Bitmouse

Well you either know the other person has gone around to get 500 people who are paying a subscription for a game to say that they are good at ______ or they had 500 people who are paying a subscription voluntarily say that they are good at _______. I think you are going to run into the later more often.

You could give another player a +1 point(max) for doing so and so. Say max level is 500 points or something.

Perhaps have two branches of this One via unlocked skills The other via reputation points

Hey WoT, I like this idea. +1

Currently we have technologies that replaced previously laborious tasks. Take Word. It has replaced the need to write by hand, acquire ink and paper, and manually edit and retype/write papers. The economies adapted and profited from these changes while improving overall productivity. I would much rather work on a document on my computer than with pad and paper.

This is not true. A case in point is Empyrion. There are emergent best practices when building ships. These require a knowledge set and skill to implement. What's more is there will likely be classes of ships that utilize an existing meta. Designing to this will require depth of knowledge of pvp/industry. It will not be easy to design a ship to perfection. This is just a tool.

It should be looked at less as a mode and more as a tool. How do we design, test, and iterate constructs/blueprints in a way that is simple, intuitive, complete, and risk free. It wouldn't take away from the game anymore than wordpad takes away from blogger or final cut pro takes away from youtube.

I believe that the ideas of making it on the same server, but distant from the main area, and deleted after use would solve all of those problems.

I am wondering what makes it a huge feature to develop?

I think what I have mentioned could be a part of how the game is meant to be played. Again, I should iterate that BP's don't simply let you spawn in whatever you want. You still have to mine the resources, then use whatever in game mechanic is used to build and spawn the item (which can vary a lot, including possibilities that would be vulnerable to pirates if built in a pvp open zone). The only game dynamic this would break would be to not require players to utilize resources to test design iteration and to not require players to use the base interface and dynamics at to design. Depending on how the interface and dynamics are implemented such as the inclusion of build drones and the cost of jetpack fuels, this could be a huge ease-of-use perk for design, simply a nice addition for peace of mind/ability to focus while building, or completely unnecessary. If the in game build system allows you to easily move around your builds in 360 degrees with the capacity to hover and orient at any point and to destroy/reconstruct at no cost then I see no need for this sort of Construct Creator. However, if this isn't the case then the argument for it as an ease of use element is compelling.

Again, I already told you that doing it on a separate server is not necessary. Also, the use of the term MMORPG does not preclude the use of other player-types that may play more than one game type.

People are already going to figure out a way to create blueprints without the fear of pirates.

I should be clear and change my verbiage. I am for any form of construct creator. I was offering suggestions on how it could be done using existing technology. The main point is that you can create a construct, test it, and then save it in a file (Blueprint), which can then be spawned via some mechanism in game once the resources have been collected, most likely after a build time.

Well yes, because again: DU doesn't aim for single players. Nor does DU aim for creative mode players. DU does aim for MMO players. And introducing such a creative world (it rly doesn't matter that it gets deleted or smth) is just against everything DU wants to achieve I haven't seen any statement from NQ saying that it wants MMO players in lieu of creative mode players, or vice-versa. Having more players of any type will most likely increase the populace of the game/universe. people aren't forced. People are informed that: 1) there will be safezones where you can build and do stuff unharmed and 2) everything outside will be PVP, except if PLAYERS do protect other members. So noone forces you here to build outside. Noone forces you to play DU. You get a game with certain mechanics (which are clearly promoted and which are clearly visible to anyone) - so no, you can't complain afterwards that there is no creative mode on some seperate server I think you are confusing my intent here. I just want a tool created to help make creations. It has nothing to do with creating separate zones that are persistent.

I stated specifically in previous posts that those creations would immediately be deleted after the player left the session. It is just for blueprint creation.

Yes, and I have more or less agreed and stated ways in which they could implement that that would use existing technology. However they implement it it is going to have to be a risk free way of design constructs. The only risk being the time you put into it. Whether they make that an in game bay you build and walk into or a button you click on the homescreen of the game is a fairly moot point. The first would be more cohesive and immersive. However, functionally it would affect the game play cycle the same.

This isn't about a separate creative mode that is contained in and of itself. As you can see from the title of this thread. This is specifically for a creative mode that allows players to build blueprints for use in the game. I am only acknowledging other's concerns that it could be used as a standalone and troubleshooting ways to minimize that while point out the potential positives if people still choose to circumvent those specific measures.

You quoted and highlighted my text, but didn't highlight the exact portion that negated your point. and deleting them after use should be straightforward enough to implement. This point makes this a feature or a tool, and not a separate game.

You of course will need to mine the resource to build the blueprint and whatever facilities or time is required to spawn said blueprint. The value of a blueprint will be in it's design quality. Builders will have a job in design.

None of what you stated there answers the primary negative impact that it would have, that is for every player spending time messing around in creative zone, that is a player who isn't actually playing the game. They aren't in the world space, they are not contributing to societies, and the only thing they are adding to the world is blueprints. You are assuming these are going to be the same players. There are going to be three main types of players here, in general, players that use only creative mode, players that don't, and players that use both. In terms of server usage players that don't use creative mode are negligible to this point. Players that use both and players that use only creative mode are the groups you are talking about in reference to this point. Players that only use creative mode are likely to be minimal, especially if NQ structures creative mode in such a way as to make it unsatisfying to use as a game long term. This could easily be done by wiping the instance or zone used after use. Players that use both are going to be the majority of players that use creative mode. It is unlikely that players who would want to play Dual Universe and utilize all it's features are going to be likely to just play creative. These players are already invested in playing the game for what it is. In a sense you have a point that some players might choose not to play in the main universe mode if they don't have to and would choose just to tool around in creative mode. However, it is a bad policy in general to force people to do something they would prefer not to do. In this case preferring to play in a creative mode versus the main universe mode. That is just bad policy and not the right thing to do. Again, I think that more likely than not that you wouldn't see that many people just playing creative. No more than you would see in the main game mode. It may be possible to just build and rebuild with the resources you have. This would satisfy the, "I just want to play creative mode itch." If you have a player/players that really would prefer to just create, they are going to move on to another game/application. Doing the work to implement a creative mode in a way that is seamless and low investment on what is currently being developed only increases the possible player base. It also ads an ease of use feature which for some may be a big selling point. people are going to be building all the time as it is, blueprints will be everywhere, and having a way to produce blueprints in-game without any access to the material de-values blueprints as a commodity. This is a good thing. Blueprints should be valued on the quality of the design, not an inherently meaningless processed utilized to gain the materials necessary to tool around with the design. Would a futuristic society not have the means to draft a design before building it? by far the most dangerous thing suggested here though is the idea that you would be able to test pvp with multiple players in creative mode. That would badly fracture the player popularion, as the only pvp-minded player left in the actual world then would be pirates and conquerers. All of us folks who want to fight, but who don't take any pleasure in ruining other people's creations would be playing effectively a whole other game in creative instead of bounty hunting or joining a militia. I disagree here. The idea about it's potential as a pvp test bed is for practice and minigames only. Dual Universe will force some level of engagement with PVP. This mode could serve as a way to practice your skills without having to ruin anyone else's day or your own. the backbone of this game is the number of people actually playing it. If you are testing blueprints, you'll need the resources and space to do so. If you are testing military tech, it'll need field tests. That's just what an emergent gameplay environment is all about. If that's exciting to you, join a military tech development org (heck I started one, the Alchemists, and thats exactly what I plan on spending my time doing). I think this is a very valid point. However, I want to point out that on the realism side of things, simulations and drafting are already very much a part of the design process in the RL at our current level of development. I imagine that by the time we are capable of seeding another earth like world in a distant solar system we will be able to simulate physics enough to create much more meaningful simulations for this sort of design. It simply fits with the realism of the universe. To me a much more interesting question would be, how does a military design and test it's creations in the future? I don't think a creative mode as we are talking about it allows for full in vivo testing of creations. Even if you loaded in your best buildings and defenses that is not the same as testing it against your enemies and unknown situations/tech. Even the best run military exercises are a poor substitute at best for real world testing. The whole point of a creative mode is to streamline the process in a way that is realistic and serves the community. It would allow you to return to the creative mode after your real world tests and revise. This process could be very exhausting even with a creative mode. I don't think it will take away from the design, iteration, testing process.

I think people are confusing the intent of this suggestion. This isn't about together or apart. A creative mode supports the together part of the game in that it is a tool for creations to be used in game. It is just photoshop and the game is Instagram, except in this case they are more or less the same program with minor modifications.

If we were given parts that could work towards this, it could be easy. However, getting these parts to interact with the terrain in desirable ways could be hard/easy. I imagine the limit is on the physics simulation on the server. I could see 4 legged mechs and some sort of bikes/atvs/cars working though.

Players would have to sub to play creative, so it is revenue to NQ. I don't see the harm. Personally this is a feature that I would wait for and imagine given the ideas put forth. Specifically the idea of creating creative areas a distance so far from the populace as to make them functionally separate from the game and deleting them after use should be straightforward enough to implement. I think the potential success of this can be found in the success of minecraft builds. I don't think the idea of a creative mode can be minimized. Losing your build to pirates/other players is going to be inevitable. A creative mode gives all players the capacity to streamline the rebuild/redesign process should they choose to do it. In fact, the mode that I mentioned earlier in this post would allow groups to practice pvp with their new constructs should they choose to use it. If NQ created a form of simulation that was more feature rich, minigames could even be emergent that are less likely without a simulated mode. I think in general this sort of feature, which is more of a tool for use of the game, can be designed in such a way as to enhance not hinder the game and could lead to other possibilities that could enhance the culture of DU.

I still think the benefits outweigh the positives here. They could run it on the same server. A zone/s so far away from the played part of the game that it is functionally separate, wiped daily. Individual zones should be doable from what they describe of their tech. People building things they never could afford to in the game at worst sparks their creativity and allows them to test what is possible. That most likely, overall, will translate into more creations by more people than less, since it matters what the population does and not the individual, in this case.

Just to be clear this isn't about instancing the game. It is about creating an in game app that allows you to effectively create and test constructs. It can be built so that using it as a separate instance in the long term isn't viable.