MinerMax555

The "technology" behind resurrection nodes is that when you die, the universe switches the position of your dead body with a the position of your living body which happens to be in a completely identical universe, except that your body is in a resurrection node. The losing skills might still make sense with that, but I think the fairness of that would depend on how long it takes to get those skills in the first place. Perhaps just losing experience would be more appropriate, or losing a level in just one category of your skill tree. I think losing a level in all categories is a bit harsh; it might make things frustrating for people new to the game, who are both not powerful and not experienced, as they may be more prone to death. And if you look deep into video games in general, nobody likes to lose progress they worked hard to get. It turns them off towards playing to get it back.
 
I do very much agree that there should be a penalty for death, beyond just losing what you have in your inventory, which means nothing to someone who wants to go on a suicide trolling run as they'll simply leave everything valuable behind. But I'll leave that up to the developers to decide, as they are currently the only ones who know how everything works.

Great Job Anasasi, It has been wonderful seeing all of this raw data. It makes me very happy to see people pouring so much time and effort into these things! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

"
It is an amazing task that he has taken on. People like you and other members of the Forums that appreciate his hard work are just as important. 
 
Thank you, Anasasi for your work. We appreciate it a lot.
"

My company, the Vortrex Mining and Science Inc. is still looking for members of all kind, reaching from designer to soldier. I can offer you a position, if you are interested

Don't forget that the Terran Union and Silverlight are both members of Cinderfall. Technically Cinderfall is the biggest org.

I generally like the idea of a mostly peaceful world. but I'm leader of a company, and making money is our main goal. And if no ships get destroyed, nobody would buy more than one or two ships. A totally peaceful world would be getting boring quick, while a total anarchy would be really frustrating. I hope that it will be something inbetween.

I expect all the founder packs materials(reaching from bronze to Kyrium). Copper is confirmed, you can build with normal dirt and stone as well (probably not a spaceship, but ground-bases)

Introduction
This is more so a topic for the developers, but I hope people will add their ideas for additonal feedback. Dual Universe is looking to be an enormous, awesome game. It's trying to do what no game has done before, but at the same time it's going to share some gameplay aspects with other games. In order to make this deep, rich, and occasionally complex game a reality, lots of mechanics and ideas will need balancing and fine-tuning. A very popular game around these forums is EVE, for obvious reasons. EVE has lots of the features and mechanics that Dual Universe is looking to accomplish. As such, I would consider it foolish to not look to EVE for ideas on how to make Dual Universe better. EVE is very successful, with a huge lifespan for a game, and many of the concepts the game is based on are shared by Dual Universe. As such, it is of course a great example to look to.
 
What Survivor Bias is
However, I think it's extremely important to specifically mention survivorship bias (SB), and how to avoid it. If you know what SB is, you can skip this paragraph. SB is when you look at only the survivors of a situation, and make a judgment call based on only what made the survivors successful. You can google it yourself, but a popular example is from WWII. Lots of British and American bombers were getting shot down, and so the allies looked at where most of the bullet holes were in the returning bombers. They added extra armor to those areas, and sent them off again. But, the number of bombers lost didn't really change. Then one man realized the fallacy in the reasoning... They were only looking at the bombers that had survived. This man determined where the bombers that were getting shot down were getting shot; he didn't look at why the survivors survived, but why the failures failed. He determined where the lost bombers were being shot and subsequently destroyed, and those spots were then armored instead. The number of bombers getting shot down decreased after this, because his reasoning was correct.
 
How I've used it in games
Seems dramatic to bring such a serious matter into a game, but the reasoning is the same. I'm currently working on a zombies map for Black Ops 3, and wanting to make a great map, I looked at the generally considered "best zombies maps" (take a guess how many youtube videos there are with a title like that) and what makes people like them so much. But, I also looked at the maps people seem to like the least, and tried to figure out why people don't like them, so I can avoid the features and aspects that those maps have that the others don't.
 
(TL;DR: You'll still get the gist of the topic if you read from here)
 
Why the failures fail
Dual Universe can do the same. Looking at EVE as an example, that's great, an extremely good idea to do so. Look at what makes that game great, and try and carry those features over. But, it is also extremely important to look at what made the failures fail. Drama aside, look at No Man's Sky. It has tons of planets and creatures to discover. People say all the planets are the same aside from colors, and they're partially right. A planet may have different animals, but they lack uniqueness. Each animal hardly acts any differently than any other, and no animal offers something that another one doesn't. All of the materials and resources are found in the same form on every planet. No Man's Sky offers lots and lots of the same thing; there are tons of planets, buildings, animals, NPCs, and space stations, but none of them really offer anything that another one doesn't.
 
The problem with failures is that typically, they aren't popular so not many people know about them. I hope other people will bring in more failures of games (preferably ones comparable in some way to Dual Universe), and maybe highlight some reasons why those games failed. Maybe mention some features you don't want to see in the game. Please try and avoid drama and extreme negativity; highlight flaws, but don't verbally destroy the games, and please specifically don't turn this into a No Man's Sky hate thread.

Stealing DACs (in the context of looting in the game) is not a real life crime. I've seen a lot of people say this and it's just plain false.
 
DACs are not cash equivalent as they cannot be converted back into real life money. If they could be converted back and forth then, yes, they would be considered currency and stealing them would constitute a real life crime. The in game economy would also be subject to all sorts of international currency laws which would make everything super messy (nothing like having to report your earnings in a videogame for real life taxes ). Once the customer pays for them, they turn into virtual, 'fake' property that is not covered by any real life laws. So long as the rules laid our in the game's EULA are not broken, people can do whatever they want with them with no consequences, including stealing or "scamming" them. They can be used for dollar-to-ingame-money comparisons based on their in-game selling price but that figure would just be for comparisons sake. 
 
As to whether or not DACs should be lootable, I say yes, but not immediately.
 
They should not be lootable until a system like EVE's redemption system can be implemented. Like many people who backed the kickstarted, I would be spawning in on day one with a nice fat stack of DACs and I don't want to lose them all the second I step out of the safe zone. 
 
In the long run, though, they should eventually be made lootable like PLEX in EVE. I don't think any of the arguments against this have much merit to them. With the redemption system in place, people who buy them could spawn them directly into the market where they were going to sell them with zero risk. Likewise, people who wanted to buy them for the gametime could buy them and activate them on the spot with zero risk as well.  Only the people who want to haul them around would have risk, and that's fine. DACs are going to very expensive in game by their very nature (that's worthy of an entire post in and of itself), so anyone who does DAC trading between the various trade hubs is going to be making obscene amounts of money off even small percentage differences in prices. Why wouldn't we want those people to have risk? (And if super rich players were smart they could still use arbitrage to avoid the risk of transporting it.) As to the argument that having DACs be lootable will lead to them only being traded in safe zones, and, possibly, that this will cause all the trade hubs to be in safe zones. Again, why is this a bad thing? For starters, safe zones will probably end up being major trade hubs anyways, depending on market destruction mechanics. It doesn't matter whether it's a billion dollars in ore or a billion dollars of DACs, if I'm trading high value items of any sort and market security is really such a concern, I'm probably going to do it in a safe zone. Additionally, the developers have stated that there will be multiple safe zones spread throughout the galaxy that would allow for there to major safe-zone market hubs in every region (region is kind of a loose term here but you get the picture).
 
For the other arguments, that lootable DACs will result in hatred or people quitting the game, I think that is unfounded. As NQ has said, we are all adults here (or at least we should be) and we should be able to manage risk. This is not a game for children. I'm reminded of the ever present argument in EVE over the concept of suicide ganking. Many people insist that ganking is driving people away from the game because they can't handle the danger. And yet, when CCP ran the numbers, it turned out that new players who were ganked within their first week of play had a much HIGHER retention rate than those didn't! The sense of risk gave value to the experience. Now I'm not saying that everyone start ganking each other all the time, but there is a difference between reasonable protecting people from unreasonable risk and unreasonably protecting people from reasonable risk. It makes the game boring and people go play something more exciting (like getting ganked in EVE haha).
 
DACs should be unlootable until a proper redemption system can be implemented. After that, I see no reason why they shouldn't be made lootable.
 
 
 
EDIT: In response to some other points I have seen made in this thread.
 
1) When people are talking about "looting" DACs they seem to use the words "steal" and "loot" interchangeably, and I think this is causing some confusion. What people are talking about with have "lootable" DACs doesn't mean that someone can just come a long and yank them out of your pocket, or steal them from your account while you are offline. What it means is that DACs would be treated like any other good in the game. If you are carrying them in your ship and it gets destroyed, people can loot them from the wreck along with whatever else you were carrying. Whether you are for or against lootable DACs, we all need to be on the same page about the specifics of what we are arguing over. I support lootable DACs but not the ability to just "steal" them from anyone.
 
2) Some people have argued that, in order to solve the DAC Problem, other items be made more valuable so as to "distract" people from DACs. This isn't really feasible since all high value items will still follow the same laws of supply and demand that DACs will. Some will trade them, some will use them, and some will hoard them. The main difference with DACs is the fact that they are tied to a real life currency value (although that does not make them a RL currency equivalent as some have suggested). Since they are tied into a real life value, they are less vulnerable to price manipulation on a global scale. In addition, the value of DACs will naturally rise with inflation rate of the in game economy, making them a good option for long term investment.
 
3) Some people have stated that since DACs are intended to be a way for people to pay for membership by playing, or skip grinding by paying for a DAC and trading that for in game money, people should only be able to trade them once or some other limiting factor that would prevent people from actively stockpiling/trading DACs. What they don't realize is that this would create huge problems for precisely those people who want to use it for its "intended purpose". Imagine if people could only trade DACs once, so the person who bought it in game had to use it. If more people bought DACs to sell than there were people trying to buy them, the people who paid real money will have essentially wasted their money as they won't be able to sell the DACs, or they will have to sell them so cheaply that it won't be worth it. Imagine the other way around, for some reason a bunch of people try to buy DACs off the market at the same time and there just aren't enough DACs to go around. Two things will happen there: first, prices are going to skyrocket, and second, no matter how high prices go, not everyone who wants one will get one. By having a market that can resell DACs, both buyers and sellers are protected. Sellers know they can always sell their DACs when they want to, and buyers know that they can always buy one when they want to. The price will also be kept in check by the supply/demand and will remain relatively steady. Again, look at the PLEX market in EVE Online. This isn't really an argument for or against lootability, more an argument against putting a limit on how many times DACs can be traded.

Great for building comunity but...
 
Please add some sort of notifications to mails. It is really hard to get in touch with other players. They tend to miss that they have mail.
 
Thanks,

After Alpha and beta there will be a total reset. everything else would be just unfair.

Exactly Max, it needs a balance of peace, economy, growth and war.

Fun Fact:
When Vegans drink water, they are consuming a fish'es home.

Ruby Founder looking for a forever home, anyone?

Option 4:
 
THE BEST DAMN COMMUNITY EVER!

Woot! First place!
 
Edit: This is also here to inflate post numbers I guess

More miners are always welcome - they are the ultimate driving force behind any operation. . .