Ben Fargo

@boots_1588
As mentioned in the forum rules, please do not necropost on old threads as you have done already several times.
(The forum rules has been updated to indicate what is considered an old thread)
Granted, this time you stay in the limits but keep this in mind for the next times.
 
Now to reply on the topic:
Fallout56 is a multiplayer game and NOT a MASSIVELY multiplayer game. Todd Howard confirmed that during the E3 2018 Bethesda Conference. So it can be compared to Minecraft, Ark, Conan Exiles... but clearly not to MMORPGs where the server infrastructure cost is exclusively handled by the Dev Studio or Publisher.
  The Subscription model is one of the few topics not open to discussion. We have already talked in great length about why we went for a subscription model and no, there is no solid argument countering the reasons why we chose this model.
  1) Dropping monthly subscription to have more players is not a valid argument if the server infrastructure cost grows proportionally to the player base size while incomes don't grow accordingly.
 
2) Saying subcription is an outdated model is not a valid argument as it relies on personal opinion not backed by solid reasons. Seeing less MMORPGs using monthly subscription is not a solid reason if there is no understanding about the "why". 
 
Here is how we view the situation at Novaquark: monthly subscription model has been on the decline due to nearly no clear innovation in the MMORPG industry during the last decade. As new MMORPGs had to offer something different than those already well settled in the market (World of Warcraft, EVE Online, etc), if they weren't going to offer something really new, they had to be different on another level: monetization model. That's how the Free to Play games wave began. Many marketing representatives said many times that "Free to Play" was the future and most people believed it. Inconvients of such model were put under the rug... for a time. The question "Is F2P good or bad?" is irrelevant. Free to Play is a good monetization model good for some kind of games. We just don't think MMORPGs is among those. When you aim to have a game lasting for decades, you need to have steady income for decades as well. Free to play game incomes are too fluctuant, especially because they rely on the success of cosmetics (which is a everlasting gamble for a company as no one knows for sure in advance if players will love the new cosmetics and how much income it will generate before they hit the shop) and lootboxes.
 
Ironically, there has been recently a huge witch hunt about lootboxes. While we totally understand the reasons, it's a bit surprising that this problem has been exposed only recently, as lootboxes are as old as the Free to Play model and represents nearly always a (very) large part of F2P or B2P game incomes. Surprisingly, with this kind of monetization now forbidden in a growing number of countries, discussions about monthly subscription model are a thing again for many studios and publishers. 
 
3) Saying people want to make a one time payment is not a valid argument either: nobody with some common sense can ask for a one time payment (at the price of an average game) and expect to have a service lasting forever.
 
@Sofernius

Quite unlikely.
From a financial point of view, that would mean taking more risks than necessary: as said above, it would mean going from a steady income model to a fluctuant income model. Cosmetics make a good complementary income to B2P and subscription models but again, making it the main income of a game is very risky, especially if the structural costs for a game are high.
 

Those two things are already planned
Beta Key giveaways and Trial period at official release.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

For the month of May, it's finally here. Here's your "monthly" update from Ark Central, with a high volume of community created content showing this month.
 
 

I figured since NASA, ESA, Roskosmos, SpaceX et al. have all these neat mission patches, Dual Universe should have one too. So I designed one. Not sure about the years, since lore is still a bit spotty. The idea is to have this eventually turned into a real embroidered patch (not for commercial purposes, obviously ).
 
Thoughts? Suggestions?

If our ships really get dmg upon hitting the athmosphere with a high speed (devblog) i thought it might be good if that isnt just limited to the ship.
While asking for a complete inertia model, throwing people against walls when accelerating a construct is probably to much, i'd suggest a damage over time effect when players experience extreme accelerations. This dot would then be weakened by a certain degree if players sit in seats/benches while accelerating/decelerating, depending on the type of seat. A simply bench would only work for slightly to big accelerations, while special high speed seats could prevent that damage for very high accelerations.
 
This would add a bit of realism to the game and at the same time force people to design their ships with the required amount and class of seating opportunities.

I don't feel like the stories are missing anything. For the setting and overall story ark everything fits together perfectly. Most importantly the scenario gives very realistic motives/explanations to the already existing DU-Lore. In my opinion NQ should consider making these stories an official part of the lore. It would give the universe of DU a lot more meaning/depth. It would make the game a lot more immersive by having a more drawn out background story than the one we currently have.
 
Also @Ben Fargo: you seem to be quite involved in current real world AI research problems, especially based on your accurate descriptions in your newest story.
You probably already know about most current AI Experts, but just in case I highly recommend the YT channel of my favorite AI-safety expert Robert Miles:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg
Maybe you can draw some inspiration from his videos for your current storyline...

My latest story is First Choice.  Chronologically, this story takes place before the ones I have written previously.  While the lore gives a specific year for the rebellion against AIs, I could not determine from it exactly when the first sentient AI was created.  I am assuming this story takes place some time in the late twenty-first century.
 
I am planning to write more stories about these characters, but I have another project that I will be working on before that.

// Warning: This is criticism, not an insult //
\First 2 Books\There needs to be more descriptions, as it seems like everything is happening on a slideshow- and when it does give a more heavy and a richer description, it makes it seem out of place.
\Other Books\Pleasant to read. This is a more personal opinion, but it seems like the AI are a bit cookie-cutter. They (mostly) behave the same, and seems somewhat weird. The contrast between certain AIs would make the story feel more enveloping, such as a militaristic AI leaving little to decipher but a more poetic one (such as the AIs interested in art) would speak in a more lulling with much more figurative language.
Yeah, first two books. Going to be blunt: no.
Other ones are much better and were delightful.

I've seen the underlying argument a few times here so far, if my memory doesn't fool me right now. And of course I must admit that:
 
1) the abstract risk is there and that
2) it all heavily depends on the situation, all involved actors, the circumstances, etc
 
But at the same time I can imagine situations where there's absolutely little to no threat involved just having a "third (neutral) party" drive by or be in the area temporarily to do whatever they do.
 
My point or appeal is that you later on may not have to automatically shoot anyone else not on your side (a third party) due to potential risks. There isn't always a real threat in any encounter or situation. Say you have someone wave their neutral or white flag. They are at a distance, not running over to you. What threat or risk is there? Them working for some hostile side and telling them how many you are? They're further away and perhaps do not move closer to you, but keep distance themselves. By that point they see what they can see. If you engage them it won't change much or perhaps they see more of you, making it "worse", potentially. By the time you both acknowledge each other, they could already transmit said information or just your general presence is my point.
 
Again, it all depends on the situation and all that jazz in the end, no doubt, but my key point is you don't have to always shoot anything not on your side and supposedly neutral in some conflict or area, just passing by or minding their own business. Chances are they are indeed neutral or do not want to get involved in combat.
 
You can of course also engage (yes, I know, depends on who, when, situation, etc ) any third or neutral party because they can be a potential risk or threat, but that will likely not net you any flowers in the long run.
 
I would never underestimate public perception or reputation, assuming you do care about it at least a bit on the larger scale. I have seen countless examples where very reckless factions raided or engaged or tortured anyone and their mothers in games and that brought people against them in alliances, pacts, coalitions, etc.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
But it's quite fascinating, isn't it?
 
Think about it. Any decision or action you take or do not take can have lasting effects. I think that is causality in a nutshell. Will engaging that third party in a situation be helpful? Are they spies? Could engaging them prevent them from relaying more information, assuming you can destroy them locally?
 
What if it is a bad move and you pissed off the wrong people, leading to a huge decline in public opinion and new enemies? What if those ripples and decisions lead to, in a worst case, complete destruction of your organization (dissolved)? Or what if you did the "right thing" and guaranteed operational security at least for that particular operation or battle?
 
What if either decision (ignore or engage) doesn't lead to any notable result or change in the big picture?

right now they plan on doing the following:
- you have a resurection node (one permanent at the arkship, one "mobile" which you can place anywhere you want, possibly more when you learn skills)
- if you die, you respawn at the nearest node
- the node you place down needs energy to work - or fuel. So you have to make sure it's powered at all times
- when you get killed, a RNG determines which items are destroyed and which are dropped
- you respawn at the node, naked and with no inventory (money is safe and is not destroyed/dropped)
- you can travel to your body to pick up the items that were dropped (in case they're still there and haven't been looted already by someone else)
 
The only means to progress in DU is via skills (because it's like in EVE online: you train them via time - there's no "actively using a skill to improve it") and money (quanta). So imho a hit to skills only disencourages players to do PVP (as seen in EVE when flying T3).
And since it's a subscription based game, you have to invest RL money to play. Over time (months and years) you can train the skills of your character via the same system EVE uses - passive training with time. People would be really upset if they invest say 400€ over 33 months (12€/month to play for example) just to get killed by some random enemy and losing their char.
Heck, I wouldn't even bother leaving the safezone with my oldest char just to prevent death. And I would constantly make new alts to just kill random players outside the safezone to make them lose their char - just to make a point how BAD that system is.
 
Penalties to death are required and good - but those should be balanced. Otherwise you just kill pvp completely because noone wants to lose skills or their (old) character. People would just use alts and noob-chars to do pvp - which would be boring to see because they could only use basic stuff. 
 
I think losing your whole inventory, spawning at some RN (thus you need to get to the battlefield again), needing supplies to gear up, need a new ship to fly there again and possibly losing your other ship to the enemy is already enough as punishment.

I miss Landmark.
 
A little context for that video.  In case anyone is wondering what a "Mr. Voxel" is.
 
Mr. Voxel was a machine built by players inside the game Landmark, that helped other players visualize and create unique voxel shapes that would require more advanced voxelmancy knowledge and many more steps otherwise.
 
It basically did what is suggested in this trello for DU.  https://trello.com/c/wXSJEWVx/35-building-tool-voxel-control-points-edit
 
It was pretty awesome what people accomplished in Landmark in terms of gaining control over the voxels.  And it was a lot of fun discovering new stuff.  But I do hope NQ just gives us a voxel editor.  It's so silly that we could have had full control over the voxels in Landmark all that time and instead we had to figure it out for ourselves. 
 
By the end in Landmark we were using huge vector libraries that looked like this to build shapes.
 

I'm using phone so cant give you link, but you can search for RDMs ,it say pretty clear there.
 
NQ already give you tool for democracy already. It called 'legate'.
 
If it is dictator, legate will be set for one player or only a group to vote for the way of the org to go. If you want democracy, just legate everyone in org, everyone will have vote power. Then they can vote to choose who will be President/Prime minister/Leader of the org and give specific command which only that 'tag' can give without voting (they should talk about that decision before execute because if it angry major of member they can vote to demote or exile you ).
 
So I dont know what you want now for a system already in game.

As the specifics of whether or not the rdms system will have tools to allow popular voting systems of an org have not yet been released this statement is inherently false or NDA breaking.  
 
I will consider the terms organization, government, tribe, corporation, coop, commune, party, etc to be interchangeable.  They all have the same basic meaning with only variance in experiential association (different feelings based on your experience).  
 
I believe it would benefit the final game to have tools to allow for any type of governance the devs can find a way to accommodate.  However the idea that all members of the game have to belong to any specific type of organization is absolutism, and tyrannical no matter what type of governance that organization has.  I agree with a number of the other people here who do not want any rules outside of those necessary as decided by NQ to be applied to everyone. 
 
All types/sizes of organization/government are sets of rules that are set in place and ways to enforce those rules on the members.  Whoever is in charge (whether it be 1 person, a board, or all the members) make rules, need some means to enforce them (police/elders/enforcers/HR department/Boss), and a way to punish offenders (imprisoned/cast out/beat up/fired).
 
All rules take away liberty from people.  By default all people have as much liberty as they possibly can have.  When you start making rules you might protect people from each other's actions, but you have placed boundaries on every persons liberty as well.  The idea of making every person be a part of an org/gov by default means that you are reducing the baseline of how much freedom people have by default.  
 
I hope this helps you to understand why some others, and myself are against the idea of a government that all people are made a part of by default.

@Rom35700
 
1) I have 16G, so I can not say how it runs on anything less.
2) The language is Lua.  You do not need to code to play.  It is an option that makes more things possible, but not essential.
3) There is an NDA.  Players can not post videos or screenshots anywhere.  We can not discuss our experiences during the test sessions outside of private forums for those who have access.
4) The basic pack does not give you immediate access.  Only the patron pack gives access now.  The contributor and sponsor packs give access to later stages of testing.  We do not yet know when those stages will start.
5) Because of the NDA, I can not describe what the sessions are like now.  The purpose of the current sessions is testing the game, not providing a fun experience.  That does not mean they are not enjoyable, but the game still is in an early stage of development.  Anyone who expected a complete game they could start playing right now would be disappointed.
6) The time needed will depend on what you want to accomplish.  It is still too early to know how time will be needed for what a typical player wants to do.

@Rom35700
 
1) I have 16G, so I can not say how it runs on anything less.
2) The language is Lua.  You do not need to code to play.  It is an option that makes more things possible, but not essential.
3) There is an NDA.  Players can not post videos or screenshots anywhere.  We can not discuss our experiences during the test sessions outside of private forums for those who have access.
4) The basic pack does not give you immediate access.  Only the patron pack gives access now.  The contributor and sponsor packs give access to later stages of testing.  We do not yet know when those stages will start.
5) Because of the NDA, I can not describe what the sessions are like now.  The purpose of the current sessions is testing the game, not providing a fun experience.  That does not mean they are not enjoyable, but the game still is in an early stage of development.  Anyone who expected a complete game they could start playing right now would be disappointed.
6) The time needed will depend on what you want to accomplish.  It is still too early to know how time will be needed for what a typical player wants to do.

I've been thinking of "markets" in terms of EVE's implementation, but I've just realised I may have fundamentally misunderstood what DU's implementation will look like.
 
Perhaps DU is going to be closer to SWG's "player shops" !
 
Consider what we know about the mechanics in DU:
players will place their own "market terminals" (that sounds like SWG's "player vendors") a container will be attached to the terminal, where the goods for sale will be stored  
Players will be able to remotely browse the listings on all terminals in a given range, even purchase remotely, BUT items will need to be physically collected from whichever terminal (i.e. shop) they were listed on. Just like in old SWG....
 
That means the market terminal you place is in fact your shop interface. You will define sales quantities, price, min/max volume, etc. directly on that terminal. If you list buy orders too, you will have to deposit quanta in the terminal so that your buy offers are funded.
 
That would also mean that a "market hub" in DU will actually be a cluster of independent "player shops" !
 
The "market window" in your UI will simply be an aggregated display of everything on all the player shops who's visibility reaches your current location. Increasing the visibility range will be the responsibility of the shop owner, not dependent on the skills of the potential buyer.
 
Quote from: http://massivelyop.com/2018/05/02/massively-op-interview-dual-universe-demo-shows-off-advances-in-city-building-space-travel/

A simple way would be you can only repair what you own/have rights to.
 
If the ship/item is no longer owned. ie. The core is destroyed ending RDMS for everything attached to it. Then what is left of the battle worn ship is salvageable only as raw materials.
 
So if the ship has 75% damage you can only salvage that 75%.
 
Lua scripts and links between elements (and lua scripts in elements) blow up/short circuit rendering all elements in a basic virgin mode. Elements can then be owned by being picked up, which would be a separate action to salvaging. The elements themselves may need repair, which can be done once owned. Repairs can be done on the element to bring it to 100% health.
 
So the resource sink will essentially be the bits of construct that aren't repaired before being salvaged by a new party. (The 25% from the above example).
 
Salvaging should be, say four times slower, than mining as generally speaking the material you are harvesting is of higher quality than simple ground ores etc.
 
This keeps things simple, protects builders IP, and ensures fun gameplay.
 
PS: Remember that if a ship is designed well, the core will be in relative center of a ship as NQ has said that damage to ships will be an area of affect damage type, so it would make sense to put the core approx in the ships center with as much armor/protection around it as possible. For fun, if I was making DU, I would make it explode slightly when destroyed, removing the core from the game as both a signal to all participants that the ship is nullified and possibly causing a random chain reaction to other elements, as mentioned in the previous post.
 
Now that would be fun
 

@Rom35700
 
1) I have 16G, so I can not say how it runs on anything less.
2) The language is Lua.  You do not need to code to play.  It is an option that makes more things possible, but not essential.
3) There is an NDA.  Players can not post videos or screenshots anywhere.  We can not discuss our experiences during the test sessions outside of private forums for those who have access.
4) The basic pack does not give you immediate access.  Only the patron pack gives access now.  The contributor and sponsor packs give access to later stages of testing.  We do not yet know when those stages will start.
5) Because of the NDA, I can not describe what the sessions are like now.  The purpose of the current sessions is testing the game, not providing a fun experience.  That does not mean they are not enjoyable, but the game still is in an early stage of development.  Anyone who expected a complete game they could start playing right now would be disappointed.
6) The time needed will depend on what you want to accomplish.  It is still too early to know how time will be needed for what a typical player wants to do.

@Rom35700
 
1) I have 16G, so I can not say how it runs on anything less.
2) The language is Lua.  You do not need to code to play.  It is an option that makes more things possible, but not essential.
3) There is an NDA.  Players can not post videos or screenshots anywhere.  We can not discuss our experiences during the test sessions outside of private forums for those who have access.
4) The basic pack does not give you immediate access.  Only the patron pack gives access now.  The contributor and sponsor packs give access to later stages of testing.  We do not yet know when those stages will start.
5) Because of the NDA, I can not describe what the sessions are like now.  The purpose of the current sessions is testing the game, not providing a fun experience.  That does not mean they are not enjoyable, but the game still is in an early stage of development.  Anyone who expected a complete game they could start playing right now would be disappointed.
6) The time needed will depend on what you want to accomplish.  It is still too early to know how time will be needed for what a typical player wants to do.

Hey, so I'm just beginning to look into Dual Univers but IDK if it's worth it to buy the game rn. I got Star Citizen but that game is just too much for my old PC so I'd like to make sure I don't make the same mistake twice. So I have a few Question :
 
1) The site says 8G of RAM is the minimum but is that true ? (it wasn't for SC)
2) Do I need to know how to code ? I looks like code will be integrated into the game just like it is for Space Engineers, is it ? (if so what lenguage)
3) How come there isn't any gameplay videos online ? do you sign an NDA as you buy one of the packs ?
4) If I buy a pack (most likely the basic one) am I guaranteed immediate acces to evverything that is currently available ?
5) Is the game FUN ?! (solo as well as in groups)
6) How much time do I need to inves in to truly enjoy the game ?
 
 

Even if it were awful, people would still take the time to learn it. If you don't want to learn it, just use the normal tools I have used solidworks and it wouldn't need to be nearly as complicated.
 
what people are suggesting with a CAD system wouldn't be mandatory at all, just another way/tool to build with the same voxels. a simple addition for those who want more control over their voxels

No, not really. Just like LUA. If you want to go the extra mile and learn something to improve your skills, go ahead, but don't be limited by making everything within the skills of everybody. There's no unfair advantage granted to those who learn a simple in-game CAD system... The current voxel tools will always be available to those who don't want to go the extra mile and learn something... That's like saying they should make a visual IDE for LUA so people don't feel excluded from programming
 

Your preferences shape your conclusion, of course.
 
Sounds like you'd prefer if ALL players could spend 90% of their game time in PVP, with the "boring" stuff like mining and manufacturing as automated as possible. Nothing wrong with that goal, provided you're the kind of player that likes to PVP all the time.
 
NQ are not marketing DU as a "PVP game" though. They are trying to provide activities that will accommodate a wide range of playstyles. DU has PVP, but it's not the focus of the game.
 
If you don't like mining and crafting, leave that to those who will enjoy it, and just buy your military gear on the market. That's how it's worked in EVE for the last 15 years...

Scandalous times indeed as DU's shady political sphere bleeds over into the real world. But there's also good news. Fortunately, Ark Central is here with the facts in this month's April news update.
 
 

Will the building in DU be like landmark?
Building will be similar to Landmark.  There are some differences, but if you enjoyed building in Landmark, you will probably like it in DU, too.
 
How hard will it to get land?
You will need a territory unit to claim land and we do not yet know how difficult it will be to earn that in the game.  However, if you buy a Sponsor Pack or a Patron Pack, you will get a sanctuary territory unit that will let you claim land on the Sanctuary Moon.  In effect, those packs include land, but you need to get to the Sanctuary Moon to claim it.  
 
Will you be able to get your own land?
If you get a territory unit, you can get land.  A unit claims a tile which is about a kilometer across, so you get an area that is much larger than a claim was in Landmark.
 
I would play like once a week.  Would pvp people take my land like in Ark?
There will be two safe zones where people can not take your land.   One is around the Arkship where everyone starts the game and the other is the Sanctuary Moon.  Any land outside those areas can be attacked and captured.  Realistically, it will take an organization to defend any land outside the safe zones.
 

I played landmark
bought the highest pre access pak bought all the land spots.  I like to build.
Will the building in DU be like landmark?
How hard will it to get land?
Will you be able to get your own land?
I would play like once a week.  Would pvp people take my land like in Ark?
Thanks