AccuNut

Soo....why start a thread on it? But, to humor those who may be wondering why it won't happen, the main reason is that fully- or even mostly-automated drones of any kind kill gameplay. If automation can be accomplished with a mining drone, there is no way of limiting it to just mining. Even if you couldn't put "weapons" on it, (and there is no way of limiting that as far as I know,) it still has a mining laser or some other mining device it could hurt people with. Voila, combat drone. Self-replication is a bad idea for a similar reason; all you need to build is one, and with a little patience you will have a drone army! Even if you only used this drone army to mine, it is simply an unfair advantage to the owner, since new players wouldn't stand a chance to either find resources or sell them at the price you could. (Plus, did I mention it kills gameplay? That owner doesn't have to work / pay for materials beyond what it took to make / buy the first drone!) Some will say that under those circumstances, new players should just join an organization that has territory they can mine. 2 problems with that: #1. New players shouldn't HAVE to join an organization just to get started in the game. There will be plenty of lone wolves in DU, and a lot of them will do just fine. #2.It will be difficult for even organizations to defend against a drone army, both physically and economically. Just because they own battleships or tons of land doesn't mean they can cope long-term. Battleships take money and resources to operate, and no matter how much land you own; if John Drone is selling his stuff for $30 less than you, you won't ever turn a profit! So as the original poster pointed out: this will more than likely NEVER happen.

Just thought I would chime in here. In my opinion, an act of piracy ceases to be such when the pirate inflicts undue or unnecessary ​harm to someone or something whether it be before, during, or after they have accomplished their goals. Let's say the object is to steal something, and in this case, it can be done easily without killing the targeted player or destroying something of his. If the "pirate" then proceeds to level the target's base, he has crossed the line between piracy (stealing something) and grieving (causing undue harm). That is a drastic example, but I think you guys get what I mean. I am looking forward to all the challenges that will arise from pirates in the game, I just hope there aren't too many who consider ANY collateral damage as just "part of being a pirate". If you are a skilled​ pirate, then you should be able to obtain your objective with minimum damage to the target, unless of course dealing damage is​ the objective! So, how skilled do all you pirates intend to be?.......just saying.

I am on the fence about the player-content playback issue. I think it could be abused, but it could also be regulated somewhat. It could be awesome, or annoying. I do think it would be cool to be walking around the cockpit of my mid-size cargo transport while listening to whatever tunes / news / podcast I want to coming through the cockpit speakers. But at the same time I certainly see the challenges of allowing something like that too! Maybe they could make it an opt-in deal, where you get a notice like: "Ambient sounds available: Accept / Deny," whenever someone has it set up in the area. Maybe even some kind of "group accept" where everything from a set group of people is automatically played so you don't have to "accept" every time you enter one of their zones. This could be as small as a list you ​made for yourself, or as large as an organization-size list, or a city-wide zone, etc.! Anyway, just my 2 cents.

This is a very interesting topic, and another thread was started on it a while ago. I will see if I can find it and post a link. Both this thread and the other one have some great ideas!

Didn't they already say they would not be allowing drones? I mean, non-player-controlled ones anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I have heard.

The other thing that might be challenging is the idea that the glass will have to be capable of armor levels just like normal voxels. (Assuming that the glass is voxel-based, of course.) Obviously not the same level of armor as normal voxels, but armored nonetheless. You don't want it to be TOO much of a weak spot for an enemy attack. Also, imagine you took a shot directly to the glass, not enough to destroy it, but enough to do some damage. They would have to: ignore the visual effect of damage, add a "crack" effect, or go with the standard "missing voxels" damage and ignore that your cabin is now visually open to space, though supposedly not physically so. Then there is the visual effect of the shot itself. You will not typically have explosions happening right in front of you, the will usually be on the other side of opaque voxels, or a slight distance away. Glass will mean a whole new view of explosions. Just think of the difference between watching rain hit something 15 feet away vs. hitting your windshield. Quite a difference! I am all for glass, as I mentioned before. I just recognize some challenges that the NQ team will (hopefully) work out, if and when they implement it into the game.

That idea has been proposed, and based on my understanding, (limited though it may be,) it should be possible with the devices they have planned for use in the game.

Does this mean they don't intend on adding the ability to use glass for custom cockpits, or that they just didn't have it in their example? If they don't create the ability to design your own cockpit windows, I will be a little peeved, since one of my cooler ship ideas pretty much reqires it!

Hello! Welcome to the forums. I too am looking forward to Beta, as that is my access level. It is going to be a blast!

You mean like clocks? I can't imagine it would be hard to do. If nothing else, it could just "calibrate" once, then keep track of elapsed time. But I am no programmer, so I honestly have no idea how involved / not involved it is.

What Ithink would be cool (if they haven't thought of it already) is some kind of built-in translator so that people from multiple languages can still communicate in the game.

What you have described was mentioned, but you did an excellent job of describing it anyway. I completely agree on the idea of planetary time and space time, in fact I mentioned it further up. For those who will be spending a large amount of time on a particular planet, it just makes sense to have some kind of planetary standard. Likewise for those in space, as there will be no day / night cycles to distinguish one day from the next out there. But my favorite part of your post was this: As far as leaving time zones to individual governments, I would say that should be an option for actual LOCAL time zones, not planet-wide time. They would have to work it out with all the other governing groups on their continent, possibly their planet, but it could be done. They could just make it as a third option when you land on the planet; you could calibrate your clock for space time, planet time, or local time. Better yet, have it display all 3! Some people will say that multiple time settings / zones adds unnecessary complication to things, I say as long as using it is OPTIONAL, it shouldn't be an issue. You can use it...or not, your choice. But that is no reason the rest of us shouldn't get it.

I think what is being discussed isn't that it would contain blueprints, but rather info it has gained during its voyage. Planetary scans, planet locations, etc. Yes, the Arkship has extremely advanced scanners, but they can't scan planets 80,000+ lightyears away. The idea is that the probes were sent many years before​ the Arkship was launched in order to find a suitable landing planet in a distant universe, sending back its data via super-advanced communication systems. Or, maybe they just reach the intended target area and gather data so that when the Arkship arrives within communication range, the probes can feed it their data, and let the Arkship computers decide which planet is the most suitable based on the data received. Either way, it would stand to reason that after enough time has passed, they would get damaged, run out of power, or get otherwise robbed of the ability to function.

I guess that's the beauty of an online game, you can just mute them if they insist on offending you. But I digress, in essence, I am agreeing with your concept of banned words, at least a filter that would allow those words to be skipped in the sequence of translating them into speech / text. This could be turned on or off depending on the player's preference. That way those who are fine with / use language that might be offensive to others can still do so, and the rest can hear / read the conversation sans offense. Everybody wins.

By the way, I thought they already said they will not be implementing food / water survival mechanics.

Not only the 13-year olds. I come from a G-rated family, so anyone chatting with me will hear me request a little more polite consideration in language if they use the "wrong" words. (It is called vulgarity for a reason, after all.) If you want to use it, fine, no problem, as long as you are aware that it is at times offensive to people, and try to be considerate if somebody mentions it.

Sounds like an easy way for pirates to get your stuff to me.

If not, it will force the TU owner to grant build permissions to everyone they would allow to build, then hire "building police" to ensure they stay within their own boundaries. This could get really messy though since as the city grows, they would have to keep up with not only the new builds, but make sure current builds aren't added to in a way that crosses that line. In short, let's just hope they intend on including it in RDMS.

This is where certain trolls get on and say: " If they couldn't protect their city, that's on them." But in all seriousness, you bring up a good point. That being said, you could still destroy a city if you had a large enough ship / fleet. The difference is; you put a lot more time, energy, and resources into seeing that ship or fleet built, so incurring the wrath of a city-full of people just to troll them is less likely to happen. Chances are they will hire an army of mercenaries to exact their revenge on you, and that army will have the assistance of every peaceful planet to which you pose a threat. I guess the point is, no matter what kind of WMD we are talking about, it will be easier and cheaper to build than the equivilant firepower in ships. This certainly opens the door to trolling on a massive scale, in my opinion. As far as the Death Star goes, it was brought up in a similar thread, and although the concept is cool, I don't think NQ will be letting us destroy planets.

If it takes long enough to reach the probe, it should be fine I would think. Still, a valid point.

It's not a bad idea, as a way to populate / grow a city. At the same time, perhaps building your city was not such a great idea if you need this to get it started / keep it going. Still, it couldn't hurt.

In addition, they would hurt their reputation, which will be more valuable than anything they could steal. A poor reputation = less delivery orders = less money.

This is true, however, I would find it a bit odd to be referring to a time like "8:01pm" when I am talking to someone on the same planet about meeting them, and it would be more like "2:01pm" planet time if it was based on planetary rotation. Now, when communicating with someone in space or another planet, UTC is the way to go, which I assume would be based on either real-life UTC or Alioth time. I guess I could get used to a universal time, but I think that allowing each planet to have its own time-zone would be more immersive, even if it would be a tad more confusing. You would just have to make sure you check the suffix on the time stamp: "8:01pm/UTC"(or /AT for Alioth Time,) or, "2:01pm/PT" (PT = Planetary Time). By the way, those times are based on the real difference between Earth's UTC and my local time.

Add to that a popup stat sheet, maybe even a to-scale side-by-side comparison option. Sounds like a winner to me!

Okay, makes sense. The only experience I have had with Text-to-Speech / Speech-to-Text was with an old Android phone a few years ago, so it was hit and miss at best back then.