KlatuSatori

Yeah I completely agree. Empty space is definitely a lot more boring than "stuff" even if you do reduce the distances. But you can't go too crazy reducing distances because then the awesome scope and wonder of space is lost. Plus NQ have said on a couple of occasions that the technology in the game will progress as time goes by.

I wasn't thinking literally everywhere - they should be littered throughout space at reasonable, variable distances. Interstellar space would still be largely empty, definitely emptier than interplanetary space. For a rough guide of what I imagine, I'd say someone dedicated to looking for them would be able to find one or two per hour on average in a "primitive" FTL drive. Personally I don't like the idea of being able to get to a neighbouring system at sublight speed. I'm for making the stars quite well clustered together but it should still take an FTL drive to get there in any reasonable length of time (i.e. up to 24 hours or so). But I think our difference here is just in semantics.

Nice idea. +1 for this or something similar.

I mostly agree. What I am against is having more than one character in the game at the same time. Having different characters that you use at different times doesn't bother me too much. If it's easier to enforce one character per player then that would be my strong preference.

What if I am not interested in taking over it? I just want to raze it to the ground

I think you need to get a sense of the scale here. Somewhere between 80% and 95% of the galaxy is considered interstellar space based on my fag packet maths (the other 5-20% that is solar system space is also approx 100% empty space, star/planets etc make up 0% of the solar system by volume). Even if they threw in around 1000 interstellar points of interest for every solar system in the game, the total amount of empty space in the game would still come to 80-95% - I mean it would have virtually no effect on the vast emptiness My point is that there will still be plenty of empty space for you to have a space station in the middle of nowhere. Though how you would build it I don't know because there would be no local resources to use. It would be slightly more possible if there were content in the depths of space as resources would be closer. As for realism, we don't really know what is realistic in this regard. We know there are probably more rogue planets in the galaxy than stars but that doesn't say much. I completely agree about alien artefacts. I was just thinking they would be a source of materials, and perhaps a place to stash a few things, or in the case of large structures, actually build on top of them. I was thinking that any advanced tech on them would be beyond our comprehension or completely decayed and useless.

I've mentioned this in one or two places but thought it would be good to get it in a thread of its own. Dual Universe is to be a seamless single shard game world with multiple star systems. That means that the space between stars is somewhere players can go. What would be the point in filling vast regions of the game world with nothing but empty space? It follows then that interstellar space should be packed with content. Since DU is to be procedurally generated this shouldn't be difficult to implement. All that's needed is ideas for what to put out there. Some ideas are rogue planets, rogue gas giants with moons, brown dwarf systems, huge asteroid fields, some the size of small solar systems, mysterious wreckages of alien technology such as space stations and spacecraft, or even battlefields. Any other ideas for this kind of content welcome. NQ have said that it will probably be several months after launch before players manage to get into space. While getting into space is an end in and of itself, it is really a stepping stone to the much more glorious end of getting to other worlds. If it takes several months to advance far enough to get to space, how long before the entire starting solar system has been explored and partially colonised? The next step of getting from one solar system to another dwarfs the task of getting from one world to another. Having a rich and dense interstellar medium means getting a foothold on a nearby rogue planet can serve as a stepping stone for getting further out and eventually reaching another star system. This helps with having exploration of the game world flow nicely without requiring sudden leaps in what is possible. It also keeps the sense of wonder alive and maintains that feeling of there always being another frontier to strive for. Having a rich interstellar medium has far reaching gameplay and immersion implications. Keeping the struggle for each greater step into the wider universe is one. But imagine discovering an asteroid field so vast and varied that it's resources could sustain a large group of players for months. You could set up bases in space or on one or two of the larger bodies, become self sufficient, gather riches, grow strong and expand further. A solo or small group of players could find somewhere completely out of the way to construct a base of operations that is unlikely to be found. Or at a more advanced stage of the game, a large organisation could set up secret bases on rogue planets outside a system dominated by a rival organisation in preparation for an attack. The differences in play styles and natural asymmetry that would develop between rivals because of where and how they live and survive would be stark. The possibilities are endless.

Yeah +1 here too

The real problem with cloaky campers in Eve is the cynosural fields. Stealth bombers can't cause an amazing amount of problems on their own. Personally I think everything should have a counter, whether it's a hard counter or soft counter. Cloaking is something that should have a hard counter. So you can fit a cloaking device on a ship, perhaps at the expensive of strong defenses? Well you can also fit a scanning device that de-cloaks cloaked ships, perhaps at the expensive of strong weaponry. Caught by cloaked ships without scanners? You're probably going to have a bad day. Caught by a mixed fleets including scanner ships when your entire fleet is cloaky? Very bad day.

From all that it is clear that anywhere outside the ASA or arkified territories will be a PvP free for all. You go out there and make your living out there at your own risk and should be well prepared. There will be automated defenses you can use and there will definitely be mechanics in place that don't require you to be on the look out 24/7 for invaders, but ultimately you need to have good defensive plans and strategies in place. Use your ingenuity to ensure your continuing survival out in the wild where the riches are...

NQ have mentioned invulnerability mode in a few places. About the Alpha devblog comments section https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/08/17/about-the-alpha-gameplay/: There's also an interesting post by NQ in the comments section of the Arkship Security devblog https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/09/13/arkship-security-or-where-does-pvp-starts/ More recently in a response in the territories devblog thread https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/296-devblog-territory-control/:

I imagine this could be taken much further in DU than in E:D. Naming stars / solar systems? Naming planets and moons? How about naming continents or oceans? Or naming individual territory tiles? Renaming them if you claim them?

CCTV cameras and view screens! They can be used for all kinds of things like having different views from inside a multiplayer ship (including Star Trek style massive front view screen), or for surveillance of your territory and surrounding areas. Don't know how feasible it is, but thought I'd throw it out there.

You will be able to install automated defenses that fire on trespassers, but I think there will also be an Eve style "reinforced" mode, to give you a chance to defend your stuff when you come back online. I just wrote a post about small groups protecting themselves in the wild in this thread: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/486-killing-inside-tus-loss-of-items/

Valid concerns, but I think you're missing some pieces of the puzzle. I think your real concern is that small bases of operations for solo players and small organisations will be repeatedly destroyed by raiders, thieves, pirates, privateers, and other, larger groups of settlers. Let me just say first of all that I don't think your solution would help in that regard, first because it is not losing inventory that is the problem, it is losing buildings, and second because solo players and small groups are much less likely to claim territory, partly because TU's are rare and expensive, partly because there will be little need to. So the answer to the problem of small groups getting bullied back into safe territory is to give them the tools to protect themselves. "Protection" can come in many forms and a lot of it is built in to the game world. For example, the game universe is massive and varied. Small groups can travel far into the unknown and set up camp at a location where others are unlikely to find them. They can choose a location that is hidden away such that passers by could come close without even noticing there is a settlement there. Or choose a location that has great natural defenses and set up automated weaponry and shielding that fires at anyone who comes within range and doesn't have the correct tags (see the rights and duties blog for more on this). But there are other options too. You could ally yourself with other small groups and form a defensive pact. Or just ally yourselves with a military organisation who do nothing but PvP, but fight for "good", protecting the weak, etc. Or, hire mercenaries on a case by case basis, whenever trouble comes along. Or use diplomacy and come to an agreement with the local bullies (read: protection money). Or you can use some combination of two or more of all of those ideas. The possibilities go on, and there are far more than I can think of here. However, even with all of that there will be great losses in the game. Without great losses there can be no great victories, no great stories; no cycle of creation/construction/destruction/reconstruction. Check out this devblog that discusses PvP, it gives a good indication of where NQ are coming from. https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/09/13/arkship-security-or-where-does-pvp-starts/

I don't think it makes any sense for you to retain items that were on your person when you died - they should drop where you died so they can be looted. The way I see it territory claim units are just enablers for the tagging system and gloating rights, and should grant no military or economic advantages beyond that. If you are out in the wild - and yes that includes your claimed territory - you need to have the means to defend yourself against raiders. This enables a whole bunch of gameplay opportunities. Hard-coding protections just takes away those job opportunities on both sides of the coin. Aside from that though, if your organisation's claimed territory is under attack, why are you carrying around vulnerable stuff instead of leaving it in a more secure area that the attackers haven't breached yet? If there are no secure areas remaining, then you should have evacuated your valuables before the battle (there is an invulnerability period like the reinforcement mode in Eve Online). If you were caught completely by surprise, this is a deeper failing. Your organisation should have automated defenses and warning systems in place. If you haven't even set up any kind of defense such that you are able to stop what you are doing, leave valuables in a secure area, and re-equip yourself for battle, then you are going to lose your territory anyway. Also: what will stop big organisations from dominating the game? I think you are saying that this is inevitable but I don't think it has to be. It is undoubtedly a tough task to ensure that the game remains dynamic and open for all sizes of player organisations to be relevant and powerful. I started a thread a while back with my thoughts on the matter and Nyz was generous enough to reply https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/281-diversity-of-battles-and-wars/ I think this is an area that needs a lot of discussion. There is an early devblog where NQ talks about their vision for the game and how they want to ensure that essentially, no one ever "wins" the game. Easier said than done but it is good to know that the devs have had this in mind for at least two years already. Quote: "If some player or group of players become too powerful, there must always be a way for other players to counter them. You expect the balance to adjust by itself, a bit like the famous “invisible hand of the market”. This is very difficult to achieve however, and we will need our community in early alpha access to fine tune a lot of things."

Are you saying you wouldn't want to lose the things you were carrying when killed?

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/42-hello-anyone/?hl=hazeron

As far as I know there's no solid information about how resources will be replenished. I could have sworn there was something out there from very early on about over exploiting a planet's resources and turning it into a barren wasteland, even to the point of destroying the atmosphere, but i can't find it now. In fact there's a thread about terraforming where Nyzaltar says it's not planned but maybe for a distant stretch goal, so it's quite possible i imagined it From one perspective I think it would be best to have resources that deplete in one area, respawn in another, though how that would work I don't know. To avoid ruining explorers' efforts and maps, respawns would have to be in previously unvisited areas. Keeping resource locations dynamic in this way keeps the territory claiming game interesting and avoids turtling problems. On the other hand, having some kind of materials cycle might be a more immersive way to do it. So raw resources are finite and can be depleted as in my last example, but where they respawn is determined by where they are used and destroyed. So the activities that take place on given sections of land or space have an effect on the voxels in that area. So for example, if there is a huge battle on the ground in a certain area, and tons and tons of vehicles/players/buildings/etc are destroyed there, the raw materials that those destroyed units are made of will seep into the ground and become minable. A certain amount of randomisation should be involved in this process - how deep underground and how far away from the actual site of the destruction the raw materials respawn. In this manner every voxel of raw materials would undergo a cycle - mined, processed (if less than 100% efficiency, the lost units respawn somewhere in the vicinity), used to build an element or construct (see previous about inefficiencies), element/construct destroyed and despawned, raw materials respawns somewhere in the vicinity.

Now that would be very clever of them indeed.

This is the only thing I've ever read about seas. From the multiplayer ship crew blog:

You should check out the blog on resurrection nodes. I'm pretty sure that is exactly how they will work. The only ideas in that thread about resurrection nodes were to do with how much inventory is lost when you die. https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/10/10/resurrection-node-mechanics/ Only a handful of devblogs have been released since that thread and nothing that invalidates the ideas. I think smuggling will be enabled by the tagging and ownership systems. If a territory holding player organisation decides to outlaw a particular item or set of items in their territory then that opens up smuggling. The question is whether there will be valid reasons for organisations wanting to outlaw stuff. Piracy will of course be possible in some form or another no matter what, but as nora says the tools provided will shape what is possible.

That might be an interesting way to open up new starting planets, provided they are sufficiently far away from any previously explored / colonised areas. Incidentally, I just found a quote from Nyzaltar from last summer.

The power to teleport to a distant location is so great that it needs to be very strongly tempered if included. Invulnerable stargates should never exist. Building a small stargate from one end of a solar system to another could be relatively easy. Building one to a neighbouring system, very difficult - lots of materials, time, and energy required to build it. The further you want to go the bigger and harder they should be to build, in a kind of exponential relationship. But they should always be destructible. Risk/reward is an important factor in a game like this that needs to be considered in every mechanic. If you're running a trade route between two neighbouring systems, you can go by FTL and be virtually assured of safety, but have lower cred/hr profits, or you can take the stargate for increased cred/hr, but risk getting jumped by pirates. Or you could have a friend watching the gate so you know whether it is safe, but then he needs a cut of the profit. If you have indestructible, no-pvp stargates then it's a no-brainer.

This is what I've been trying to say this whole thread.