of ships to intimidate an enemy. Some cool possibilities if they include this in the game! By the way, your English is perfectly understandable.

I am not trying to wade in on an obviously heated opinion, but I think some good points have been made in favor of allowing an individual to use a logo. To try restricting ship building to only those in an organization is a bit stringent, don't you think? Maybe I misunderstood? Either way, if an organization has a logo they will be well known, regardless of how many other people have one. Chrysler isn't going to lose business because Opel has their own logo, and nobody is going to mistake the Opel logo for a Chrysler. I do like the idea of making it a learnable skill, that opens the door to "professional" logo designers in-game. You do make some good points, and I guess it will ultimately be up to NQ to determine who should be allowed to create a logo.

In retrospect, paying for logos would require paying game money to the developers, which effectively removes the money from the game. I know that this is something they want to avoid.....so maybe not my brightest idea.