Ripper

Stretch goals should not affect the Project Charter. Existing goals and deadlines should still exist. In my opinion, stretch goals should be additional phases to development, with their own project charter, budget, and deadline. This minimizes scope creep. Yes, existing devs need to have an idea of future expansion, so they can provide the 'hooks' required for the additional projects. The stretch goal projects should then work with what is given to them by the original project (Master Project). This is what's wrong with Star Citizen. They've got an idiot ruling from above, who has demonstrated no project management skills. The biggest issue with SC is Chris Roberts. He should get out of the way, and let the experts handle their area of expertise.

Scenarios? You build a game and want to display a leaderboad. If the bounty stretch goal isnt met, possibly a bounty kiosk.

I dont want to argue, but if server side maintenance wipes your data, then it would also wipe your characters. We're not hooking up usb drives or even RAM drives. The strings ARE stored in a db table. They're just presented to the player as an element 1Gb of server storage has the capacity to store 1 to 4 MILLION Persistent Storage Elements as described.

DDoS mitigation is handled by their network code. If that vulnerability exists, then their network engineer isn't up to par. For a proper primer on networking code, see gafferongames.com. I need to review my sources, but I believe LUA can query RDMS and return a list of tags. This wouldn't be any different. LUA would query the element, and it would return a STRING. It would be up to the coder to take that string and do something on the client PC via LUA. Then, if needed, update the string with new data. All scripting client side.

Of course to discourage abuse, they should be fairly expensive. I think most constructs wouldnt require them. But an upper level scripter could do some interesting things with it

We know that LUA scripts run on the players PC. But there may be times that a construct would need to retain information between uses by different players. This information would need to be kept on the NQ servers. I would like to suggest: 256byte 512byte 1024byte Persistent Storage Elements This would allow builders to save lists of names, or organizations, or any variable for any length of time and make that variable available to anyone who uses the construct.

Except that RDMS is the core component that would define possession. So, if a builder wants to build something and sell it on the market, there would need to be RDMS rights. If they sold a "Limited Use Blueprint", that would be done under RDMS. So there needs to be some sort of a compromise from the granular element level to the macroscopic "container level"

Yeah, Don't want to hack 10,000 items in a container, but at this time we don't know the hacking mechanic. Maybe an inheritance, or area effect. This would be the same issue as having a multi-core ship. You wouldn't want your pirate hacker to have to go to every core in order to make the ship functional.

#1 Rule - You only "own" what you can successfully defend.

Since RDMS is a core component that defines ownership, I think its going to be on everything. But I agree with the pirates. Thats why hacking will be so important. But even in reality, most thieves take their loot to a fence such as a pawn shop. I see no reason this couldnt happen in game. Either sell your loot to a fence, or pay them a fee to clean it. Look... an industry created!

I really like this idea. Or the pirates can sell the loot to the shop at a discount, and have the shop hack the item and resell it for profit. The pirates can also purchase "clean" items at the shop as well. This creates an entire market for hacking skills. Excellent idea.

I need to jump in here.

Then maybe Dual Universe isn't the game you envision. Btw, Im having a heck of a good time debating you guys.

Ridiculing an example provided by NovaQuark, certainly proves your points. And intelligent readers can read that thread for themselves.

Search for a thread on the pythagorean theorem to see who's more mathematically capable.

Instead of reading in a bunch of bullshit, I read: Element emits value Script filters on value and returns true DPU executes function (specifically 'fire()' )

The radar emits an event enemyAt(11,42,66). The script filters on enemyAt(x,42,z) The customizable control unit emits setPower(45) && fire(). Looks pretty automated to me.

Naw.. There's a reason I have 3 warnings. Its best I avoid certain people.

Im actively ignoring you and Lethys. And you know why. It's not because I can't debate my point with the two of you.

The "latest" version isn't always the most accurate. Especially when answering a question off the cuff, as in the livestream. It would be nice if NQ could provide some clarification. Hey NQ.. Please consider that a request. Maybe the clarification could be in your April update?

I think one of the big differences between our points is how we view the game. Several of you have admittedly a great depth in playing Eve, and view it from that perspective. I'm viewing the game from more of a Minecraft/Starmade perspective. I'm seeing it from what I can build with the base elements and LUA functions. The LUA devblog provides an example of a combat script. Has anyone bothered to look at it and think about the implications? enemyAt(x,y,z) setPower(45) fire() If I can plug in multiple elements (which we already know we can) whats to stop me from plugging in multiple weapons? Our conflict here is that JC's quote doesn't exactly line up with the documented LUA script devblog.

Here's a quote from your original post. It's quite obvious which keyword we should be focusing on. You want to "force" people to behave a certain way. I don't. As far as what JC said, he also said construct vs construct combat wasnt completely developed, and was subject to change. I'm open to whatever NovaQuark produces.

Your point is based upon some preconceived notion on how things work. How will you respond when the final product doesn't look like your presuppositions?

Compensation? Poor argument. I could give 10 million DAC in exchange for a single resource.

This thread is about the pro's and con's of playing multiplayer. However, much like certain political groups you're shouted down, if you express an alternative viewpoint.