Ben Fargo

@Orius
It's a bit difficult to recommend a box-only voxel editor, as voxels, in general, in games such as LandMark, carry slant information, as such creating angular models like this should be possible:
 
 
With that in mind, I recommend you simply use Blender, or any other free 3D modelling program.
In Blender, using the 'Remesh' modifier on an object will give you voxel-like behaviour, with the Blocks mode showing you which 'voxels' would be mostly full in box mode: 
Keep in mind, they've shown in the videos for the player construct voxel-density to be 0.25m, so if your goal is to create game-feasible models, make sure scale your model to fit roughly 4 of these boxes in a single grid line (which you can consider as 1 meter in blender).
 
Then flipping the modifier into Smooth or Sharp mode will show you how your Blender model might look recreated in a voxel engine:

 
As you can see, my model had very thin detail in the rear, that was smaller than the voxel engine could handle, which means I would have to reduce the detail in that part of the model, or increase the overall model size, increasing how many voxels I have for detail:

NQ has said thst there wont be collision mechanics, besides bouncing of each other for the sake of gameplay.
 
Honestly i think you are just comming up with ideas before going through all the dev blogs and videos to know what is already planned/not planned/decided against.
 
Once you do that then u will be in s much better position to make thoughtfull suggestions instead of constantly shooting from the hip, ruffling featheres and wasting peoples time unessesarily.  

Saw this game on a youtube channel I follow, and after looking into this is actually a really interesting project. It's really exciting to be able to get into something like this so early.

Sorry, but thats just idealistic nonsense. Without impact or limitations on players activities such a council has no power at all and is therefore a useless instrument solely usable for rp.
If it has consequences ingame then it is a artificial system that imposes its rules upon players and limits actions and there is not supposed to be a mechanic like that in DU.
So either it doesn't conform with the idea of DU or its useless, in both cases there is no need for it. 
As i already said, if you want such a government, create the organization and try to make everyone join, but setting it up as game mechanic? Far to limiting and stiff.

There are many people who simply enjoy making things.  We would need no reason to build a city other than being able to do it.   There are also many people who do not understand those motivations.  We do not know what portion of each kind DU will attract.

That's just begging for a deus ex machina. "I think I can be safest and have my fun if devs pour what I need for that in concrete". 
 
Removing the behavioural and mechanical sandbox by arbitrary constructs might provide a specific player type with a desired outcome, but it'll still be a non-sandbox game that way. Funny thing, NQ present it as a sandbox. 
 
Which makes all of this a theoretical discussion on things which are never going to happen. Unless you - the player - strive to build and organise your ideas and convictions in to a reality among pixels for yourself and yours. Just like others will do different things in different forms with different methods. 
 
You want government? Get people together, go out there, plant your flag and stake your claim. Build and organise your group the way you want it. 

'
There's a new article on Oz, by DU's Alsan_Teamaro. It's his first piece and by all means, a solid entry.
@Alsan_Teamaro's article on Oz takes a look at the organisational structures in Dual Universe, with some funny puns and videos along with it. If you are thinking of building an organisation or already have one and need some tips on the mode of governance (not all leaders are dictators), Alsan's article is an insightful - if witty - piece. 
 
Head over to Oz to have a read. Who knows? You might learn a thing or two about keeping the cannon fodder in line orgaanisation members happy.  
 
Oz Team.
'

It's a sandbox. That makes it what you make from it. The moment you try to replicate artificial, arbitrary and subjective constraints on it as controlling mechanisms is the moment you effectively strip the potential for making it into what you might want to turn it into for yourself. 
 
In other words, while there will be baseline feature sets and mechanisms that enable the sandbox, some of which might support types of human behaviour and organisation in the sandbox, you don't want to go down the road as described in the topic start. There's important lessons to learn here from both successes and failures of other mmo's (and human social psychology in general). 
 
 
A. No. Sandbox. Make it what you want to be. Invest in it. Deal with it interacting with what others might want out of it. Nothing is worthwhile without a cost. Nothing has meaning without effort. Nothing has significance if it doesn't have to stand up to something else.
 
B. No. You're talking about arbitrary constraints. This is a very different thing from game features and mechanisms. You want to mix the two. While a cocktail can taste good to one or the other, it's a matter of subjective taste. Welcome to the human species, one shoe does not fit all. 
 
C. NovaQuark. That's it. I sincerely doubt they will dabble in player affairs however. They're smart cookies, and they recently hired someone into the position of exec producer who's got quite a bit of experience with the hard lessons of that other mmo in these matters. 
 
Reality check: it's a sandbox. Reading tips: organisational psychology, game theory. 
 
Honestly, don't try to wrap a subjective perspective or ideal in either lore or feature marketing. Use the sandbox. It provides the room and the means for you to make your perspective or ideal as real as possible. 

You can do that. Start an org and Go Vote in leaders, noone is hindering you. You can do that right now. And you can fight those......"nefarious forces". Do it and organize it, make contracts with other entities and actually work for it yourself.
But don't expect Others to just bow to you or such a system. I personally hate democracies and will never ever join one.
 
You clearly haven't understood what emergent gameplay in a sandbox is about. All the things you've mentioned are already possible, but there is no mechanic which takes you by the hand and tells you what to do. You have to do it yourself

I believe that is a misconception of the PvP discussions on this forum.  Most discussions turn at one point to balance between PvP, and Non-PvP.  If you take the forums as an indicator of what people want (which would not be an effective measure) then there are probably just as many people wanting non-PvP activities as wanting PvP.  To be fair it is probably a lot of people that want to do some of both (but with a preference one way or other) and a small amount that want only one or the other.  We need balance as NQ has pointed out so that all play styles are represented.

I expect cities like that will be common in UA.  I think many organizations will establish those cities because they will see an opportunity to profit from providing an open and fairly safe city close to the resources that will be used there.  They will accept the risk of defending those cities if it seems profitable.
 
Of course,  we will need to wait until the game is released to see what actually happens.    DU is a game that appeals to an unusually wide range of interests and it is difficult to predict which, if any, will become predominant.

What else would I waste my resources on? Gather them to build stuff, and sell stuff... idk...
I think people will gravitas towards civilization and creating; to belong and express.

Oh I see. You think it could be a product offered by Organizations instead of Organizations being formed out of necessity. I think it might be a bit of both, an Organization with a decent amount of wealth might find it necessary to open another Organization to host civilians.

The Tortuga City building contest for Pre Alpha has concluded and the winners are Kurock, Agilolfing, Captain Hilts, Lau2356, and Sunrider. They will be the first among many to help layout the final layout and design for Tortuga City. Keep an eye out for future events from Tortuga City as we begin to flesh out roles of administration as required throughout testing.
 
This project has come a long way since its inception, with a community already beginning to flourish on Discord. Why not come join in on the fun and help make a badass home for yourself?
 

I have added another story to the series.  While I intend to write more stories, but Last Dance is the conclusion to this set of five.
 
You might notice the link for this story is different than the others.  I did not have enough space for it in my allotment, so the file is stored in Dropbox.

In regards to the topics discussing about cloaking and radar tech (links below)  we might want to discuss how DU PvP itself will most likely look like first.
 
We know that DU won't be ego-shooter style but also not lock and forget, so how will it work?
DU aims to be a realistic scifi mmorpg, that means the combar system should also be somewhat realistic and i want to discuss about one of the (in my subjective opinion) most probable systems.
 
1. Getting the targets coordinates
Getting the targets coordinates would involve the much discussed sensors (mass, heat, radar etc.) as well as visual detection by the player himself. Those coordinates would have to be locked with the targeting system. At the same time that means that every weapons targeting system needs to be connected in a way to sensor arrays, we know NQ doesnt want us to have a central control for all weapons, so we probably would have to specialize some weapons due to their scanning systems (balistic low caliber weapons versus dogfighters would probably need a short range heat/Energy sensor, long range artillery for fighting big targets would be better with mass type sensors etc.).
 
2. Firing
If the target is locked by the sensors the targeting system recieves the targets velocity vector. If we assume that weapons have the properties Velocity, DispersionAthmosphere, DispersionSpace, Duration and Area of effect additional to the normal attack properties like Damage, Piercing or whatever, then the targeting system would calculate a path depending on the velocity vector of the target and the velocity of the weaponattack to the estimated point of intersection, then it would check if the path is clear from obstacles and initate fire. Players should have the ability to modify the path if they wish to (direction, distance). The range of the attack is defined by the dispersion stat (for example after the Power/mm reduced to a tenth the attack counts as ineffective) If the calculated point is within the range a damage zone defined by the area of effect property is created after the necessary time defined by the distance ot the target and the attack-velocity passed and the duration of the attack.
 
3. Hitting
If the target is within the damage Zone its damaged depending on the weapons attack properties and its own defense properties. Additionally ships would have a Sensor which detects incoming attacks and warns the pilot, thus giving him the opportunity to try to avoid the damage zone by de-/accelerating or turning. 
 
4. Consequences
This system has several advantages, due to the possiblity to adjust the attack path and evasive actions it enables intense close range dogfights and at the same time it works very well for the employment of strategic long range weaponry without illogical consequences. The turning speed and acceleration as well as the size of ships becomes quite important which would positively influence the quality of shipdesign. It shouldn't be to hard on the server as it doesnt require checking if an attack hit a certain target, it defines damage zones on the server which last for a certain time and the hitcheck only involves checking if a ship entered the damage zone or not.
 
The disadvantages are that slow weapons might travel through obstacles which moved into the patch after they were fired, but maybe the system could define several damage zones along the way for slow weapons.
 
5. Role of radars and cloaking
The role of radars is obviously very important in this system, as they directly influence how well the targeting system works. A low quality of radars/damaged elements could introduce an increasing error in the calculation of the attack path, equally the employent of disruptive elements (due to spys or weaponry) could also strongly increase the error, thus leading to more strategic options in warfare. Cloaking on the other hand wouldn't only include elements that directly reduce a certain signal, be it mass or heat or similar, they could also include elements that strongly increases signals. If a small ship has the mass signature of a ver big vessel it might lead to the opposing ship using its expensive heavy artillery, wasting it, or a fake heat signal could lead to fast mid range weaponry miss the target because it calculated the wrong path. Radars and cloaking wouldn't be a paper, rock and scissors system but rather a strategically relevant, non random, decision.
 
 
 

It is important for NQ to say that DU isn't a "PVE" game.  So people understand that there won't be monsters or raids to beat or whatever.
 
But in some ways I feel like DU is actually even more PVE then those games.  By the literal definition of the words at least.
 
I mean there will definitely be an environment.  And it's probably not going to make things easy for us.  But PVP is a part of that.  Not something separate. 
 
It's not a PVE game in the sense that the point of the game is to beat the environment.  And it's not a PVP game in the sense that the point of the game is to kill other players.
 
It's just a game.  You do whatever you want.  
 
Edit: It may be impossible not to alienate the type of PVE and PVP players who need a clearly defined and usually easy to attain goal to go for.  But I don't think  that is alienating PVP or PVE players.  It's just alienating people who aren't ready for a different type of game.

Man they really need to get us some more server uptime before things get any more lord of the flies around here. 
 
There are people who simply want an endless stream of mostly defenseless new players to execute just for the giggles.  There are also people who want to roam the universe in complete safety without anyone bothering them at all.  And I think there are probably other games out there better suited to both those groups.
 
PVP is a huge part of this game, especially because there is no PVE.  But building is also a huge part of the game, because there is simply no other building game even close to DU out there.  
 
If we want this game to be a success everyone is going to have to consider how something that might enhance their own experience, might also totally ruin someone else's.
 
I might like to be able to build anywhere I want without being bothered by PVP.  But I am willing to give that up to make the game better overall.
 
People should also consider that the safezones are simply safezones.  And if PVPers choose to use them to avoid PVP.  Then those people just aren't playing anymore and you have to move on.  It's a compromise.
 
I promise you there is some amazing mountain top somewhere on some planet that I would like to build on.  But I may have to choose not too because I don't want to have to defend it.
 

You know the saying - there are sheep (just wanna do their thing in peace, and not have to do a thing to protect themselves) there are wolves (just wanna shoot everything in sight - only rule is what a man can do and what a man can't do savvy) there are sheep dogs (dangerous people that have fun protecting the weak and innocent and hunting wolves)

Looks like we have plenty of sheep and wolves already, if we get enough sheep dogs things can be well balanced without needing too many silly artificial rules.
 

I have added another story to the series.  While I intend to write more stories, but Last Dance is the conclusion to this set of five.
 
You might notice the link for this story is different than the others.  I did not have enough space for it in my allotment, so the file is stored in Dropbox.

If you want to be evil in-game, be evil. As long as the EULA is not broken then go ahead.
 
However.
 
Actions have consequences. That ship you ganked might have a nation of allies that will happily return the favour on you and yours. You might be the target of a bounty or three. Or a completely random person might pick up the distress call and run you through. This is called emergent gameplay. Expect reactions.
 
And for that non-PvPer travelling alone?
Actions have consequences. You could have done a little research and been warned that there was pirate activity on that route and taken a different route. You could have hired some mercenaries to keep you safe(r). No guarantees though, but the reward of those precious minerals are worth the risk, right?
 
Personally, I would like the chat button to be as easy, if not easier, to press as than the fire button.

-1, bad idea
 
You split the playerbase with that (maybe even early on) - not a good idea imho. Especially when NQ always said that they want to enforce player interaction (that's why different systems like skilltime, engines, velocity are in place to ensure that player's stay together for a long time).
 
Plus what to with the fixed RN in the arkzone for EVERY PLAYER ? Overtake ark -> noone can spawn there. GG, when you die you respawn at the new ark - possibly hours and hours away from your homebase on a sanctuary moon of alioth - thanks game.....
 
Arkships and safezone should NEVER be in the hands of players - and I think that NQ said that somewhere too.

I mainly hope enough emphasis will be put on diverse or different armor sets. Regardless of whatever priorities might exist, I simply think having this grand game scale but later only having a hand full of different armor sets (+ maybe some combinations you can get through combining different pieces) would not really 'fit' the scope or idea of the game in my book.
 
But then again with my background I like to put emphasis on having a decent armor and clothing selection in the game to customize your character, appearance and in that sense your position in whatever entity you might be part of. The more, the merrier.
 
As this can also attract a larger audience who like visual customization, I think NQ should eventually put some form of focus on increasing the selection. On an abstract level it can satisfy some players and help in telling stories, and can in turn help in multimedia content and promotion as players share their stories on the net and showcase different outfits.
 
In a nutshell, it makes players happy and / or helps with their media content. In an indirect way, not just the community but NQ would also benefit from that, I think.
 
Of course, "custom armor" might sound a bit odd or tricky. I generally hope for a diverse selection of clothing and armor down the road, but would not be averse to have a special way of requesting unique or specific outfit designs for money that could then be added as a sort of "skin" for existing armor so that the appearance changes, if not as hard armor item for all. This would bind personnel at NQ who are occupied with implementing such skins or armor items per player request. At the same time I see abstract risks, such as potential copyright issues if armor design sources are unclear.
 
It would be cool for the customer, but all in all the measure would seem exotic and could bear abstract risks depending on how this would be implemented or work (if, say, you would supply requests with pictures instead of being able to design armors solely in-game through some tool).
 
In short, I don't see it happening.

I like playing evil, on occasion, in games. 
 
This doesn't mean I torture animals in real lifeel  (anyway cruelty to people pays better and they seem to appreciate it more).
 
Neither do I play evil for the lulz.  I like to be the consequence of laziness, greed or bad planning.  In one Space game my organization made it so that you could buy a pass to not be pirated and briefly turned a core area of space into the New Caribbean until the developer drained the joy out of pvp and the core professions of piracy.
 
We were a bad organisation that had a code (more of a guideline, really).
 
The one thing I like in a game is rules which can be broken and worked around but not so tight that you can't do anything.
 
We enjoy conflict with security and playing cat and mouse with traders.  But while we enjoy pvp, we didn't (as happened in the other game) want to do it all the time.  We wanted every contact with Traders to be unique-ish.  We weren't murder hobos, we wuz pirates. 
 
I understand the 'hours wasted' argument against non consensual pvp - i really do - and I like DU's way around it with zones of varying security but I do not understand people who join a free form sand box and start omediately seeking ways to restrict it.
 
It is upon you to defend your 'hours of work' by use of forethought and care.  It is not for the developer to make a game where you are totally safe all of the time.
 
A good game has safer and less safer areas.  It also has levels of risk which can be modified by player actions  (forming a convoy, not putting everything you own in one fragile ship).
 
Adapt yourself and everyone can have the game they want.   Strangle the simulation and you only end up with one type of player and a shrinking player base.
 
And with that, good day. 

ARK and DU are very different games.
 
Survival games like ARK are designed to work with many independent small-population servers that are wiped intermittently to "refresh" the game world. DU is a "true" MMO, the world will be persistent, and the player population (and game world) will be several orders of magnitude greater than in ARK.
 
Player progress in ARK, Rust and DayZ is also very fast compared to what we can expect in DU. ARK servers are "fast cycle" games, where you reach max level in a month or two of game play. It will most likely take years to get to "max level" in DU, if it's even possible to do so.
 
ARK's resources respawn quickly, DU's resources don't respawn at all, which will slow down the pace of play quite a bit compared to ARK. ARK's game world is tiny compared to that of DU, and DU's game world will continue to expand.
 
So far, NQ have shown no signs of "rushing" development. If anything, the opposite is true.
 
NQ also have an overall "vision" for what they want DU to be, and their design and implementation both reflect that goal. The safezones in DU are a case in point, games like ARK simply dump new players into their small game worlds, with no support systems. They are "pure survival" games, and that is not what NQ intend for DU.

Theoretically, a mega-org could dominate DU. But theoretically, it could also happen in EVE. It has never happened in EVE in the 15 years that EVE has existed. EVE has had some very powerful alliances in its history, but none of them ever had complete control over more than half of the game world, if that much. It will in all likelihood never happen in DU for much the same reasons as it did not happen in EVE. 
 
Keep in mind that a "mega-org" in a game like ARK seldom has more than 40-50 members, and that's typically a very large slice of the total server pop. In DU, something of that size probably wouldn't even make the top 100. EVE has had alliances with 5K members...