Armedwithwings

Eh, not entirely true in this case. Can’t kill someone and take their safe plot .  It’s actually pretty funny, just watched chronicles of riddick last night.
 
 Large organizations dominating safezones is an issue (one that I don’t think is necessarily bad).  
 
However, I do believe organizations owning large swaths of a safezone can be a GOOD thing.  Not every single player needs an entire plot of land, they simply need a place to lay their construct to sleep at night ^^.  Perhaps someone will offer a place to land for a small weekly/monthly fee.
 
A bunch of single ad hoc players owning land pretty much means there won’t be any system order or infrastructure for the area. They’ll simply implement what they need for themselves... and nothing more as they don’t have the manpower to open up a market, or anything of that nature.  And the fact of the matter is, many would remain barren 
 
I think it’s more important for large organizations to own chunks of the safezone than it is for someone like me to own such.

I kinda agree with the whole less "hi-techy-pseudosciency" general consensus.
So how about we just call it a "Territory Defence Matrix" or "TDM" for short?

I suspect the more powerful and effective weapon systems to be only viable in bigger vessels due their large size and weight.
 
As far as idling goes,that's entirely up for the player's decisions to act upon and avoid at all costs.
Like everything else DU related  - good organization is the key factor. 
 

Seems like it’s already balanced to me.  More players, more firepower 

I don't think it's going to be a problem.  A large ship with a large crew won't be as nimble as a smaller ship.  If its one gun per person, then the crew also needs to be pretty good at working together to be effective.  I can foresee many instances where a smaller, tighter crew might be more effective.  It will all depend on strategy at that point.

I think for many companies, they would fight and after the battle they would do repairs. But if it were a battle or war between nations or huge orgs, then they might have repair men that have to act fast enough to dodge shots in order to fix up the ship.

NQ has said time after time that the game is about people working together in large groups. While you will be able to do a lot solo you wont be able to do everything larger groups can do together. Manpower should and does count and if you disagree with that tough luck.
 
Regarding automated weapons, not happening for ships (dynamic constructs) they said. It will be limited to static constructs (bases and such) and not have full power.

Hello everyone, 
 
Recently I had the chance to sit down and chat with FleetAdmiralCoke from the Terran Union. 
 
It was an interesting look into the ideas behind the currently largest org. Feel free to go and have a look. 
 
In other news, Outpost Zebra is still looking for new talent to join us. Experience writing is appreciated but not required. If this interests you feel free to contact me, Falstaf, with a PM. Or reply to this thread. 
 
Thank you for your time. 

Hi everyone,
 
It seems the DevBlog was not clear enough on some points.
We have said it many times before, and we'll continue to say it again:
While many players wants to see Dual Universe with a dominant gameplay aspect, it's important to understand that it's NOT the case. 
 
Building gameplay is as important as Combat gameplay. Not more, not less. Balancing both won't be easy and we are aware of it. No, Building is not the major feature of Dual Universe. If the Building aspect has been made first, it's only because, it was making total sense to start the development with this part: we are pretty much in R&D field regarding the Voxel technology. It was an essential piece of tech to build the base of the game: Voxels were necessary to create editable planets in the first place. Then the logical next step was to develop tools to give players to manipulate voxels. That wouldn't make sense to develop Combat gameplay before the two previous steps because, there wouldn't even something to destroy, or even an environment where the combat could happen.
 
The order in which the features are developed are NOT by order of importance.
It's just a matter of logical game development roadmap.

We have no plan to make Dual Universe a total free for all PvP game, just as we won't make it a whole game universe safe, just because some players want to explore it completely without taking any risk. While we don't plan to make our game some kind of "EVE Online 2.0", we don't want either to make a "No Man's Sky 2.0". We understand this may not appeal to everyone taste, and we totally understand that. However, if there is something that is very unlikely to change, it's the fact that there's no intention to catter to only one specific category of players. 
 
A final word about the griefing and the mindset of the community. Our point of view is that griefing mainly proliferates when it's an easy way to get rewards with little effort, not necessarily because many people really wants to play that way. Of course, there are people who like to grief just for the enjoyment of annoying other players but we are convinced they're not a majority. If game mechanics are designed in such a way that griefing doesn't give easy rewards, then griefing will be naturally limited. 
 
Why not simply remove the possibility of griefing, then?

Yes, it would be clearly easier and quicker to remove the ability to grief other players, but while we have no intention to encourage griefing, removing it totally would go against the very definition of the sandbox concept: players are free to interact in the way they want. If we remove any kind of interaction, then we are not in a Sandbox MMORPG anymore: we would be in a Theme Park one. And that is not Novaquark's vision. We want a game universe where bad behavior is discouraged by game mechanics and heavy in consequences if a player still choose to do so, than arbitrarily forbid the said behavior. We want players to be free but also to live with the consequences of their choices. That's what Sandbox mean to us at Novaquark.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

I think they are not mutually exclusive as we'd technically also be colonists. 
 
In other words (literally) you can also use "colonist". 

Should we really consider scraping an important gameplay element in favor of personal aesthitics?
This sounds extremelly unreasonable!

Why not both and more? 

What for? To have less diversity? Less gameplay? Less specialization?
 
Meh

By your powers combined we get...
 
Stasis Bubble Matrix
 
xD

Also if this hasn't already been suggested.  I think everyone who came over on the Arks should be known as...
 
Arkholes

I need arkohol. Nao

Already consuming arkohol. Hah!
 
...
 
...
 
 
...
 
Drinking is bad, m'kay?!

ITS TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DUAL?\
 
You've activated my Trap Ship!

Since it spans a whole territory, it should sound great....big... uhm.... U know what i mean xD

Territorial Shield-Dome?

To give a clear image of what we have in mind, here is an example:
Let's say you want to build a car.
With low resources in an ASA, you will be able to build this:

 
This will do the job as a car. 
However, don't expect high performances in speed, security, comfort and such.
Don't expect either to win a race, or any competition with it.
 
However, with high value resources you will be able to build this:

 
Now with this car, you will be able to compete with other players in a race.
The car will have far better speed, better security and comfort, due to high quality Elements crafted and used in it.
 
So with low value materials, you will be able to do things that you could with high value materials but with the minimal specs you could ever imagine, just to get started.
We hope this give a clear idea of what we have in mind now
 
Best Regards.
Nyzaltar.
 

In order to make scanned deposit locations (more) sellable I would suggest the abillity to generate ore scanning results, which are normal items that can be traded.
The scan results can not be manipulated, so their information is correct.
They store the following information about the ore vein:
Type(s) of ore Amount of that ore Depth Planet Position (some sort of projection at the location in the ground where the deposit is) The hex field on the map Date at which the scan was done  
The amount of ore, depths and the exact position would be depending on the players scanning skill and precision at which the deposit was triangulated.
So you don't have the exact amount of ore and not the exact location, so you have some error there, of course.
When you place the scan result on the market players can see everything, except the exact position and the hex field on the planet.
That way you can effectivly sell scanning results without the need for a huge amount of trust involved.
One problem would still be, that the ore deposit might be already mined, so players should be able to rescan deposits and then update their scan results on the market.

Well this might be take DU a several years to get it. Because one ship need 2+ player to battle (not count fighter) amd a 6000 ship battle it will seem like more than 12000+ player will join it and wow, i LOVE to see that scene. (i hope that time come the CPU and server are already god like to handle those without drop fps  )

Hey,it's been a while but i didn't forget about you)
Truth is i would have delivered sooner but got caught up in a different project...

I tried to keep myself as close to your guidelines as possible.
Please don't be shy to inform me if something is not to your liking and i will make the necessary improvements!