AccuNut

This thread is to discuss the methods of transporting things to and from a market by someone who is not the owner of said object. We know that certain objects and small-ish constructs can be kept in storage units, but constructs of a certain size will not fit, and therefore must be shipped differently. The questions I have regard how I as a transporter/market owner have to operate. 1. Will there be some kind of "permission code" that will allow me to remove items from a storage unit, but not use them? 2. If so, do I have to place the item in my inventory, and then transfer it to my cargo ship's storage unit? Or will there be a way to move it directly from the static storage unit to the ship, and vice-versa? 3. If there is a way to do that, does the ship have to be in close proximity to the storage unit? If it does, then I think this will create endless headache for markets, since they would have to build all of their storage units next to the ship landing pads. Plus, if more than one item from a particular container needs to be transported, and two different people have to access the unit, it could bottleneck since only one could be on that landing pad at one time. Or if someone bought items from two seperate units, they would have to run around to different landing pads. What would work out best would be some kind of physical "pipeline" that ships can connect to. When an item is transferred to a ship, it is sent down the pipeline to the intended vessel, and into it's on-board storage unit. The ship could be parked quite a distance from the market storage unit and still have access to the storage. 4. What about ships? How will a ship be delivered unless the transporter is given essentially owner-level control in order to fly it to the purchaser? What I would like to see for this one is some kind of "lifter drones" made up of boosters and a power source that attach to various locations on the ship to be transported, then you attach the pilot craft on top. The drones all sync with the pilot craft, and actually transport the ship without ever having access to the ship's systems. Once the ship is safely delivered, the drones attach to the pilot craft, kind of a "modular" spaceship in a way. Yes, this could be used to steal ships too, but maybe there will have to be some kind of "docking permissions code" that is enforced by the ship shields. That way only authorized vessels could dock with the ship. (hypothetically) So, what do you think? How should/will NQ deal with these obstacles for transporting goods? If this has been covered already, please just point me in the right direction, but I couldn't seem to find anything about this specifically.

Hey Arisilde, there have been a few threads started on a similar subject. This one in particular you might find helpful: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/7815-consequences-of-non-regenerating-planets-and-ressources/ Otherwise, just type "mining" in and you will find several others. Hope you find what you are looking for!

I admit it would be nice to have a little bonus, however small, for actually doing something. I can also see the problems with it given the way the game is intended to be played though. My thought is this: you can only get so "skilled" at something by passive training. Lets say you can only reach 8 or 9 out of the 10 possible levels. After that, you HAVE to USE what you learned in order to reach level 10, and it would take a long, long time. That way, it would add another barrier to someone being maxed on everything, because it would mean a lot of actual work in the various skills. I know they are trying to avoid the "grinding" aspect of gameplay, but it would seem more immersive if only those who actually focus on a skill are able to reach their full potential with it.

IF I were to join an organization, I would only join one that is very loose in terms of rules; except for ones like these: -No belittling others -You DO NOT attack anyone unless it is in defense of your stuff, or at the discretion (not command) of the organization -No griefing, swearing, stealing, or any other form of overly aggressive behavior. You get the idea. :-) I like peaceful operations where everyone is free to do basically as they please, but are ready to come together at a moment's notice to defend each other. They have each other's back. Anyone who breaks the rules is given one chance, after that they are out. This would be the only way to preserve the reputation of a peaceful organization. A kind of "Switzerland" of organizations, as it were. This might mean that I never join one, just saying something like this would be nice, especially for traders.

Okay, maybe I misunderstood the original post....are we talking about real, physical touchscreens in real life that get connected to the game and serve certain functions, or virtual, in-game touchscreens to add some immersion to menu options? The reason I ask is because the post above sounds like it referring to virtual screens, particularly this:

Haha, should've seen those coming. :-) Actually though, if you're ship is headed in one direction, but your weapons pivot, the mouse/analog stick could be used to aim at something off to the side of the ship, or behind it. Meanwhile you would need something else to control direction. I am obviously referring to a ship that has limited crew, like small ships,or those that have suffered crew casualties in battle. Large ships or ones with a full crew will have gunners, so the pilot/copilot can focus on flying. Either way, it would be cool to have a circle like that to control stuff, it would feel like you are actually using advanced tech!

Yeah! Especially if they put radar/maps on there! Maybe even some kind of live feed from the construct cameras, weapons/shields/ship status indicators....and so on. Jeronimo, when I first saw your display example, I thought the circle on the right was the ship direction control. Actually, a smooth steering mechanism like that (the circle) would be pretty neat!

I am not necessarily saying I support them. Only that if​ they are implemented, there need to be some kind of restrictions to help keep it at least somewhat fair.

I have been thinking about this idea a bit too. My brother and I are going to be building a few one-off ships, it would be nice to know we could keep the design from becoming the property of some pirate if we get overpowered. Another alternative might be some sort of computer module that is separate from the main controls and concealed somewhere on the ship. You could have it emit a locating beacon on command, and maybe also immobilize the ship by confusing the main computer. That would allow you to find a ship that was taken, and leave it vulnerable to recapture. Of course, the pirates could have tech that disables it, but they would have to find it first!

Laser Gatling gun, anyone? I really hope that NQ opens the doors wide for weapon customization, you could really end up with some awesome builds, like the ones mentioned here. Also, here's an option for tractor beam defense: an EMP bomb that you release as soon as you get caught. The tractor beam generators would pull it right into them, and it would detonate on contact blowing the generator's energy circuit. Voila, engines ahead full! Adios Amigo!

What if you can dock on another ship's surface? Then you would have to match the target's speed, get within docking distance, and connect. After that it shouldn't be too hard for your crew to blow a hole in the hull and board.

As far as ownership, what if there was a "master core" that automatically controlled all of the sub-cores that were used to construct the station? Obviously the respective owners of those cores would have to relinquish their claim to them for this to happen. If they refused, hopefully there would be enough other organizations that really want to see this work, that they could pressure the rebellious individual/organization into doing it. This "master core" would be the property of an organization that has established a reputation for itself as being neutral. The "Switzerland" of the multiverse, if you will. Enforcing the no-weapons treaty wouldn't be that hard either. I mentioned in another thread that I thought it would be cool if NQ created sensors that are designed to detect weapon-system activation. Not just weapon fire, but being able to know when the system comes on-line. You could put lots of automatic defense weapons on the station, plus those sensors. Whenever someone powers up their weapons within the safe-zone, the defense weapons in that area would also activate and aim at the potential offender. They wouldn't actually fire unless the targeted ship(s) fired first, but if they did......bye-bye bad guy! This would also help the station reserve power, since a relatively small number of sensors would be needed to scan a given sector, while there might be 30 defense guns in the same area. You could put all those energy-hungry weapons into "sleep" mode until they are actually needed.

Whether or not environment destruction becomes an issue, one way to restore a planet's surface would be by creating a material recycler. You could take virtually any object or material, and turn it into a lower element. So you could take busted ship parts that aren't worth fixing, and turn them into dirt. You could then use that dirt to help fill in a crater in the planet's surface. Maybe doing this would grant you xp toward some kind of "stewardship" skill.....not sure what type of useful stuff could come of that, maybe a reduced cost to build things on that planet, or as an added bonus to any skill you use on the planet? Just an idea...not sure if it's feasible.

Not really a bad idea, but you would still run into the issue of different people calling it different things. I could see this being used as a long-term voting option though, where eventually the list is "closed" for suggestions, and players are forced to choose one of the 75 names that have already been used. After that, the list would slowly shorten itself over time. Whenever a name is struck from the list, whoever was using that name would be forced to pick from another name on the list. Eventually, the list would come down to the top three names, at which point the players vote on the ​permanent ​name for the planet. This would allow for names that are simply "fad" to die out, while the solid choices stick around. For example: a planet is known by all of these names, with the most popular being listed on top, next popular second, and so forth: Akna Reborn Judla Excur Half-baked Nada-724 Just-cuz Noware Junque Dead Meat Now, lets say the list starts to shorten itself up, dropping the names Dead Meat, Junque, and Noware. The majority of the players who chose those names move further up the list to names like Judla and Half-baked. These additional picks tips the balance of the list, so now it looks like this: Akna Judla Half-baked Reborn Excur Nada-724 Just-cuz This could keep happening until the final name is chosen, which might ​not​ be the first name that was popular.

As long as the limit was target-based, not contractor-based. For example: I upset some nasty people who decide they want revenge...big time. Let's just say the bounty limit is 5 kills per day. If this is based on how many times I have been killed for that contract​, they could tell all their friends to put bounties on me too, and I could be killed 5 times ​for each contract.​(Obviously, we are assuming that one person/organization can only publish one bounty for a given individual, and for a given period of time.) This would be very frustrating, since the bounties could potentially have no real limit. Instead, if the limit was target-based, you would have a stat that says how many times you have been killed for bounty today. If you have already been killed 5 times, then no matter how many contracts are out for your death, nobody ​will receive a bounty for killing you for the rest of the day. Going this route, they should also have some kind of message that alerts the bounty hunters (anyone who has accepted a bounty contract,) that your killed-for-bounty limit has been reached for the day. That way you wouldn't have people running around killing under contract without realizing that the bounties have been "frozen" for the day. Another thing, there should be a limit to the amount of time a bounty contract runs for. You shouldn't be able to post a bounty, then six months later have someone still operating under the same contract. You should have to go through the trouble of re-posting the bounty. Also, re-posting should have some kind of fee above and beyond the initial posting charge, and this should get larger and larger the more times you re-post. That way people won't abuse it so much, and would have to ​really ​want that player punished to continue posting the contract.

This is my opinion as well. Particularly in regard to the limitations of a powerful scanner on a ship, you shouldn't be able to discover an enemy settlement 500Km away ​​and ​be able to destroy it with the same ship! Imagine the stealth ship possibilities! Now, it would obviously have disadvantages, like becoming detectable while scanning, since it would draw so much power to run. But...you could get into a good scanning position undetected, then wait for an opportune time to actually run the scan. Also, some kind of really limited-range, but almost undetectable scanning tech would be nice for dropping a scanning satellite near an enemy base/space station. Or it could be used to set up a warning system if someone starts building in a particular area. If you read some of my posts on other threads, you might realize I am a little obsessed with the idea of stealth applications for stuff.

Here is a feature that I would like to see incorporated into a virtual builder such as what is being discussed here: a means of simulating how a ship will perform under various conditions. What actually got me thinking about this was a thread I was reading about stealth ships: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/637-some-thoughts-on-stealth-ships/?hl=stealth Now, there are all sorts of really cool suggestions in there, but these are the things I came away with from a design standpoint: Passive visual stealth: pretty much just creative ship design to remain low-profile, hide your thermal footprint, and maybe a good paint job. Active visual stealth: some form of camouflage that requires power to run, be it invisible cloak, color-shifting panels, or thermal-shielding tech. The downside is that the amount of power it draws would be easily detectable. Passive system stealth: again, low-profile ship for minimum radar signature, special anti-detection coatings that minimize visible heat and radar signatures. Active system stealth: essentially system jammers that block or confuse radar, thermal, and energy detection utilities on the targeted ship. So, what if you could test the stealth of a ship in the design center before you even built it? You could run all sorts of system simulations, energy, thermal, and radar detectability under various circumstances: engines on, engines off, full stealth mode, viewed from behind, viewed from below, etc. And it doesn't have to be only stealth tests. It could calculate all kinds of other stats: speed, hull strength, etc. You could even run a simulation where you intentionally "damage" parts of the ship with various weapons to see how it would handle it. You might find a weak spot you didn't realize was there: the biggest baddest ship in the sky is no good if a single hit to the wrong spot disables it's weapons, or thrusters, etc. Or maybe, you will be happy to accept the weaknesses in the design because of other advantages to it, but at least you will be aware that they exist.

If they do make it possible to build underwater, it would be nice if they also make it possible to design a ship that is capable of flight and​ submersion.

Perhaps somebody should start a poll on it? That might garner a bit more attention from NQ. Not to say they aren't already reading this, but if not, a poll will get their attention better than a "normal" thread. By the way...totally agree! This may or may not have been brought up briefly in another thread, but it is nice to see one dedicated to it.

Hmmm...this is an intriguing concept. The only question I have at this point is how scanning would work? Would it be planet-wide, or just a set distance around you? If it is just a certain distance around you, it could really slow down exploring, since everyone would have to physically travel to various locations on a planet/ in space and perform multiple scans to create a map of the area. However, it could give rise to another type of technology and/or skill that extends scanning range/accuracy. Maybe even encourage the creation of ships built specifically around a high-power version of this tech that allows for constant scanning with exceptional range and definition. Or maybe static scanners or satellites that provide authorized parties (everyone in your organization, for example,) with the most up-to-date maps of a given area/planet. Hmmm...

My brother backed at the Gold level, and we have already hashed out a couple of really cool ship ideas. He will be glad to know that if he succeeds in building one in Alpha/Beta, it won't be lost on release! (The design that is.) As far as it being an unfair advantage? Nah. If anything, it will help the game become interesting earlier than it would have otherwise. I mean, if everyone is flying around on a hoverboard or in an ugly ship just because it was easy to build, it won't exactly inspire creativity. But when you see a couple awesome police cruisers glide past, escorting a sleek dignitary transport, yeah....that'll do it! Also, I think any ship created directly from an Alpha or Beta blueprint should have a special designation in addition to its classification type, (I assume they will have those?) maybe something like: "Explorer Class", or, "Founder Class", etc. (with the actual ship classification it would look like: "Explorer Corvette Class", or, "Founder Behemoth Class.) Just so long as they don't call it, "Alpha Class," or, "Beta Class,"....that would kind of stink. Anyway, that would possibly add to a ship's collectability, as mentioned above, since it would confirm that the design was indeed pre-release.

WOW! now that's a mouthful! Seriously though, your post was very informative. I am glad you posted links...otherwise I would have had absolutely no clue what you were referring to!

How? If I use a planet name that has been recognized for a while, but the planet is no longer named that, does the player I am talking to have to go dig through a long list of previous names on every planet to find the one I am talking about? Or, when they search a planet name, it comes up with a list of all the names that planet has had: "Asgard", a.k.a "Sardis", a.k.a "Zorg", a.k.a "Adarius" a.k.a........ What about planets that have been renamed, and the old name gets used by a new planet? "Your search has returned 7 planets in 4 different regions that are currently, or have been named: "Roku". For more information,please select the correct planet from the list." I guess each planet could have an unchangeable hidden designation, like, "ADX-792-B". It doesn't show up unless you specifically type it in, or go to a special search option in the database. But then people would just start using that to refer to planets, because it's stable​. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I just see a lot of difficulties with a non-permanent naming system, with no really good ​way to keep everyone on the same page.

Question; other than blowing a hole in the side of it, how exactly could you board a ship that another player owns? Let alone find and destroy the core unit. I hope they don't make ship controls/core units hackable. If they did, hacking would be something that involved both skill development and equipment. The higher the skill level/better the equipment, the harder it would be to defend against. The biggest problem would be that only major organizations could afford the tech to defend all forms of hacking, and even then, their members couldn't all afford it. So someone from a pirate orgnization could simply steal all the ships he wanted from the less experienced/low-cash players just because he has the equipment and skills.