mrjacobean

Short answer: It isn't. Long answer: The simpler the payment plan, the less people will be like 'OMG, this is too complicated to understand, I leave'. The aim isn't more players, it is consistent players. The pressure that you are burning game time whilst offline makes you want to play more so you aren't wasting it.

Silver tier gives you access to the beta, not alpha. Minimum for alpha access is gold tier.

Problem with that is that you make DACs a premium currency instead of game time, in a subscription based game. There is a very fine line you will have to walk on there...

I think you might misunderstand the nature of P2W. It's 'value' (effect on the game) can never equal zero. There will always be some presence that those who spend money will get an easier time than those who don't. Even if the DAC system is regulated perfectly (which it won't), there are things, like hiring other people for real money, upgrading your computer's hardware and connection, and using alt accounts, that have a higher P2W 'value' than the DAC system has. If you want to reduce the P2W 'value', then look elsewhere. The only way it would be zero is if the game replaced everything else (like 'The Gam3' by Cosimo Yap). Main point: DAC is an acceptable distance away from P2W for the vast majority of players. Any effect it has can be countered by a reasonable good player.

However, it is not necessary to do so. The damage trying to improve the system will cause and the effort put into improving it outweighs the benefit of trying. From a business standpoint, its not a risk worth taking and from a game-play perspective, it won't improve anything noticeable. In fact, with the way the economy works (e.g. non-respawning resources), the chances of abuse are so low that there is no point trying to lower them more. Instead, try to look at other aspects of the game that could be improve in such a way as to be profitable. For example, what about the bounty system, or researching new technology... P.S. You can't kill all bacteria without killing the thing it's on...

May I mention that even games without P2W mechanics are P2W. There are factors outside the game, such as internet speed or computer hardware, that can be improved with money to make you 'win' (given how loosely the term is being used at the moment). Therefore nearly any competitive game is P2W. Technicality aside, anything that would be purchased with a significant amount of DACs (such as when paying to win*) would take time to come into effect. It's not like the whale can just spawn in 20 battleships at a moment's notice, they'ed have to sell the DACs to get the money, then request them to be built by shipyards, which take time and resources to be built (alternatively buy them, but you can't guarantee a seller). You then have to crew them with crew members, and then train them to work as a unit. By the time that's done, whatever event sparked the DAC offload has long since been resolved, nearly always not in your favour. Money isn't the resource that decides a conflict, its the assets you have on hand at the time. Money can be turned into said assets, but not fast enough Another option would be to hire your fleet at a moments notice, but that can be a slippery slope, since mercenary fleets, especially battleships, are hard to come by. If you hire multiple fleets, you can't guarantee that they will work together as a unit, and they may even become disloyal if they think their pay isn't enough. [Insert examples to last 'till the end of time...] Anyway, if your way to deal with problems is to throw money at them, you shouldn't be in charge. * 'paying to win' is the act of throwing money at something to do something. P2W mechanics are built for this exact purpose, but other mechanics can be used to achieve the same effect. DACs can be used to do this, but they are not a pay to win mechanic, since it wasn't built for the exact purpose of allowing those with money to win easier. It's purpose is to allow those either without money or without time to play the game, which after all is a plus since: players = content.

Ah. Then all we need is to have variable lengths in the forcefield emitters and we are gold

Well, we already have forcefield emitters (May dev diary), but we don't know if their range can be set as a variable or if they pressurised a closed environment

Or procedural hangar doors that can be built to any size*. Adds convenience when building them. *or maybe just force field doors can be procedural, since all you are doing is increasing the area of effect rather than the size of a mesh.

I refer you to NQ's official stance on the matter:

That requires path-finding in a world in which path-finding is hell. It's better just to have you log off as normal. I recommend Kurock's idea. Remember that moderation is key, swinging too far in a certain direction (harcore/softcore as an example) would not work.

I would say differently. Whilst I do believe that when a new element comes out we should have to research it, I would prefer it if the players were actually involved in the discovery. For example, for using an IP Drive (warp) we first need to make a stable warp bubble, which uses some variables (mass or volume of the ship) to come up with a field range and power that we need to match. Get it wrong, and it might not work, or explode. The players won't know what the exact conversion is, so they will need to experiment and theorise to come up with an approximate. (Basically, even if we know how to build it, we don't know how to use it). There could be multiple warp fuels that have different parameter values for effective use, but since we are not told this, we might only assume there is one warp fuel (since one fuel may use different parameters than another).

that means I will be binding flight controls to my Saitek X-52!

Since I can't find a more relevant thread, is it possible to rebind the controls (and make ship orientation use the mouse)?

Just imagine how much more they would need if they did advertise their arses off. I think this was the better approach, for this game anyway. It means the alpha community is made up of those actually interested in the game rather than someone who follows the hype train (NMS is the example I will use, but there are others). We will have to see if the strategy changes closer to beta and release.

Hire a taxi... Steal a taxi... Build a taxi... Buy a taxi...

Build them to order. Someone places a build order (contract), you construct it, and either you deliver it or they pick it up

Most of the time it would be that the design no longer works due to an implementation of something new (such as conveyors where there were none). You could still build it, but it won't run as intended.

Is that Alpha in 2018 or Release in 2018?

1KM... hexagon. Can't remember if it is 1KM sides, 1KM diameter or 1KM radius

It's hard to tell if people will READ the NDA at all.

Instead of having a drone to give 3rd person perspectives, we could have a CGI vision mode that shows other constructs dependant on your sensors (you can only see what your sensors can detect). If the construct cannot be seen as a target, due to stealth or your radar being jammed, you cannot see it in 3rd person mode (even if you could see it by looking out of a window). Think of it as a cross between the function of an 3rd person camera and the aesthetics of scanning for anomalies/signatures in EVE Online. You could also have skills related to it, such as showing more detailed information (size, distance, bearing, etc.) of a construct when you have a higher skill level in Signature Analysis, or giving targeting buffs against a selected hostile ship. This effectively gives tactical officers easier access to information, but it detaches them from thing that they might be unaware of. For instance, this CGI mode might not show guns firing or any asteroids (which could change depending on equipment quality and/or skill level), and won't show anything that isn't targetable. You could then have a dedicated recon ship that transmits sensor data to the other ships in the fleet, allowing them to use the CGI mode without needing a high quality sensor array, whilst giving the opponent the ability to severely blind the enemy by taking out said recon ship. EDIT: Navigation/Helm officers could also use this system, but looking at objects on a larger scale (system map)

Sorry if this has been suggested earlier in the thread, but I have an idea for item storage and protection. You have the cargo container element, the thing in the real world*. You then have a 'package', a virtual entity that can contain as many 'items' as you want and has RDMS integration. Anyone with access to the cargo container the package is stored in can move the package to any connected cargo container that: 1) they also have access to and 2) has the right permissions to store the package. However, only people who have the proper authorisation can open the package** (dockworkers can move the package to specific containers, the owner can open it). Everything inside the package is treated as one item and only those with authorisation can see whats inside. Packages might also improve performance, since you would be treating several items as one item. I would also say that you can convert a construct into a package (it separates into it's component parts and a one-use, non-copy blueprint) through the use of a special element (shipyard?), however the volume the starship contains is used as the volume taken up by the package (you need bigger containers to carry bigger packages). EDIT: * By real world I mean game world, the layers make things confusing ** Unless the package is hacked, but thats another story

You could have it so that when they log in and don't have permission to be on the construct they were on previously, the player gets deposited on the nearest construct they have permission to be on

For things that you think shouldn't be there that NQ is fine with, you can always place a bounty on it...