Ripper

Hey RS, Welcome to the forums. There will be a single server. Although thats a misnomer. The hardware behind the game will be a cluster of servers. Players wont see that in game though. With billions of stars to explore, it would be easy for players to spread out too fast. Thereby turning Dual Universe into a sparsely populated No Mans Sky. NQ, is planning on limiting that growth through various methods. One method would be the slow release of technological elements. For example, they could keep players "planet bound" for a period of time by limiting engines. Only releasing escape velocity engines when they're ready. The same goes for FTL drives. This would keep players in a single solar system. Finally, to establish a stargate, an FTL Stargate Probe has to make it to another star system. NQ can time the probe's arrival to limit expansion on NQ's timeline. In doing so, they limit player expansion to acceptable levels and ensure player conflict and interaction.

Single player ship size is not restricted.

A shocker that I'd listen to or agree with you If NQ can provide what was in that Kickstarter update (October 8th), then I'll be very happy.

One of Twerks old posts helped me... SHOCKER! He pointed me to: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg/posts/1702763 "Moving on to Construct vs Construct combat, that is part of the next stretch goal. You can add “weapon elements” to your construct (that you can craft or buy on the in-game markets with in-game money). Let’s say, for example, a railgun turret. In the first version of the CvC gameplay, the only way to use that turret is to get close to it, and activate it. You will then sit on the seat and be able to rotate it and target other ships. In future expansions, we will try to implement a way for you to control several weapons at the same time in a tactical view, and script how you coordinate them. But for the moment, it is “one man = one weapon element”. The only exception is the cockpit (which is a control unit, so you can host scripts in it), which you will be able to connect to various weapon elements in your ship and control from there, so therefore you can have a “dog fight” experience. In any case, be it via orienting the ship to have the cockpit facing the target, or by rotating the turret, you will be able to lock a particular point on the targeted construct (if it is far away, a random point will be chosen), and then fire. Again, we can have an insta lock + fire mechanism here to make it more immersive."

Haven't you seen Death Race 2050 or how about any Batman movie?

Dammit, Maybe I should pull over.

Passover, Feast of Unleavend Bread, and Feast of First Fruits.

If a single player's LUA script can control a constuct with 50 weapons (yeah an exageration, but maybe not impossible), then your org should be able to build a 10 user multiplayer ship that has 10 SCRIPTED "Battery Constructs" and should be able to field 500 weapons. Multiplayer ship's BY DEFAULT have an exponential growth in effectiveness via LUA, over the single player ship. Single player ships will NEVER match the effectiveness of multiplayer ships. No LUA script "Nerfing" needed.

What about that massive ship that has ONE weapon? You know... a spinal mounted capital ship killer. Why couldn't a single player fly one of those? Or consider the multiplayer ship. What prohibits the construct from having several small constructs of "Battery Units"? Where a single player within the multiplayer ship has the ability to control multiple elements (weapons). ONE player isn't going to be effective against a multiplayer ship, if that player is running one script at a time, and the multiplayer ship could be running 50. Even IF the single player ship could be classified as a "Battleship"... BTW... How do you want to classify a ship? Battleship... SuperMassiveFighter... Tomatoe... Tomato....

Thanks for that link. I had to re-read the whole thing. Good stuff in there.

Wow! You need to wipe the foam from your mouth. Thank God NQ isn't making another Eve.

How NQ plans to implement turrets, or combat for that matter is pure conjecture at this point. However, With ANY game that has AI, there is a balance that needs to be achieved. Since the AI in a computer can be a crack shot, and always place that round through your right eye, programmers need to balance AI accuracy with realism, player challenge, and player enjoyment. Players want "Realism", but they also want to progress in the game. They just don't want to progress too easily. An auto-turret should be balanced to provide a realistic result, while not being as "Effective" in combat as a player manned turret. Effectiveness could equate to less damage, less accuracy, a slower response, or possibly more power/resource consumption. Maybe it should behave at a skill level of the green newbie straight out of flight school. Whereas, your teammate, may be an awesome shot with years of experience. Some players believe that auto-turrets will break multiplayer cohesion. It's very possible that auto-turrets, or scripted weapons COULD do this if not properly balanced. There are a lot of players that would like to play a game with several teammates manning different parts of the same ship. They SHOULD be more effective than the same ship with scripts and auto turrets. You're maximizing firepower and accuracy and minimizing construct resources. But the cohesion of your Organization, could ALSO apply to a fleet of ships attacking the same objective. In this strategic example, the organization decides to throw more resources at the problem, so they don't have "all their eggs in one basket". Instead of one highly performing ship, they decide to use multiple inferior ships. Both strategies recognize and depend upon Organization cohesiveness, and both strategies should be a available as an option. One method should not significantly out-way the other, all other things being equal. I'm sure most Eve players recognize that the Organization with the most resources usually wins the battle. Don't expect your new Org with 5 friends from school to outperform Band of Outlaws. You'll never have the resources to compete. There's nothing prohibiting a large Org from fielding SEVERAL multiplayer ships against your fleet of single player ships. The winner will most likely be the organization who has invested the most player, voxel, and script based resources to the battle. Not whether a specific number of ships were multiplayer verses the number of single player ships. Unfortunately, if a game is played enough, there usually ends up being a "preferred" strategy or loadout. I'm betting you'll find a tutorial on a fan site within weeks of Dual Universes release. Players find ways to exploit the resources they've been provided. NovaQuark should focus on providing a balanced solution that has as many variants as possible. Of course, balance has to start somewhere. NovaQuark should start out with a couple of options, and then invent new elements that can provide balanced variation. The more variation you have, the more difficult it is to balance things. So go slowly, but variety adds to the spice of gaming life. Variety vanquishes repetitive, boring game play, and it provides the player with more strategic options. In my opinion, well balanced auto-turrets should be a part of Dual Universe.

Content will be created by the players. So, naturally a good construct, be it a ship or automated defense, will be more desirable than a crappy one. Think of it as a "Vorpal blade of snicker-snack" is more expensive than your rusty dagger. If the market is setup properly, the value of player made constructs will be based upon player demand. Rest assured, a LUA scripter will most likely make more money selling their constructs, than piracy. But, you're right! There may be the occasional scripter who keeps that stuff to themselves, and be able to mop the floor with you. But my guess is the Market will come up with alternative constructs that will be able to counter that one off guy. Whether you can afford that 'vorpal blade' is the real question. You won't be able to afford it starting out. You'll need to save up some quanta. Just like any other MMO. And in ANY MMO, one player with better gear will usually be victorious over a player with the same skills but is poorly equiped. The equipment you own will be one of the major differentiators between a newbie, and someone who has played DU for years.

From my understanding, JC has indicated that all constructs and scripts are automatically downloaded to EVERY player's PC when they get within a certain range. You may not have ownership of the construct, but it resides on your PC. The construct itself may not be usable, but you're gonna have a lot of scripts (whether you know what construct they're related to). If they're not immediately readable, I'm betting it won't be long before an app will allow you to read them. A builder can reverse engineer the voxel construction, and possibly figure out which scripts were associated with the original. There have already been threads on the issue. Scripts are not currently encrypted. Therefore, they're readable. A coder's best bet (at least in the beginning) is to obfuscate their code.

Reverse engineering will be common. You won't get the core or scripts, but you will be able to disassemble a construct to see how its made, so that you can create your own master. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.

Yeah.. But if Twerk had the idea you'd be all over it!

It really doesn't matter. That's how I would do it. Oh and.. Only pansy pirates would be afraid to enter "carebare space". Wait... Is that a nickname for BOO?

Tell me again how you intend to keep them from claiming the bounty on themselves? Your solution has them lose a life (big deal) and a ship (they risked to kill you in the first place)

1. Placing a bounty AFTER DEATH prohibits greifing with multiple bounties.. Unless you sit there and let the guy kill you 50 times. 2. Who said the bounty hunter got 250%? I said the bounty hunter got 100% (+ salvage), and the "killer" lost 150% (it doesn't go to the BH. It goes to the bank)

See... Twerks / Eve's bounty system is harsher than mine. That "killer" wouldn't be out from under the bounty with one kill. They could rack up an immense bounty and never be able to return to regular society. Oops after re-reading his post I was wrong, the entire bounty would be rewarded if he was killed with a smaller ship. It's still pretty harsh tho.

The TARGET of the bounty should lose more than the bounty itself to prohibit the target's friend from collecting the bounty and sharing it with the target. Another problem with "Contract" based bounties (hunt down specific player), is that the bounty hunter and player with the contract on their head may never play at the same time. Plus the universe would be so large that they may never cross paths. If I were to design the solution, I'd do something like this: With every death, you have the option to place a bounty on your "killer". Bounties acumulate on the "killer". A "bounty scanner" would be used to scan players and ships to see it they are "Wanted". If the "killer" is killed by someone, the bounty hunter collects the total acumulated bounty. If the "killer" is killed, they ALSO have a "Lien" placed against their bank account for 150% (or some percentage to be balanced) of the bounty. The "Lien" acumulates with the bounties that acumulate. Before purchases in the market can be made, all "Liens" must be paid off. This allows for Pirates to acquire their own loot and run as long as possible. Possibly never returning to the regular market. Pirates can develop their own "Black Market" that doesn't require quanta. Pirates can't game the system by having their friend collect the bounty, because they'll take a hit larger than the bounty itself. The occasional PvP match between non-pirates won't impact the winners wealth that much. Everyone will get an occasional bounty on their head. There could possibly be exemptions for "Org. Warfare", Bounty Hunters, and possibly other exemptions. A bounty should be MORE than just kill the guy and he loses what he has on him. That's no different than what he did to deserve the bounty. It should "hurt" more to be a PK'er or a Pirate. Hence the "Lien". This also means players can STILL place a "Contract" (hunt the person down and kill them) on someone outside of the "Bounty System". But that creates the opportunity for greifing with contracts.

Agreed, A person with a bounty on them should lose more than the price of the bounty. 100,000 quanta bounty should make the guy lose 150,000 quanta worth of assets, when the contract is fulfilled.

Lol... un peu idiot. Takes me back to high school french class. I enjoy trying to decipher French, and visited Paris last year. If I'd known about NQ, I would have stopped by their office.

I'm a little worried this is what the arkzone will look like.

I'm lovin it. The sensors are great, and there was another "Hub" (logic gates ?) element on the floor that allowed users to connect multiple elements together. They weren't controller DPUs, because JC indicated this was done without scripting. Loved the blue "data" lines to show what was connected to what. Loved the force fields that you could fall through, or use in place of a door. Things are really coming along. Wasn't fond of the switch for the door, but I'm sure it was a placeholder.