Traceur

I am not sure what you mean by "finally", between Mass Effect, the Star Wars & Star Trek franchises they seem to be a staple, and one that is very difficult to do with any level of justice.
 
My personal preference is a world of gods and beasts: Almost anything we'd find out there would either be millions of years ahead or millions behind, so you could see alien drones harvesting materials from suns while completely ignoring you, and you could see alien animals roaming on other planets and feeding of vegetation guarding their nests or wondering whether you are edible, but nothing in between, nobody that is going to fit right within the human range and relate to you as an individual. 

I am not sure what you mean by "finally", between Mass Effect, the Star Wars & Star Trek franchises they seem to be a staple, and one that is very difficult to do with any level of justice.
 
My personal preference is a world of gods and beasts: Almost anything we'd find out there would either be millions of years ahead or millions behind, so you could see alien drones harvesting materials from suns while completely ignoring you, and you could see alien animals roaming on other planets and feeding of vegetation guarding their nests or wondering whether you are edible, but nothing in between, nobody that is going to fit right within the human range and relate to you as an individual. 

I think this is natural in sandbox MMOs, though not quite the same as IRL, because there's no permadeath or bloodlines, but there are some similarities. Initially you have small groups of friends that all get to know each other, there's usually a natural leadership but it's anything but absolute and easily challenged. Then a few of those start growing and have "inner spheres" where the original founders go and "outer spheres" where the new recruits go, which is kind of equivalent of nobility, though often it's separated by titles like officers or executives or whatnot, and it's a lot easier to dismiss anyone who doesn't like the leadership. Those who do change leadership, communism and shared pools of resources become rather common. Democratic systems are rare, but I have seen elections happen when the alternative was breaking a large faction apart.

I second the hope for a video of multicrew, but I don't expect they will have it ready during the kickstarter. It would be great to see a player walking around a moving ship.

About warp bubbles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKTgNCGhq9Y

MMOs are also social experiences -- (futile) attempts to make communication more realistic can really hamper the success of the game.
 
There are in game reasons to have "ship to ship" communication. For example, ships and probes sharing sensor data. Will this be "magically" done regardless of distance? Will communication range be a factor? Will there be no magic checkbox and sensor sharing has to be a protocol written by the in game programmers (this would lead to some interesting emergent gameplay).
 
 
Ninja edit: Let me put it this way -- one of the advantages of limiting range of in game comms is that it would help keep people closer together and the population density higher, giving a better illusion of a bustling metropolis. However I feel the same effect could still be had if being in antenna range to civilization had in-game purpose -- such as sensor sharing, telemetry, access to the in game market, and so on, so venturing out into the wilderness has some effect.

I feel that people could be turned off for space games or now actually want an epic one. But your right it is very annoying seeing the DU news being compared to NMS, but maybe by official release the anger will be at least abated somewhat.  

I request that all my donations go towards @NQ-Nyzaltar paycheck for actually answering my dozen multi-part questions (Thank you).
 
TBH I am a bit worried after the Planet Nomad kickstarter having so few backers, and people might currently be a little bit turned off from space games because of the No Man's Sky backlash (IGN constantly comparing the two certainly doesn't help). I will make my pledge, but I hope they have a plan B, or at least an early access strategy as a low bar minimum goal in case they wont get enough for the full development cycle.

Ion drives used today use neither hydrogen or uranium. Low research technobabble. Marc Millers Traveller did a  better job way back in 1977. He only got computers wrong they weighed tons and had less processing power than my cell phone. Star trek made the same mistake at the time.  
 
We have Thrusters, RCS, warp drive that allows fast sub light speeds and Stargates. If they had go anywhere hyperdrive they would not be in cryo. Stargate bottle necks can be fixed with a few escort cruisers, blockade runners, exploding decoy ships, minesweepers and Q ships. Any one that shuts down trade will find his trade terminals full of unsaleable loot in empty markets. JC has an interesting game design. 

That tree on the last picture looks awesome!
 
I hope we can build some nice art-deco sculptures and such to make the place look really nice

Come to think of it, what would be the cheapest food to grow in space?
Here on earth it's often wheat, but I've heard wheat has difficulties when it comes to hydroponics. Maybe rice?
 
I'd suggest potato's but I don't want Matt Damon to sue DU...

I am all for it, but I would like a more elegant design that doesn't put it in the center stage.
 
In games where survival-horror is the focus, it makes sense to have multiple bars and have the player freak out on the currently lowest one - the most nearing cause of death - but in a game where you want this as an enrichment rather then a distraction, you could simplify it into a supply unit you can craft, made out of the basic supplies you would need within a certain time frame. Instead of dying the moment it's gone, it could have an incremental negatives: once reaching a certain line within the supply bar your suit automatically starts budgeting your supplies more and more and you get certain negative effects on your health and attributes.
 
This should only be a factor when you are trying to survive somewhere out there or in encouraging players to build life support systems. While you are in the safety of arkships, your supplies should be completely provided for.
 
Potentially this can be combined with a fuller survival system as well: Have the multiple bars thing and multiple actions to reduce each of them, but then hide and replace the bars with the general supply bar when you have a supply unit on you.

Come to think of it, what would be the cheapest food to grow in space?
Here on earth it's often wheat, but I've heard wheat has difficulties when it comes to hydroponics. Maybe rice?
 
I'd suggest potato's but I don't want Matt Damon to sue DU...

I have to ask... Why?
 
This isn't doing research, it's waiting for research to be done. Yes, there is an advantage in different players having the capacity to do different things, but the rpg elements take care of this anyway, and tech tree "research" is the most passive way to go about it.
 
Experimenting with LUA code, trying out in-game mechanical parts, exploring for new materials to try out or ruins to salvage, that has a lot more in common with the activity of doing actual research. From the described demands of exploration, this alone can be an undertaking just as demanding and cooperative if not more. And the level of experimentation would alone provide us with completely different skillsets as builders and completely different technologies as factions. Look at the SE workshop: The death lotus, torpedo designs, robots, various ship automation, drones, in-game Tetris, a plethora of mining techniques and armor designs and plenty more, each of those demanding hundreds of hours and going through dozens of failed experiments (if you are lucky).
 
So what's the benefit of adding a layer of waiting for research to be done over that? Why does it add to the game?

I agree that the system should favor the defender, but I am not sure how easy it would be to implement. If Ark survival waned, they could easily make weapons weaker and walls stronger, but this is not the case here. Consider that the most likely tool of attack (a ship) is built the same way as the likely target (base) with the same elements and construction tools, how do you add anything that favors one over the other? Any type of wall, armor, shield or turret you provide will be used by both, the attacker has the advantage of mobility and the most vital ability to determine when the fight ends.

Even if we put aside that the need for shared infrastructure and basic supplies is a huge factor in people coming together socially to form factions and have the emergence of politics, I seriously doubt they are going to decide what feature or not to implement based on how easily it fits within the confines of an abstract synopsis of the game design. I remember all too well the people arguing against oxygen and fuel and even planets in SE because its a game about engineering in space. Ofcourse this is only used selectively for things people dislike personally, as none of those were arguing against the inclusion of combat and piloting. Even if used the otherway around, "This is a dual universe game, its supposed to be a universe! Thus realism", it would still be pretty bad. I really can't think of a case where this type of argument would be a reasonable one, gaming or otherwise. Do people apply this elsewhere? Would you stop watching an historical drama and shout "it isn't a comedy!" because a character made a joke? If it gets any more common it's going to deserve it's own fallacy entry (Edit: Sorry if that sounded aggressive, my beef is with the phenomena, not with you vylqun, in general the vast majority of my beefs are with phenomena, or burgers, the occasional steak or kabab, but usually phenomena).
 
To the issue at hand, I think making it cheap & easy to provide with infrastructure but difficult without would strike a really good balance, which is fairly realistic since theoretically most of those resources should be renewable. A lot of the ideas provided so far could actually work in favor of this. Simply having bigger bars means you can take care of them less frequently, Connecting supplies to log-in "life pods" could mean you wake up with more then enough for the average play session, and producing supply packs that contain all the oxygen/water/food you might need for a given time would mean you don't have to babysit each and every bar even when you do go out of missions, at least assuming you are prepared for them. My personal favorite is a system that pass a certain point would ration your supplies the less you have of them, giving you increasing disadvantages but not outright killing you (At least for quite awhile).

So.... Claptrap?
 

I think we all know where those noodles came from:
 

And the next day's most common search terms for DU subscribers:
 
"What is food?"
"What does it mean to not need food?"

Their model actually works really well: Most people either have a job or a lot of free time, and it rewards both types.
 
That's being said, there is growing 3rd market of people who have irregular income. If you do freelance work, or if your income is reliant on the growing share-economy, you are going to have better months or worst off months, and it's harder to commit to a luxury (Which an MMO essentially is). What I would like to see is some sort of limited capacity for people to play without paying. Perhaps the building tools aren't available, perhaps you can't increase your character skills. A smoother transitions between pay and non-pay mode would allow people to participate on different levels depending on how they are doing. Someone is undercutting your web design clientele? Nobody is renting your airbnb? Perhaps this month you aren't going to build your own ships, perhaps this month you'll be the crew in someone else's.

Even if we put aside that the need for shared infrastructure and basic supplies is a huge factor in people coming together socially to form factions and have the emergence of politics, I seriously doubt they are going to decide what feature or not to implement based on how easily it fits within the confines of an abstract synopsis of the game design. I remember all too well the people arguing against oxygen and fuel and even planets in SE because its a game about engineering in space. Ofcourse this is only used selectively for things people dislike personally, as none of those were arguing against the inclusion of combat and piloting. Even if used the otherway around, "This is a dual universe game, its supposed to be a universe! Thus realism", it would still be pretty bad. I really can't think of a case where this type of argument would be a reasonable one, gaming or otherwise. Do people apply this elsewhere? Would you stop watching an historical drama and shout "it isn't a comedy!" because a character made a joke? If it gets any more common it's going to deserve it's own fallacy entry (Edit: Sorry if that sounded aggressive, my beef is with the phenomena, not with you vylqun, in general the vast majority of my beefs are with phenomena, or burgers, the occasional steak or kabab, but usually phenomena).
 
To the issue at hand, I think making it cheap & easy to provide with infrastructure but difficult without would strike a really good balance, which is fairly realistic since theoretically most of those resources should be renewable. A lot of the ideas provided so far could actually work in favor of this. Simply having bigger bars means you can take care of them less frequently, Connecting supplies to log-in "life pods" could mean you wake up with more then enough for the average play session, and producing supply packs that contain all the oxygen/water/food you might need for a given time would mean you don't have to babysit each and every bar even when you do go out of missions, at least assuming you are prepared for them. My personal favorite is a system that pass a certain point would ration your supplies the less you have of them, giving you increasing disadvantages but not outright killing you (At least for quite awhile).

i'd take that 10 dong subscription anytime

From their facebook page:
 
"We are considering to implement survival gameplay. In the case we would develop this aspect, we haven't decided possible features yet. Some ideas we are currently looking into are harsh environmental conditions, like atmosphere toxicity, gravity, temperature. The goal is to have survival gameplay when you explore a wild, unknown planet, not colonized yet. But once proper gear or element is crafted and population start to grow on the said planet, all the survival aspect would slowly fade as the environment start to be controlled."
 
 
https://www.facebook.com/dualuniverse/posts/561569937348716?comment_id=562179610621082&reply_comment_id=562641063908270&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R8%22%7D

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.