Dygz_Briarthorn

DU has alien ruins - we can expect to encounter citizens of those alien civilizations at some point.
We won't have any NPCs at Alpha. But, expect intelligent NPCs to be encountered at some point - may take a year or two.
 
PvE will literally be playing against the environment for the most part - that won't necessarily entail fighting animals.
It's not really that PvE is another form of PvP, rather it will be that PvP will be split between direct PvP combat and indirect PvP conflict.
Conflict doen't necessarily entail fighting - may not even entail competition.
And it will be possible to become remote hermits who encounter no player competition at all.

1: This a poor description of the solo outlook. Solo simply refers to players who don't like to rely primarily on a group to accomplish game objectives. Solo players may -and often do- enjoy communicating with and interacting with other players.
Soloers are especially unlikely to join a group for combat purposes.
 
 
 
The segregation we will have will rely on Arkification.
We start the game in an area that is immune to PvP combat - and players will have opportunities to create more areas that are immune to PvP combat.
That allows the possibility for everyone to migrate to areas of interest according to their mood. And also motivates players to actively support their interests - either by creating or protecting safe zones or by taking control of safe zones.
 
Solo vs group will occur organically since players can create their own content and decide for themselves whether their goals can be achieved solo or with a group.
I'm not really sure what "group abuse" means, but individual players can create their own safe havens from groups - whether that's an underground lair, a stealth scout ship or a personal lab on a multi-crew ship.

Safe zones won't be everywhere. 
The player-created safe zones will have to be maintained - which provides opportunity for indirect PvP conflict.
 
Players will PvE in an Arkified zone via deconstructing the environment and creating constructs.
 
I don't think I said anything about giant-sized machines. I suggested that once a planet-sized bubble territory is activated, we will be able to use permissions to flag responses to designated enemies. Has nothing to do with Lua scripting.
 
Safe zone isn't really an "unlock for a faction". Players will be able to take measures to activate safe zones - that's not necessarily faction-related.
The devs have already stated that other players will have the potential to de-activate the safety mechanisms. That's why it's elegant.

It will be interesting to see how they solve this.
 
I think it would still be possible for terrain to heal itself over time for the sake of aesthetics and still have resources be depleted.
 
Landmark does something along those lines but on a much smaller scale.  Resources like minerals spawn proceduraly and won't necessarily respawn in the exact same spot for quite a while.
 
I think it might be fine for resources like minerals to never respawn and things like trees and plants to take a long time or maybe require cultivation eventually.  So as the population on a planet increases it would eventually require resources from other planets to continue to grow.
 
It would be cool if changes didn't heal in the exact same way, or were eroded in some way.  But with permanent change from mining and no erosion i'm afraid the worlds would basically all end up looking like swiss cheese.

DU has alien ruins - we can expect to encounter citizens of those alien civilizations at some point.
We won't have any NPCs at Alpha. But, expect intelligent NPCs to be encountered at some point - may take a year or two.
 
PvE will literally be playing against the environment for the most part - that won't necessarily entail fighting animals.
It's not really that PvE is another form of PvP, rather it will be that PvP will be split between direct PvP combat and indirect PvP conflict.
Conflict doen't necessarily entail fighting - may not even entail competition.
And it will be possible to become remote hermits who encounter no player competition at all.

1: This a poor description of the solo outlook. Solo simply refers to players who don't like to rely primarily on a group to accomplish game objectives. Solo players may -and often do- enjoy communicating with and interacting with other players.
Soloers are especially unlikely to join a group for combat purposes.
 
 
 
The segregation we will have will rely on Arkification.
We start the game in an area that is immune to PvP combat - and players will have opportunities to create more areas that are immune to PvP combat.
That allows the possibility for everyone to migrate to areas of interest according to their mood. And also motivates players to actively support their interests - either by creating or protecting safe zones or by taking control of safe zones.
 
Solo vs group will occur organically since players can create their own content and decide for themselves whether their goals can be achieved solo or with a group.
I'm not really sure what "group abuse" means, but individual players can create their own safe havens from groups - whether that's an underground lair, a stealth scout ship or a personal lab on a multi-crew ship.

Welcome!

That Bluedrake guy is just an inflated ego. He spread terribly false accusations about the game and was proven wrong.

His first reaction after he was proven wrong was ok, but then he held a long speech spitting on a peace offer by Novaquark which was pure disgusting ego inflation.

I say we just rename the game to COPS.

More to the point, not everyone is interested in "military sci-fi" - not all explorers and traders in DU will be military... in fact, not all fighters in DU will be "military".

My point of view is that designating ship types adds fun and depth to the constructs we all make. From a practical perspective though people will call their ships what they want to call them simply because they like the name type. Delegating ship types names will be doable inside of an given organization, but I highly doubt these names types will be reinforced on a global, game wide scale.
 
I say let people call their ships whatever they want to call them. Personally I would love to go up against a mothership that is the size of a smart car, with it's two person capacity.

More to the point, not everyone is interested in "military sci-fi" - not all explorers and traders in DU will be military... in fact, not all fighters in DU will be "military".

That's all fine and dandy but not everyone has a knack for military sci-fi, or military terminologies at all. People will start naming ships like "Super-star destroyer Omgatron Class Dreadnought" and the whole scheme will go back to IDing a ship by its mass and weaponry. :V

But all ships will be constructed by players, so every hull will be "class" in and of itself. What is the point of pre-defining classes, which will not exist? Oo

really i think we need more information about just how skills are going to work in DU. we know there wont be levels like wow, so i think we will be safe from the whole level 80 character smashing the level 2 character.
 
i haven't been able to find it, but i remember a post from NQ saying they where thinking about using a system similar to eve and perpetuum. in witch case we could see a system that has a vast array of skills, with each skill having its own cap. and any one activity would only use a fraction of the overall skills, this way you can specialize in a particular activity and be able to be on par with the rest of the population in a week or two. and able to max their skills for that particular activity in about the same time it takes an average gamer to reach level cap in wow.
 
this way a combat character can only get so powerful, and needs to use ingenuity and tactics to become a true terror. and the old vets would not have an insurmountable skill advantage over all the new players. they would just be able to be skilled in multiple professions for lack of a better term for the time being. this way no matter how long a person plays they can feel like their character is still improving.
 
and the real gulf between the new and old players would be knowledge of game mechanics and wealth. but this is all conjecture i really have no idea what the devs have in mind for skills for us, they could come up with something none of us have seen or thought of before.

That tweet says "target and lock system"; not tab-target.
I think we're going to want to have some manual targeting that locks.
That way we're able to get strategic instructions for the crew as directed by a captain.
Which doesn't mean tab-target will not be an option - but, it may not be the only option.
 
FPS style targeting won't be an option, though.

That tweet says "target and lock system"; not tab-target.
I think we're going to want to have some manual targeting that locks.
That way we're able to get strategic instructions for the crew as directed by a captain.
Which doesn't mean tab-target will not be an option - but, it may not be the only option.
 
FPS style targeting won't be an option, though.

Personally, I generally reserve my time for when I can actually get my hands on something, before I talk about it. This week I've made an exception.

truthfully a lot of people are skeptical at such promises and still are not convinced. The game also needs more advertising which cost money. Unless the community picks it up and advertises it themselves.

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/296-devblog-territory-control/
 

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/296-devblog-territory-control/
 

It will be my first post here, so sorry if my thought process will be a bit chaotic.

I have no real experience with subscription models and MMO games so I might not see many problems with different monetization models, however from my point of view P2P seems to be the best option. I think Dual Universe has a real chance to have a dedicated player base if the devs deliver what they promise. And since we're talking about persistent universe that we all want to run smoothly and provide amazing gaming experience plus enabling it to be further developed, I think that the team should be steadily, reliably financed to dedicate themselves and feel motivated. If the subscription price would be reasonable, like 4-5$/month, I would not only definitely gladly pay (even with the unfavourable currency exchange rate), but would also encourage the others to do the same. 

About the critical mass of players - enabling some trial period would help players to make a decision whether to dedicate or not. They could check the gameplay, graphics, quality of their experience. If the game is as good as we all hope, probably people will want to stay.

Also, subscribers create the pressure of maintaining or improving game quality, because they're constantly financing the game. So they somehow are entitled to constantly expect listening to community and fulfilling promises.

The other options, like B2P or F2P either don't guarantee stable cash inflow, or tempt the devs to dive into P2W model, which usually totally ruins the community and gaming experience.

I didn't say anything about "being forced".
Rather I said "too much pressure pushing people to spend"...
I've told you several times that I'm not competitive - I am a cooperative player... so what entices you to spend and what entices me to spend will likely be very different things.
 
Landmark pissed a bunch of people off by implementing an outfit for free in a couple of basic colors and then putting favored colors, like black, up for sale for like $10 in the cash shop.
I have spent real money in cash shops to help guildies acquire gear before - and I see possibilities for that in DU as well.
Or especially to help acquire rare textures for spaceships.
My experience is that cash shops have me spending more per month than I would on a monthly sub.
Hence, I prefer monthly sub rather than cash shop.

I prefer a sub to a cash shop. Too much pressure pushing people to spend cash in the cash shop.
I would probably end up spending more money per month than I would with a fixed sub.