KlatuSatori

I think if I was heading up an exploration company, I'd have a division that scours interstellar space for unmanned probes, shooting them down whenever I find them.  Only true explorers, read: manned expeditions allowed past the kuiper belt.

I think if I was heading up an exploration company, I'd have a division that scours interstellar space for unmanned probes, shooting them down whenever I find them.  Only true explorers, read: manned expeditions allowed past the kuiper belt.

I'm all for inventory inspection, but not for this kind of scenario. If someone walks into your city, or base etc, and you made clear, either via signpost, announcement, or other means of communication, that no weapons are allowed, and people still walk in armed, and fighting ensues, then you deal with the offenders. That's where part of the fun will be, dealing with the rule-breakers. I don't mean griefers either, and I'm not saying that because I'm in a pirate/smuggler based organization (we're good, freedom-loving pirates) but simply because space is a hard, cold place  .

This opens so many prospects of circumventing enemy lines of defenses. My sociopathic side is emerging with the emergent gameplay. I'm tots gonna infiltrate organisations and act as good ol' Buddypal McFinelad. I'm going into Guiness as well. No, not the book of records, the beer. It's gonna take a lot of beer to keep chanelling the different characters I'm going to pretend as being. I'm gonna Moon Knight this bitch

Everything I've said that is fact has come from the devblogs.  Specifically the territories one, (which I pointed out) and the RDMS one https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/272-devblog-rights-duty-management-system-rdms/
 
Nothing in there specifically says that you cannot build on someone else's claimed territory, it only says that territories come with powers such as the right to build on land, mine its resources, etc.  Those powers can be distributed to other players using tags, but they have not said that the game physically stops you from building on land when you don't have the right tag.  The powers and tagging system is a management system so you can control what is legal not what is possible.  
 
This quote from Nyz suggests what I support is likely closer to what the devs have in mind - why would you need to shoot at intruders if intruders are auto-stopped by the game:
 
 
My suggestions also open up whole swaths of gameplay possibilities - such as smuggling, poaching, trespassing, illegal building, policing and police work - all entirely player-led; every law, every crime completely created, commited and enforced by players.

I don't like the idea of stargates period. I hate teleportation in games. I'd rather just have FTL travel and leave it at that. Not everything should just be instantly accessible because stargates.
 
Once a stargate is up just go to your linked one and poof, space magic. For me it's always been a bridge too far in regards to verisimilitude.

Saying you don't care what anyone says is not a good way to have a conversation. Having said that, all of your concerns are valid ones. It's just that most are not completely relevant because they are already being addressed separately.
 
PvE'ers being constantly attacked is not something anyone wants to see. What we do want see is a balance between risk and reward and co-dependency between PvEers and PvPers. All kinds of players should be banding to gather to create a territory which has both military and geopolitical safety factors. Safe, not invulnerable. Venturing into untamed wilderness for may hold greater riches but will be riskier. This is the kind of vision for their game that NQ have spoken about on many occasions.
 
Your concern about losing designs that take endless hours to create and refine is also valid, but again, not relevant to this conversation. NQ plan to ensure that this kind of intellectual or creative property cannot be lost. They have talked about construct snapshots, blueprints and a virtual building simulator. Losing a building is not add big a problem losing the design for the building, especially when a blueprint coupled with time and resources in some kind of automated manufacturing unit can rebuild it for you. You lose time, money, status, but you don't lose your designs.
 
Finally, what you say about one giant organisation essentially winning the game is a valid concern that I have too, though I don't see how it is relevant to this conversation. A game that is richly filled with a variety of organisations of all sizes and that no one organisation ever "wins" is what I would like to see. In fact I think this is the single most important factor that NQ should be aware of when making gameplay decisions.

@Halo381
 
I agree with you completely. I was beginning to think I was the only one who wants to see complex strategic warfare.
 
@Scruggs
 
I agree that the terms "wolves" and "sheep" are inappropriate and, to be honest, inaccurate in most cases. I used them here for convenience because someone else already used the terms. Better terms would be combatants and non-combatants.
 
I don't agree that this is a valid argument. Supply line disruption would exist either way. You're not adding it in by removing destruction of military bases, industrial centres, and civilian areas. Removing destruction of supply centres reduces the complexities of war whatever way you look at it. And that isn't the only thing that is negatively affected by allowing organisations to have invulnerable territories.
 
Only the territorial system and the Arkship Secure Area are confirmed. Arkification, alien relics and the virtual simulator are being considered, and probably one will be implemented. The reason they are not confirmed is because they all have far reaching negative consequences and need to be well thought out. Note also that NQ have said multiple times that arkification, if implemented, would not be intended to provide some kind of benefit for established organisations. Personally I am for the virtual simulator, but the other options can also work done carefully.
 
But for territory holding organisations, various defence options is all that's needed, each with their own advantages and drawbacks and counters.

As long as it's not too intrusive, I'd be okay with a hunger mechanic.  Say, for example you just have to ensure you have some kind of food stored on you, which slowly depletes - you don't have to actually click a button to eat it.  When it's on zero you suffer some minor stat penalties and your health very slowly decreases.  You could die eventually from starvation/thirst, but it would take a long time.  Some numbers: it takes 24 hours for your food store to deplete from full, and it takes another 24 hours to die from starvation from full health (assuming no other damage is taken).  Food/health only depletes when you are logged in and playing.
 
I think something like this would fit with the FB quote yamamushi found.  Once a planet is colonised and filled with players, food will be so plentiful that "refueling" is a non-issue, but when setting out to explore the unknown you need to be well-prepared, whether that's ensuring you have enough food with you, growing some in a hydroponics bay, or hunting & gathering.

@Halo381
 
I agree with you completely. I was beginning to think I was the only one who wants to see complex strategic warfare.
 
@Scruggs
 
I agree that the terms "wolves" and "sheep" are inappropriate and, to be honest, inaccurate in most cases. I used them here for convenience because someone else already used the terms. Better terms would be combatants and non-combatants.
 
I don't agree that this is a valid argument. Supply line disruption would exist either way. You're not adding it in by removing destruction of military bases, industrial centres, and civilian areas. Removing destruction of supply centres reduces the complexities of war whatever way you look at it. And that isn't the only thing that is negatively affected by allowing organisations to have invulnerable territories.
 
Only the territorial system and the Arkship Secure Area are confirmed. Arkification, alien relics and the virtual simulator are being considered, and probably one will be implemented. The reason they are not confirmed is because they all have far reaching negative consequences and need to be well thought out. Note also that NQ have said multiple times that arkification, if implemented, would not be intended to provide some kind of benefit for established organisations. Personally I am for the virtual simulator, but the other options can also work done carefully.
 
But for territory holding organisations, various defence options is all that's needed, each with their own advantages and drawbacks and counters.

Here's what I think:
 
To create a zone outside of the arkship's protection area that would make it impossible to kill any within, or damage their creations, would ruin the entire concept of "war". Supply lines are a vital part to the war effort, and they are one of the reasons a small kingdom could possibly take out a vast empire. The outcome of a war can be determined by many things, yes, but tell me: what war in history was won without bullets? Or without swords or spears? The supply line becomes the backbone of the entire armed force; if it fails, your army will have a significantly harder time winning the war, no matter who you're fighting. This provides a balance in the world, giving even the most powerful Empires an Achilles Heel. Make their source nigh invulnerable, however, and then war simply becomes a game of "who can muster the most fighters at any given moment". It ruins the concept of "strategic targets". The largest group would almost  be guaranteed victory, unless enough people banded together to match their numbers, or skill. There would be no need for complex strategy and tactics, or careful planning around which targets to attack, because numbers would define victory, in most cases.
 
I for one, would praise the lucky sod that destroys my hypothetical superweapon  before it's complete, and say "That guy is a smart man; he launched a preemptive strike on a target he knew he couldn't beat once it was complete, someone give this man a cookie!" or if someone were to destroy my hypothetical space factory that produces ships and ammo in record time, I'd say "That guy is a smart man; he knew he couldn't defeat my army head on, so he went after the resources that fueled it, genius! Give this man a cookie!"
 
Okay, I wouldn't actually praise them, but you get the point. 
 
These are my thoughts. Feel free to tear them apart.

As long as it's not too intrusive, I'd be okay with a hunger mechanic.  Say, for example you just have to ensure you have some kind of food stored on you, which slowly depletes - you don't have to actually click a button to eat it.  When it's on zero you suffer some minor stat penalties and your health very slowly decreases.  You could die eventually from starvation/thirst, but it would take a long time.  Some numbers: it takes 24 hours for your food store to deplete from full, and it takes another 24 hours to die from starvation from full health (assuming no other damage is taken).  Food/health only depletes when you are logged in and playing.
 
I think something like this would fit with the FB quote yamamushi found.  Once a planet is colonised and filled with players, food will be so plentiful that "refueling" is a non-issue, but when setting out to explore the unknown you need to be well-prepared, whether that's ensuring you have enough food with you, growing some in a hydroponics bay, or hunting & gathering.

I think the amount of effort required will be determined by the market. A DU PLEX will be worth whatever players are willing to pay for them.

I think the amount of effort required will be determined by the market. A DU PLEX will be worth whatever players are willing to pay for them.

As code24 alludes to, nothing will stop you from building a ship that fills multiple roles. The kind of balancing that NQ are going for is at the design level. Size, power consumption, placement, mass, etc. So the more abilities you attempt to give your construct, the less efficient it is likely to be at each of them. Design decisions will have to be made on improving one aspect at the expense of another; strengths, weaknesses and mediocrity.

This is for those who are new to Dual Universe (and the forums) and whom have not seen some of the art/in game assets shown by Novaquark.
​You can see more art assets made for Dual Universe by visiting the media section here. http://www.dualthegame.com/medias
 
These are sliding doors to use in your spaceship or base or wherever you need a door. I just hope they make that "swish" sound
 
 http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.www.novaquark.com/marmoset/Door3.html
 
 https://twitter.com/dualuniverse/status/748972537443446784
 
EDIT: Here is another sliding door, smaller....think the sliding door between a corridor and room or bridge in Star Trek.
 
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.www.novaquark.com/marmoset/Door2.html?utm_source=hootsuite
 
https://twitter.com/dualuniverse/status/667770755724263424

This is for those who are new to Dual Universe (and the forums) and whom have not seen some of the art/in game assets shown by Novaquark.
​You can see more art assets made for Dual Universe by visiting the media section here. http://www.dualthegame.com/medias
 
 
 
This is the cockpit Dual Universe shows in the teaser video they showed at E3. This is for smaller spaceship constructs.
 
 http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.www.novaquark.com/marmoset/Cockpit-Interior.html
 
https://twitter.com/dualuniverse/status/747854123438120961
 
EDIT: The picture that follows shows more parts of the small ship that are to be used with the cockpit.
https://twitter.com/dualuniverse/status/728634929588912129

This is for those who are new to Dual Universe (and the forums) and whom have not seen some of the art/in game assets shown by Novaquark.
​You can see more art assets made for Dual Universe by visiting the media section here. http://www.dualthegame.com/medias
 
 
 
This is an engine (propulsor) for smaller to intermediate spacecraft.
 
 http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.www.novaquark.com/marmoset/Reactor01.html?platform=hootsuite​
 
https://twitter.com/dualuniverse/status/721024600528838657

This is for those who are new to Dual Universe (and the forums) and whom have not seen some of the art/in game assets shown by Novaquark.
​You can see more art assets made for Dual Universe by visiting the media section here. http://www.dualthegame.com/medias
 
 
 
This is a large Weapon Turret to be used on larger spaceship constructs. The PIPES here would feed to these guns to provide power. Too cool!
 
 
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.www.novaquark.com/marmoset/Turret_01.html?platform=hootsuite​
 
https://twitter.com/dualuniverse/status/703285049853140992
 
EDIT: Below is another weapon, a Laser Cannon
 
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.www.novaquark.com/marmoset/Canon.html?utm_source=hootsuite​
 
 
https://twitter.com/dualuniverse/status/667770755724263424

This is for those who are new to Dual Universe (and the forums) and whom have not seen some of the art/in game assets shown by Novaquark.
​You can see more art assets made for Dual Universe by visiting the media section here. http://www.dualthegame.com/medias
 
 
 
These are pipes for energy transmission from your power source to the receiving units. Amazing art!
 
http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.www.novaquark.com/marmoset/Pipes.html
 
 https://twitter.com/dualuniverse/status/750408744262111232

As long as it's not too intrusive, I'd be okay with a hunger mechanic.  Say, for example you just have to ensure you have some kind of food stored on you, which slowly depletes - you don't have to actually click a button to eat it.  When it's on zero you suffer some minor stat penalties and your health very slowly decreases.  You could die eventually from starvation/thirst, but it would take a long time.  Some numbers: it takes 24 hours for your food store to deplete from full, and it takes another 24 hours to die from starvation from full health (assuming no other damage is taken).  Food/health only depletes when you are logged in and playing.
 
I think something like this would fit with the FB quote yamamushi found.  Once a planet is colonised and filled with players, food will be so plentiful that "refueling" is a non-issue, but when setting out to explore the unknown you need to be well-prepared, whether that's ensuring you have enough food with you, growing some in a hydroponics bay, or hunting & gathering.

@Yamamushi


It seems to me you are saying that I can go in a playground and kick the shit out of every little kid there.
Sure, it's not something logical, nor was intended for when the playground was built, nor fair I picked a fight with a little kid, but ain't playgrounds supposed to be a place for everyone to enjoy themselves?


Klatu Satori defined the nature of a sandbox accurately. WoW is not a sandbox Yamamushi, and people multibox. Your arguement on that is invalid. And I only condemn "pack-behavior" multiboxing, one guy controlling a drone fleet of accounts for instant death focus fire. 

As long as you can archieve it with ingame means, yes. If you argue anything else then you would also allow cheating tools.
And multi boxing is certainly not something you can do solely with ingame means

yes, but that doesnt change the fact, that he was able to inflict the damage and went "unpunished" against all those other ships he attacked. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he didn't multibox. And while your corps was able to kill some of his ships, all the other guys before you didn't, they probably weren't amused by that.
 
If he had archieved this by having a superior spaceship, or because he has a group of ingame friends with whom he raids other people, that would be completely ok.
But every other player would have this possibility too, they could upgrade their ships or get into a group. There is nothing that they couldn't also do.
 
Multiboxing on the other hand gives you capabilities that others can't gain ingame be it because they dont have the money for more accounts or for a better computer. Thats without a doubt p2w and should never be part of a game where warfare is an integral part of the gameplay.

@Klatu Satori


According to Sledgehammer's impervious logic, it's not immersion breaking. You see, he is the Borg, but instead of saying "Resistance is Futile" he says "Pay-To-Win is Fair".