Zen001

As long as they don't overpower existing assets, sure.....and this is now being done in EVE. Saw a corporations advertisement just recently.

If you actually read what I wrote you will see that I offered an idea immediately above your post. What's more, I have no problem defining what exploration is because I think it is important to learn from our past; it can even provide very interesting gameplay if we truly understand what exploration actually meant and how and why it was carried out.

What is disrespectful and ignorant is your statement: 'You seem to be confusing the act of exploration with the motivation for the act....' If you can assert that I am confused then I may respond that you are ignorant of what defines exploration and how it was historically achieved. What's more AI is artificial intelligence - equipment can contain AI as will computers. And whether it is AI or not isn't the point....it is the act of landing, laying claim and erecting equipment.

Perhaps we should be thinking a little more out of the box and try to make exploration a little more than flying somewhere and scanning. Because this is what seems to happen in pretty well every space game made.....not because of history but simply because it requires no thinking and very little effort on the part of Developers. Sadly what passes for exploration now is scanning and while scanning is necessary, it should never be the main focus. Historically, exploration was about claiming land and establishing colonies and this is what DU should focus on. For example, you find a rich planet that is in the Goldilocks zone so you land, claim it and set up a facility to legally lay claim to the planet, or area of the planet. Whether it is an actual human or AI presence would be up to the Developer but it would at least keep exploration from the tedium endless hours scanning that is now synonymous with exploration; focusing on scanning will not promote exploration but make it a grind which is never a good thing in gaming. Sure there will be a few hard core scanners who enjoy nothing better than sitting hundreds of hours in the pilot seat pressing the scan button but they will be few and far between. DU needs to break out of this stereo typical gaming mechanic and make exploration more rewarding - it needs to be challenging and fun and not just another grind.

Christopher Columbus established colonies while exploring.....please read your history. What you are talking about is map making (cartography) for the most part. Exploration wasn't just about that - colonies were established during the process of charting new, uninhabited (well, uninhabited in their eyes) lands.

Have to disagree. Early explores were driven mostly out of self-interest and profit. They traveled far and wide for gold, silver, new trade routes and the biggest price of all: claiming lands in the names of Kings and Queens. And they were often bankrolled for this very purpose. Profit and gain was the motivating factor for most discoveries, including the big daddy of them all: Christopher Columbus, who was bankrolled by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. Contract included the following: In the April 1492 "Capitulations of Santa Fe", King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella promised Columbus that if he succeeded he would be given the rank of Admiral of the Ocean Sea and appointed Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands he could claim for Spain. He had the right to nominate three persons, from whom the sovereigns would choose one, for any office in the new lands. He would be entitled to 10 percent of all the revenues from the new lands in perpetuity. Additionally, he would also have the option of buying one-eighth interest in any commercial venture with the new lands and receive one-eighth of the profits Wiki Clearly colonization was highest on the agenda - even Christopher Columbus established colonies. So it wasn't simply a matter of going somewhere and mapping, or in our case, scanning. And I hope that exploration means more to DU than just finding things because it can be so much more. As for scanning itself, I prefer the EVE method to flying all over the place, especially after hours of endless flight; it also has the added benefit of breaking up the monotony of excruciatingly long flight times.

You lost me at 'There is only one game that has it right and that is Elite Dangerous'. Sorry but if any game in the history of gaming has ever gotten it absolutely wrong, it's ED. First, there is absolutely no reason why a galaxy should consist of billions of systems when the only thing to do is scan and pew pew NPCs. Which brings me to the fact only a handful of players can interact much less organize any real impact on the game. What's more there is only rudimentary building but this is more or less a moot point given there is hardly anyone or anything to build for. And mining? Don't get me started. I have spent countless hours doing it all: scanning, mining and of course, space trucking - oh the glories of space trucking! And I have to say, it was time I wish I could get back. Of course the game is still being developed and slowly and surely content is increasing. And that's a good thing. But saying ED's got it right as an income for Explorers? Yikes. What's more all that scanning comes at a price: endlessly veering from a sun every single time you land in a system.... that gets really old fast! And sure, scanning is a must for every space game, but that gets really old super fast....even faster than veering from suns. Anyway, please DU don't emulate ED. Make a galaxy big but make it so lots of people can make their claim wherever they go. Scanning is a must but it will not keep players playing. There has to be more for explorers like mining, building, interacting with other players, charting routes, creating colonies and the list goes on and on....scanning should be profitable but only a small part of a much bigger picture. As far as I am concerned, ED is a lesson in what not to do in gaming, which is probably why so many have quit or can't be bothered to log back on. PS Oh, and when DU eventually does scanning and I'm sure they will, please don't force players to fly all over the system to scan.....especially if they already flew thousands of systems to get there.

Yeah....engine technology is probably not quite there yet....but sure would add some immersion and cool game play. It really boggles the mind to think what might be done in the next 20 years.

Sorry for tagging this on given planets and/or stars already provide a lot to chew on (I know, it's not just a matter of chewing. ), but what about moons? Perhaps there is a middle ground where the destruction of moons could effect a planet but not entirely destroy it. Of course it sounds like a difficult challenge for any engine, but I can't help but think how cool it would be to look up from the planet and see a partially destroyed moon similar to the movie Oblivion.

I should add that when I posted this I didn't think of whether 'areas' protected would be areas on a planet or entire systems like EVE. I thought it was the former. Regardless, even if an entire planet and/or systems are protected, shields would help those wanting to expand out of protected areas. I doubt few are going to colonize new planets only to have their assets and creations blown to smithereens. And definitely, shields should be vulnerable but not a cakewalk to bring down either.

My understanding is that there will be safe areas from bombardment. But wouldn't it be better to free up an entire planet by equipping cities, facilities, colonies and private dwellings with shield generators? That way the entire planet can be utilized instead of a relatively small area. What's more there maybe some very unique locations that do not fall within the safe zone and would be ideal for building. If this cannot be done, would it be possible to have shield generators for those wishing to live outside safe zones? Having shields would also have the added benefit of making the game/universe feel more persistent because players would need to insure their generators are running with ample power 24/7; it would also insure players are actively logging on if they wish to maintain their facilities and/or living quarters - and keep scavengers from stealing everything in sight! Scene: Imagine, you are on some distant exotic world peacefully tending your fields, repairing your ship or what have you, then suddenly a shield dome activates over your outpost and blurs out the exotic alien landscape; an alarm sounds and you run inside, turn off the alarm and check your defense probes to see who is approaching the planet and/or exclusion zone. Time to prepare or call for help! And on a much larger scale, shield generators could add a whole new dimension of gameplay either through sabotage or all out warfare. Anyway, just a thought that maybe has already been posted. Boeing Patent for force field: Force fields by 2537? Very likely.

I see a problem catering to people's Dark Side. Inevitably a large if not major segment of the population will congregate in one area because of the immensity of the universe, making trade, transport, building and socializing practical - this has happened in Elite, EVE and will likely happen in the DU universe as well. If players start blowing up planets in an area inhabited by a majority of players then this space becomes uninhabitable and everyone virtually has to start all over again. Of course colonies will spring up on distant worlds and could be a refuge but the Dark Side is everywhere - eventually populations of distant worlds would also have to leave and this would be repeated ad nauseam. The end result would be refugees wondering the Galaxy trying to escape certain doom. That would kind of suck though great for those in the business of building. Personally I think DU doesn't have to turn to the Dark Side; destroying areas of a planet is dark enough - and still good for business. I would rather DU place emphasis on building and exploring. Also I am wondering if Terraforming will be a thing because I would love to find a suitable planet to Terraform. Or possibly build my own secluded base somewhere that is shielded from attack....within limits. Which I think is preferrable than safe areas because it frees up an entire planet. Besides, if planets are dynamic as pictures reveal, safe areas may not be particularly nice to inhabit. Imagine building in a forested area, on an island or high up on the cliffs reminiscent of Naboo. Now that would be something! Of course there is a little Dark Side in all of us but hopefully the DEVs will be able to find the balance that works for everyone one - well, for most anyway.

Having the ability to script how modules talk to each other and react is no less devastating, especially for gamers who are not competent scriptors. So again we are at an impasse. . I suppose it really boils down to how DU implements scripting. Whether it will be user friendly requiring a day or two to learn, or whether it will be a frustrating, time consuming experience.

Sure, teaming up would be advantages but that in itself could be a problem because there will be people who want to play a game that's doesn't rely on other players. EVE for example has had to add gaming mechanics that takes this into account because corporations were dominating game play. Personally I would want the option of teaming up or going it alone. But if a coder/scriptor can create a devastating fire arch with ultimum range, it will turn my beautiful spaceship into a heap of floating rubble. So what choice do I have but to team up with a coder/scriptor.....so one hand is already tied behind my back.

Well, lets put this a different way, if this game required 3ds max design and importing, and I have a few years experience in this department - although you wouldn't think so looking at my creations - I would have a HUGE lead going into the game because I can design and build something that probably 95% of other supporters would take months if not years to learn the basics. So thanks DU for making a game I can make oodles of money with immediately stepping into the game. Don't know 3ds Max? Tough! Don't like the fact that I scripted my own kick ass fire control but won't sell it too anyone? Well, tough! Spend a year or two learning the basics....but have fun anyway while I crush you and potentially own every system nearby with my wad of cash. What's more your 'Do what you are good at to excel in the game' analogy is false. No one would argue that different people shouldn't use their different talents. That isn't the point. The point is creating a level playing field so players can utilize their given talents, equally. But when you are giving someone with a particular talent an advantage from the outset - then the game is rigged. Whether it is scripting, coding, 3ds max or what have you - if it requires using gaming files, basic knowledge of scripting or what have you - it smacks of Developers building games for scripters , coders and the like.....and that would be unfortunate given the solid overall concept of the game. Anyway, I can see we are going to have to agree to disagree, but whether we agree on the basic parameters of the game or not, I do appreciate your civility.

Sorry but LUA was mentioned on forums and as this game is pre-Alpha, it appeared that LUA would be a part of game play. That said, if LUA is indeed not going to be used and everything has a basic control package and/or hardcoded in, and as long as it has a workable relatively easy UI to use for the average gamer, then this is absolutely a winning format. But of course we will have to see what the Kickstarter will reveal but I am feeling more confident in DU's success. But of course your statement 'And the Devs have stated already, you do not need to learn LUA to play' is ambigous as it may not be necessary to play but advantages. So again we shall see. What's more, mechanics, scripting and or coding aside, design can be in of itself competitive - especially if supporters are making income from sales - so it is crucial for everyone to go into DU on equal footing.

I see your points and they are reasonable enough and I do plan to support DU up to Kickstarter when more details are available - from there I'll make a decision whether to financially support the game. As for your question, I guess it would depend on what kind of 'sandbox game' we are talking about. Are we talking about games that players can purchase for their server or are we talking about a single shard universe like EVE where you cannot script interface? If we are indeed talking about a single universe similar to EVE then there is a very good reason why you cannot script - scriptable anything would completely unbalance gameplay and create a nightmare of re-balancing; otherwise EVE would become a scripting war and not a game based on existing assets and gameplay! Of course you could argue that scripting can and will be an essential part of gameplay, but again I have to ask how many potential supporters are going to spend weeks if not months to learn how to code? And what's going to keep another developer from making a similar game that doesn't involve coding, thereby cutting into players support in an increasing market? Of course no one has control over what other developers build but it is something to consider - broad appeal will be absolutely critical to insure long term viability. Coding will greatly undermine widespread appeal, not to mention gameplay and immersion, in my opinion. But building? Absolutely! But spending weeks and/or months to learn LUA to build? I don't see the broad appeal in that. But again if DU is more interested in filling a niche market, sure....go for it!

If you think having the basic foundation first and not getting sucked into feature creep is equal to 'all things to all people' then I guess you are well on your way. Sure DU Devs can make the game they want but will it be a game players want? And will there be enough interest - real financial support - to insure it's completion and long term survival in an extremely competitive market? The Devs at Battlescape thought so and were so confident of their product, but their Kickstarter barely paid the bills. In fact some Devs had to leave. And Battlescape isn't alone in this department. So as much as I admire a Devs commitment to completing a project, it requires more than commitment: it requires looking at the market, what has been done before, what is being done presently, timely releases and what ultimately players want. One should be careful building the game they want because the game THEY want may not in the end pay the bills. Don't get me wrong - though I'm sure some will try - DU has great vision and one which I can support - for the most part. Financial support however will probably depend on Kickstarter information. And to be honest, if DU insists on making a game untenable for those who don't wish to spend weeks learning LUA and months if not years becoming competent in coding/game design, I simply can't support the game financially.

I recommend you check out what was posted as I clearly talked about design. What's more, including design as an element of gameplay that only a small fraction of players can contribute will only turn people away. As for not coding gameplay mechanics, this is good news but it will still make DUAL chaotic and, well, unappealing for those who enjoy immersion. Personally, I really don't think it is necessary to make a game that is all things to all people > DU should focus on making a solid universe with reliable gameplay first, especially gameplay that hasn't even been achieved yet. This is reminding me a bit of Star Citizen - the sky was the limit but they simply couldn't understand that a solid foundation was needed.

Yeah....don't think design anarchy will work. It will end up being a hodge podge of criss-crossing chaotic designs that will ruin immersion and the game. And who is to say a coder won't keep his/her game winning mechanics for themselves or their corporation, leaving those who don't want to spend weeks learning how to code at the mercy of players more talented in coding than playing? Sorry but this won't work. Of course it will work for a very small specialized niche market and that's ok if that is all DU is aiming for. So I leave it to everyone and really do hope you all succeed, because space games rules, even if you have to fly a giant dildo. And I guess for some space rules because you can.

Just a bit concerned that freedom, though a good thing, can be abused when it comes to gaming. That said, it would be great to build stuff but it would go a long way to win over potential supporters if building didn't require LUA but a system of reusable preformed material. Sure it would have its limitations but it would put everyone on an equal foot. It would also have the added benefit of continuity/immersion. But asking people to learn LUA as an essential part of the game? I think it pushes the limits of patience, even for EVE players. Also I have to ask if absolute freedom is the way to go because the concept of millions of systems with the ability to land on planets - WITH AVATARS - has never been done before! Nor has a single server with millions of players!!! So already, even without building, DU is light years ahead of the competition. With such lofty goals, adding absolute freedom to build whatever you want is overkill , or in short, feature creep. I say focus on the aforementioned game mechanics and either make building comprehensive within the UI or not at all.

I like the idea of coders selling their wares but again it would have to meet certain standards overseen by DU. This is because trolls take on all forms and trust me on this, it will only be a matter of time before we see planets adorned with massive happy faces and ships in he shape of giant dildos. So I am not so keen on 'unrestricted' free range game design. And if coders are making selective sales involving mechanics (speed, trajectory, ordinance and all the things that are crucial to gameplay) it will lead to questionable gameplay at best.

Yeah, I would have to step back from a game that allows programmers to have any advantage...even a small one. Also minecraft mud huts would definitely make the game less appealing.

First I have to say that player generated content using LUA sounds like a very cool idea. However, I do have some reservations. After having seen some LUA video tutorials, I highly doubt the general public will be tripping all over themselves to learn programming; what's more, if programming provides an advantage via mechanics, many if not most players will feel this is not a game for them. However, if we are only talking visuals, assets and structures, LUA will definitely provide interesting content for a relatively small number of programmers that can benefit all players. That said, I am wondering what DU intends to do about LUA visual continuity? Being a big believer in immersion, I think DU can run into problems if they don't have strong oversight of player generated content. I'm not sure about everyone else but I don't want to take off from a beautifully sculptured planet as seen in DU screenshots to find myself landing on a planet that looks like minecraft - can't think of anything more immersion breaking. For me continuity lies at the heart of immersion and this includes ships, structures and everything that will make up the DU universe. So I'm wondering if DU will keep programmers from dominating gameplay mechanics and will they insure continuity?

Hi and welcome. Sure DU is on it and planning for the Kickstarter - with footage.