0something0

iirc the devs have said that DU will feature a very complex crafting system - I imagine this involves handling various chemical and mechanical processes, as well as pure assembly. 
 
In the same vein, decrafting should also feature similar processes, with near - 100% returns on simple disassembly while more complex processes will take a recovery hit.

Planets (ignoring the wide variety of planets that exist between each other), and outer space are very different environments (though airless worlds are quite similar) and likely will support different styles of gameplay and engineering. However, it might be possible or even desirable that balancing is tilted towards a certain operational environment. Let's look at our universe and physics to analyze certain characteristics and see how that would translate over into gameplay. 
 
It is generally accepted to my knowledge that despite the large costs of proper space-based infrastructure, by taking advantage of Lunar, Near earth, and asteroid belt resources, outer space populations will eventually gain the economic and strategic upper hand. This is due to the massive amounts of natural resources present in space, from common and precious metals to volatile "ices". Self-sufficiency should theoretically be possible, and once that happens, space-sourced goods become far cheaper (in space) than Earth-sourced counterparts due to the massive energy costs associated with space launch. 
 
In Dual Universe, planetside-sourced goods may stay economically competitive as orbital access I imagine will be much easier compared to real life. This however, makes setting up space-based industry much easier in the first place, which may lead to a stable equilibrium where both environments are competitive sources of goods. However, the biggest killer here are the cores. Based on my (probably outdated) non-NDA knowledge, static cores will scale up much bigger in the final game than dynamic cores. If planetside industry can take full advantage of economies of scale that orbital industries cannot, ground-based industry probably will win out.
 
Strategies are important as well. Under real physics, using orbital bombardment until the enemy surrenders (and dealing with potential insurgents later) is certainly a valid strategy. Wars will be won in deep space. However, the lack of WMDs and automated weaponry, even those seen on modern combat systems (e.g. Predator UAV, Tomahawk missiles, Phalanx CIWS) (despite the fact that high tech systems such as engines and nuclear reactors probably will have lots of automation beneath the hood for gameplay reasons) and rather relying on human operators means combat will likely look less like The Expanse and more like Star Wars.  Perhaps some inspiration will be taken from pre-transistor combat spacecraft designs such as Dyna-Soar or Project Orion Space Battleship, but I digress. The lack of weapons automation means human operators will have to play a more active role in space-to-ground combat, shifting the balance towards planetary forces.
 
Overall, I think its likely that Dual Universe will be balanced towards planetary gameplay. 

Fully automated luxury gay space communism

Also add in the Realistic™ combat done mostly by computers at thousands of kilometers out.

Add a fast evolving Protomolecule with an imbedded AI with as base code : take a gamble

Of course, like most things Issac Arthur does, making black holes probably will require a K2 civilization. So no black holes for us I guess 

Require Building permits, in French.

The guy named Emperor Sly wants in on a Democracy ... me thinks some one is trying to take over!!!!!

That depends what your definition of "small" is.
We can track relative small pieces of space debris with radar from the Earth's surface already.
The warmer something is in space the easier it is to track. If you fire up an engine in space, you can notice that from accros the solar system (with a huge delay of course).
In other words:
There is practically no stealth in space.

Of course, like most things Issac Arthur does, making black holes probably will require a K2 civilization. So no black holes for us I guess 

Monopolies are bad and irl we have antitrust/competition laws to ensure that the market stays competitive. In DU however, it seems that companies will be their own nations, so there needs to be a game mechanic to prevent monopolies from controlling the game. Whats the point of playing the game if you know you are going to get squashed like a fly by the big guys?

If you have a intel 7 pre Sandy Bridge this game will not work. Your chip must be able to handle AVX

Why? all trades and cash will be between players, no NPC that will give quests, no added cash from the outside technically speaking so why a sink?
It is not even clear how we can generate cash from nothing, let alone make it already disappear into a black hole.
 
What i would like to see before we get a discussion on cash sinks needed for the overflow of cash is how NQ thinks cash is generated or provided. If no-one has cash at day 1 and no NPC generates cash and Ores cannot be used to craft cash in the end there will be No cash. Simple as that. 
Also, if NQ Gives everyone 10k in the end there will only be 10k times number of players including alts ingame, that is also an amount that in that case can never get larger. Add a cash Sink and in the end all Cash is gone. 
No added cash to the game whatsoever will always lead to a shortage of cash.

The different types of planets/objects that exist are so many that it would be foolish to categorize them into a handful of classes. However, it would be useful to have a general descriptor of major features:
Size Atmospheric pressure Temperature There could also be some other important traits such as tectonic activity, distance from sun, etc, but for simplicity's sake and due to the fact that DU probably won't model more advanced planetary processes, lets stick with these three traits for now. Please note that these are very vague terminologies.
 
Size:
Subsphereical - Too small to form a sphere Micro - Large enough to be spherical, but too small for unaided human habitation without bone decay Massive - Large enough for long-term living Supermassive - Mass too high for long -term habitation without issues, but low enough to not turn into a star Atmospheric Pressure
Vacuum - No or exosphereic atmosphere Marginal - Enough air to account for but not enough for unpressurized habitation Suitable - Enough air to walk around without pressure suits (THIS DOES NOT GUARANTEE SAFETY FROM ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION) Extreme - Too high for unpressurized habitation Temperature (NOT distance from sun or radiation energy received)
Hadean - Hot enough for molten rocks Gaian - Warm enough for "normal" liquids to stay liquid (i.e. water, gasoline, unsaturated fats) Cryogenic - Cold enough for substances such as methane to be liquid Supercryogenic - Cold enough for liquid H2 This gives us 4^3 or 64 different types, and we are at the tip of the iceburg. Notable real-life objects categorized would be:
Venus: Massive, Extreme, Hadean Titan: Massive, Suitable, Cryogenic Jupiter, Saturn: Supermassive, Extreme, Cryogenic Uranus, Neptune: Supermassive, Extreme, Supercryogenic  

Scientific accuracy in my Dual Universe? /s
 
BTW you can edit your post so you don't have to make the reserved posts here. This also isn't astrophysics, its planetary science. ?
 
Anyway, I also think an important thing to account for is planetary migration post-formation, which is thought to be the reason why hot Jupiters exist and can make for interesting worlds such as chthonian plantes, the remains of hot Jupiters' cores.   Another thing is that while it is not yet known if ships will be subject to Keplerian orbital motion, it has been confirmed that planets will not orbit and will stay stationary, though I wonder if its really that hard given that relative coordinates are already a thing, so objects within a moving planet's sphere of influence won't put load on the server being moved around. This does mean we can't have interesting worlds like hypereccentric planets that freeze and boil over the course of an year, something like the orbits of Janus and Epimetheus, or just binary planets with challenging gravity wells.
 

 
On the other hand, these interesting orbital configurations (and Lagrange points) probably cannot be achieved with simplified two-body patched-conics approximations and will require n-body simulations, which are computationally expensive, especially if player-made structures are accounted for.

It seems like the astronomical side of DU is still in its infancy, or at least from what I can see. So I would like to present a two-sided series of both suggestions and educational posts. Though I will not be going into too much detail. So if there are any other Physicists or Astronomers out there, I'm simplifying for a general audience and possibly have these parameters included into the game.
 
Planet Orbits:
Depending on the mass of a star the typical orbits of planets around it have been found to have certain properties. The is an inner and outer limit. Too close and the planet (or rather that section of the proto-planetary disk during formation) will be pulled into the star. Too far and the star will not have enough gravitational pull. Before we proceed, an Astronomical Unit, or AU, is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun, approximately 150 million kilometers or 93 million miles.
 
The inner limit follows this equation:
I = 0.1 * M
Where I is measured in AU and M is the mass of the star.
 
Similarly, the outer limit can be generalized as:
O = 40 * M
Though with some caveats on the mass and velocity of individual planets, as particularly fast or less massive planets would have a significantly smaller outer limit.
 
Frost Line:
The simplified frost line can be found based on the star's luminosity.
F = 4.85 * L^-2
Where L is luminosity and F is measured in AU. Keeping in mind that a planet barren of atmosphere will retain nearly no heat from their star and certain atmosphere compositions will have a greenhouse effect.
 
Stable Orbits:
Planets have an almost infinite combination of orbits, but there are some rules of stable orbits when multiple planets are involved. Each further planetary orbit will always be between 1.4 and 2 times the distance of the previous or be unstable and something will somewhere destabilize. This, however, is in relation to the star. IF we are looking at orbits close to the parent star, planets themselves can be no closer than 0.15 AU of each other (generalization, gets a bit more complex). Otherwise, the planets will affect each other and one or more planets will destabilize and go into the sun or settle into a further orbit which may cause a chain reaction of other orbital interactions. 
 
Orbital Resonance:
 
 
Dwarf Planets:
Criteria:
Orbits a star Roundish in shape Has not cleared its orbital path of debris Not a satellite  
Terrestrial Planets:
Ice Giants:
Hot Giants:
 
Moons:
 
Major/Minor:
Moons are currently classified by two types, Major and Minor Moons. Major moons are those who have enough mass to collapse into a spherical shape. As mass is not always the same density at certain sizes a minor moon may, in fact, have more volume than a major moon. However, this is a limited range and is extremely rare. This range of overlap resides almost solely in the 200-300 km range. Though theoretically, some really odd and really rare highly dense or the oppositely composed moons could exist.
 
Rocky/Icy:
Moons also come in two varieties, predominantly rocky and icy. Why this is has a few theories based on we believe system formation occurs. Moons located within the systems frost line will be predominantly rocky and those outside the frost line will be predominantly rocky.
 
Abundance:
Terrestrial planets tend to have very few moons and often none at all. It is not uncommon to capture a few asteroids which reclassify as minor moons, but it is particularly rare to have major moons. Additionally, terrestrial planets closer to a star tend to have fewer moons than those further away.
 
Hill Sphere:
The Hill Sphere is the range in which a smaller mass within it will gravitationally bound to the larger mass. This can be calculated by the equation:
H (outer): a * (m/M)^(1/3) * 235
 
Au , m is the smaller mass, and M is the larger mass. The inner limit is the Roche limit, more details on that later, but for now, the equation is:
d = R * ( 2 * pM / pm )^ (1/3)
Where R is the radius of the major body, pM is the density of the major body, and pm is the radius of the minor body. It must be kept in mind that these are simplified equations for static, or solid moons with an ideal orbit. Moons with fluids or elliptical orbits will have modified equations.
 
Simplified Orbital Period:
P = 0.0588 * ( R^3 / (M + m ) )^(1/ 2 ),
Where P is in days.
 
Moon Systems
 
--
 
If you found this interesting comment below and if at least a couple people are interested I will continue with a lot more info. Specifically types of planets and realistic ranges of their properties.

The different types of planets/objects that exist are so many that it would be foolish to categorize them into a handful of classes. However, it would be useful to have a general descriptor of major features:
Size Atmospheric pressure Temperature There could also be some other important traits such as tectonic activity, distance from sun, etc, but for simplicity's sake and due to the fact that DU probably won't model more advanced planetary processes, lets stick with these three traits for now. Please note that these are very vague terminologies.
 
Size:
Subsphereical - Too small to form a sphere Micro - Large enough to be spherical, but too small for unaided human habitation without bone decay Massive - Large enough for long-term living Supermassive - Mass too high for long -term habitation without issues, but low enough to not turn into a star Atmospheric Pressure
Vacuum - No or exosphereic atmosphere Marginal - Enough air to account for but not enough for unpressurized habitation Suitable - Enough air to walk around without pressure suits (THIS DOES NOT GUARANTEE SAFETY FROM ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION) Extreme - Too high for unpressurized habitation Temperature (NOT distance from sun or radiation energy received)
Hadean - Hot enough for molten rocks Gaian - Warm enough for "normal" liquids to stay liquid (i.e. water, gasoline, unsaturated fats) Cryogenic - Cold enough for substances such as methane to be liquid Supercryogenic - Cold enough for liquid H2 This gives us 4^3 or 64 different types, and we are at the tip of the iceburg. Notable real-life objects categorized would be:
Venus: Massive, Extreme, Hadean Titan: Massive, Suitable, Cryogenic Jupiter, Saturn: Supermassive, Extreme, Cryogenic Uranus, Neptune: Supermassive, Extreme, Supercryogenic  

This all builds to the assumption that everyone will want to be in a corporation and will actually receive the needed support from that corporation or the community in order to get started. Two of my solutions were actually build on this assumption if you read the original post. So it's unfair to say that I didn't take the building of communities into account. I just don't think it's wise to hope that some potential problem will fix itself.

I have no idea if this topic has already been thought of, probably has but I feel like I need to put it out there. I am also behind the NDA wall until Alpha 1 gets in on all the goodies, but alas here goes:
 
Large scale energy production in real life (IRL) takes time to ramp up and ramp down energy production. This is especially true for Nuclear Fission. On military ships when the reactor has been up for something and they no longer need the power and begin to scale down output the excess energy is put into batteries for storage for later usage, this comes in handy when there is a sudden need for a lot of power but the reactor still needs a minute to ramp up.
 
Even if our power sources do not require to ramp up and down and use a simplistic on/off approach the use of batteries might be a good tactical move for certain ships built on a budget, for short period of time it can have enough power to plug into a bunch of extra weapons without the need of second, third or fourth reactor and presumably reactors will cost a lot. Plus, if portions of ship get destroyed instead of having a single set HP (been waiting for a dynamic game of such caliber for over a decade now), batteries would be good for redundancy. 

<dumb joke ahead>
 
I dont know what the number one wonder will be, but I'm sure one of the wonders will be "Can I survive outside of the safe zone?"........
 
<end of dumb joke>

Multi person crewed ships seems to be a dangerous concept for me. It adds dependency on other people not only in social aspect, but also on their hardware capacity. So if someone from crew drops off - it's harms much more than if just a random single-piloted ships disconnects. But we'll see how it works in future...
 
The static spawn point of resources in EvE is not always that good. It means pvp dudes can easily predict where miners are located. Also it means if you leave on heavily populated areas - you may not be able to mine for few days in row just because someone already cleared belts/anomalies and respawn is out of your personal prime-time. 
In DU even if you need to scan each time, you will be independent from spawn period. So it's just the same thing from another angle. 

No - the highlighting that an engine is just a bomb that has it's explosive output managed and harnessed ?

Scientific accuracy in my Dual Universe?
 
It also is important to note, nukes also have a tendency to cause other nuclear powers to launch them at your country.  Of course, in DU, you can just respawn.
 
[And using nuclear weapons for arbitrary reasons on arbitrary locations is] neither toxic, bad nor unwanted. If it stays ingame, everything is valid gameplay to get an edge over others. Can't kill their defense? [Nuke everything]. Can't compete with an org? [Nuke everything].
Such gameplay creates content for everyone and isn't really toxic.
Many eve players are already here (I'm one of them) but as said, DU is different and NQ will handle stuff differently from CCP
 
One final thing to note: 
Since you already talked about realism in nuclear weapons procurement, lets talk about some more realism.  
 

@0something0When I get my stock of Likes back today, you're getting one. I like you already - you think like I do.??

WHADDUP!
NOW, YOU MAY BE WONDERING IF WE SHOULD ADD NUKES.
WE SHOULD, YEAH. I'D LOVE TO NUKE MAH FOOD BECAUSE I'M TOO DUMB TO COOK IT MYSELF
YEETERS OUT!
#BroSquad #Fortnight