Jump to content

Ben Fargo

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ben Fargo

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Wisconsin
  • backer_title
    Sapphire Founder
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

1197 profile views
  1. I did not vote, because I am not sure whether my response would be considered a yes or a no. This idea is based on my understanding of why cores exist, so it may not be valid if I am wrong about that. As I understand it, a core creates a grid in which voxels are placed. Dynamic constructs obviously need their own grid, so they can move, but why do we have static cores? The planets are also made of voxels, so it seems we should be able to build there without a core, but I believe they use a grid that is spaced much more widely than the one for constructs. A denser grid allows constructs to be more detailed, but means the voxel data will require more space, since it must allow larger numbers. Making the grid extend farther also requires larger numbers. To build outside the current limits of cores, the grid would need to be extended, so technically it would have the same effect as using a larger core. My suggestion would be to continue to limit construct by core size, but provide better tools for manipulating the planet voxels. With the right tools, I believe adequate for most of these really large projects. As an example, for roads there could be a paving tool. With this tool, we could select two points on the ground and they would be connected with a surface that was relatively smooth but still generally followed the contours of the land. There could be options to control how closely if followed the contours and how wide the surface was. It could also replace the surface with a different material. A tool like this would make it easier to build roads, but the result would still use the current data structures. While the paving tool would be suited specifically for roads, there could also be general purpose tools. These could be like the ones we use for building constructs, but outside cores they would only manipulate planet voxels with their current resolution.
  2. If you rob another player, you are a pirate. There is nothing wrong with that playstyle, but do not claim to be something you are not. A trading organization earns it money by trading, not stealing.
  3. https://maps.sco.wisc.edu/Parcels/ That is a real life map that shows who owns a parcel of land just by clicking on it. Many of them have been split, but in places you can see the grid of squares that were the original parcels it was divided into before it was settled. DU does not need to do things the same way they happen in real life, but the comparisons do show what is reasonable.
  4. I consider placing a territory unit the equivalent of registering a deed in real life, so knowing which tiles are owned should be public knowledge that anyone can just by see by looking at the map. I do know know about the rest of the world, but in Wisconsin, the government has an online map where someone can click on any parcel of land and see who owns it. It would be unrealistic if the DU map did not show which territories were owned. Having the territory marked on the map will make hiding ineffective, but I think discouraging that will benefit the game. I would prefer to have most structures out where everyone can see them, not buried underground. If territory units are expensive, that will encourage players to join together to buy one, which is also good.
  5. I would never consider claiming land which was not claimed before grieving. If some builds on a territory that has not been claimed, they should accept the risk of losing their constructs. If someone is prudent, they would only build either on land they already own or where they have permission to build from the owner. Letting players effectively claim land by building on it would defeat the purpose of the territory units.
  6. I suspect this would require a major change in the design of the game, since every construct having a core seems to be a very fundamental concept. If this would require essentially starting development over, I do not think it would be worth it.
  7. However, Novaquark has said when organizations are introduced into the game, the membership will be the same as the ones we are creating now, which would mean there will no need to invite existing members. This is from the information that appears when creating an organization: Once the game launches the organizations, the members and the information held here will be synchronised with the game world
  8. Before I found Dual Universe, I had been anticipating a game called Firefly Online. It also had a science fiction setting with space travel, but the gameplay would have been very different from what was planned for DU. When it became apparent that development of Firefly Online had stopped, I started actively searching for a new game in that genre and that is when I found DU. Beyond being in the right genre, DU was promising many features that I found very appealing. What stood out immediately was the building. I have done a lot of building in games like Space Engineers and Empyrion, but it looked like the building in DU would be much for flexible than the block-based construction in those games. It reminded me of Landmark, another game I had really enjoyed, even though building there had been limited to static structures. The setting was also a major factor in attracting me. I was looking for a space game, but it had to be one with people and ships with interiors those people can move through. Games where the ships are the only avatars just do not interest me. I also liked that it would be a very open game that would allow players to collectively make it the kind of experience they wanted it to be. It was not going to lead everyone through the same set of stories. It was not even going to have predefined factions or enforced conflicts. Players would be free to organize themselves and make their own choices about combat or cooperation. While the building and setting were what lured me in initially, as I read about the plans for organizations, for rights and duties management and for territories, I became convinced that DU was going to be more than just a good game I would enjoy playing. My expectation is that it will be profoundly different than anything that has come before it. As far as I know, no other game provides the tools for creating social structures as complex and extensive as I think the ones in DU will be. I may be wrong, but anyone who equates the organizations in DU to the guilds in a typical MMO may be shocked and unprepared for what actually develops. In case, I am very excited about the possibilities. The one thing that made me hesitate to support DU was the PVP. Outside of a relatively small secure area, it would allow unrestricted combat with full looting. Honestly, I am not any good at combat, especially against other players, and I do not have enough interest in it to make any effort to become better. Some risk does make a game more exciting, but it was possible other players could choose to make DU the kind of game where I would lose everything I had whenever I ventured into space. The social tools it would provide were what convinced me to support DU in spite of the open PVP. I think they will encourage players to establish regions in DU where the market is more important than the military. Just as players who are not good at building would be able to buy constructs and players who are not good at programming would be able to buy Lua scripts, I expect players, like me, who are not good at combat would be able to buy protection. There is no guarantee that will happen, but DU provides the potential for it and I feel the changes are very good that someone will use that potential. A phrase from the Firefly series sums up my goals rather well, "find a crew, find a job, keep flying". The one thing I would add to that is "build a ship". I have established an organization for that ship, the Blue Moon Crew and I am hopeful we will be able to achieve those goals when the game is released.
  9. I disagree with that. We do not observe the character. We observe a virtual world from the point of view of the character. Since the player is observing from the point of view of the character, if the character is moving at relativistic speeds, time in the virtual world should appear to pass normally for the player, but actually be at a different rate than other players. That is why people are saying this suggestion is impossible. Of course, the player is not actually in the virtual world, but saying the player should see the world slow down because of that is like saying the view on the screen should not move when the character moves because the player is not actually moving.
  10. A mechanism for ownership of organizations has already been announced. Being a legate will mean being an owner of the organization. How would these stocks fit with that system? I think it would be a good idea to be able to exchange a legateship in the market. If that is not possible, it would still happen informally with one player agreeing to make another a legate for a certain amount of quanta. With an informal transaction, there is always the possibility one player does not fulfill their part of the deal. Going through the market would ensure no one is cheated. However, I do not see the advantage of introducing another in-game object to do that.
  11. First, I would like to thank Novaquark for preparing the roadmap. I have been looking forward to seeing it. The sequence in which the features will be implemented seems very sensible. I have two questions about the features in the roadmap. 1. Social Features, which mentions grouping, is under Alpha 3 and Player Nations is under Beta. Does this mean player groups and player nations will be different kinds of entities in the game or will they still both be organizations with some features of organizations introduced later than others? 2. When will the RDMS be introduced? I did not see it mentioned specifically in the roadmap. Does this mean it will be implemented gradually as the other features require it?
  12. That is you opinion. To me, a simulator for organizations to roleplay governments is a perfect description of DU, although the governments would not necessarily be big or bad.
  13. Most planets will not have a safe zone. Currently, the only ones planned are around the Arkship and on the Sanctuary Moon.
  14. Where did it say that RDMS only applies to people in the same organization? I do not remember seeing that.
×
×
  • Create New...