0something0

Wait let me fix that for ya
"Not everyone will come back after their home was nuked they got ganked and in the end its a game that needs revenue doesn't nees carebears."
 
Thank me later.

Dammit, why?
I for one welcome my robot overlords.

I'll confine this to titles with some relevance to DU:
 
Wing Commander series (all of 'em) Freelancer Privateer Homeworld X-Universe series (all of 'em, but X3:Reunion is my favorite so far) Star Wars Galaxies (I own a Collector's Edition box ) Planetside 1 & 2 Elite:Dangerous (briefly) EVE-Online (first 6 years after launch)  
and 4500 hours of aerial combat in War Thunder !
 
 

Actually, if designed and built by competent people (unlike basically all of the Star Wars staff), a sphere would actually be a good shape for a spaceship. It's low surface area to volume ratio would decrease its cross section while keeping volume for internals high, and its consistant radius  means it is able to have a relatively low moment of inertia all around, allowing the ship to rotate quickly, especially important in Newtonian space combat. 
 
The drawbacks would be that the nuclear reactor and engine, emitting lots of heat and ionizing radiation, would be within the main hull...

Whilst i agree, that modules/ships and equipment should wear over time, your brief summary is too general, and by no means am i an expert on the subject of entropy, but just because something is complex does not mean it will degrade faster then something of lesser complexity.
 
items/things in general can be designed to last. your example of the stone pillar surviving one thousand years and an F-16 only a few dozen hours, whilst possibly true, excludes many factors. ignoring the aspects of the pillar, and examining the F-16,we know it is a military aircraft, as such emphasis is placed  on combat ability above all else, components can be designed to withstand stresses, but would detract from combat ability. from the design point, a real world example is combustion engines, in consumer vehicles such as cars an engine may only last a maximum of 800,000 Kilometers, which many would never reach before getting a new vehicle, in commercial vehicles an engine can easily pass 1,000,000 Kilometers, and do so potentially twice over.
 
I would add that modules/ships and equipment wear based on their design and quality, rather then a simple 'higher equals more'

Nothing lasts forever. Metal fatigues and rusts. Complex systems break down. Machines have to be maintained. I wish/hope there would be some approximation of entropy in the game as an overall balancing/leveling force. It should not be possible to create highly complex systems and hope that they will work perfectly and last forever - especially if they are exposed to harsh conditions - g-forces, combat, multiple atmospheric re-entry, etc. While a stone pillar can last 1000 years with no problem other than a little erosion, an F-16 cannot fly more than a few dozen hours without extensive maintenance.
 
If there is some way of tracking the complexity of a construct and the materials it is made of, this should be fed into some sort of algorithm that degrades effectiveness over time or increases the probability of a functional/structural failure. Better still if forces, loads and stresses are tracked - then this usually should be the point of failure - where the stress is highest.
 
This would also force people to build redundancy into their constructs. You wouldn't want your vital systems to fail in the middle of combat, for example...

By their statement "each weapon-system have to be manned", they are indicating that they don't want any weapon-system to be automatic. "Automatic" means working by itself with no direct human control. Let's not assume that this weapon-system will be manually aimed using it's mounted sight, manually fired, and manually loaded similar to Bofors 40mm. That's just World War II! 
Let's think of a modern alternative that is manual; an RCWS(Remote Controlled Weapon System) gun with it's own optronic system and an electronic fire control computer system(console and server/interface unit all in one system) that has monitor and joystick. This optical system has no search and tracking system to remove all automatic capabilities, what it will do and is capable of, is send visual information to that FCS (fire control system) console electronically. You will fit the RCWS-gun-system in your ship and you will place the FCS-computer/console inside the control-room of your ship and you will link them together (via the Link tool). Only 1 gun can be linked to 1 computer (that means 1 person will have to operate it).
 
RCWS Gun


 
 
GFCS console

 

 

 
Now what do you want the GFCS monitor to display? Something a FLIR camera displays (normal vision, night vision, thermal vision). 

 

 
Are all of these automatic like a sentry gun? No! It's electronically manual! 
Are the guns invinsible? No! Go take out the control-room, it's common sense! If you don't know where the control-room is, go find it and take it out!
 
Now that is what we call manual and modern at the same time. I don't wanna see World War II or else this game will turn out like Star Wars with it's 70's concepts.
 
And do not call these guns "RCWS" because that term is trademarked. Think of another name to call these remote-controlled guns.

Petition to add this org to the list of approved guilds/orgs

Petition to add this org to the list of approved guilds/orgs

Lets say I am the mayor of a small town on an unprotected planet very rich in certain rare materials. As this planet contains an abundance of valuable resources, plus it just looks cooler to have cities more densely populated, I don't want each group of friends or resident to own or have exclusive building rights to an entire territory unit. Now I could just allow several different groups of friends or people to occupy the same territory unit, but that would make it a lot more difficult to plan buildings, and could result in griefing like people blocking up ground vehicles or just building ugly crap right next to their neighbors construct. I think a subsystem within territory units that would allow the owner of said unit to give control over a specific area to an individual, who could then control who is allowed to build or do other things in that area would be a good solution to this and result in some incredible city planning and building. The sub-territory units could be as small as apartment rooms, where you are not allowed to break the walls but can build and destroy anything within the room itself, to as large as the majority of the territory, which could be useful for different groups controlling separate parts of a particularly valuable territory unit. In my opinion this would not only result in countless emergent gameplay opportunities, but would make the creation of cities and diplomatic agreements between organizations or nations easier.

BETTER RED THAN DEAD
---
You are now a moderator at r/Ayymd

Have you seen the average org recruiting texts? Claiming land by force if needed, enforcing the will of the org leadership and 'those not with us are against us and will be subdued' There is very little intent to work together and build an actual society and civilisation for most of these.
 
You also obviously either do not or choose to not understand what I am trying to get across.. It's fine and yes, I see no point in trying to make it more clear than I have.

Are "neutrality orgs" really neutral? After looking at some of them they feel more like their own political faction rather then a group committed to neutrality. While it can be argued that not taking a side is taking a side in and of itself, the term "neutrality orgs" becomes a misnomer. Abother facor impacting the orgs in question is given the general community's stance on in-game unsanctioned hostilities, these orgs may be forced to become military alliances against their wishes.

More then a year ago, me and some other members of the community including @yamamushi made an organization committed to push the limits of Dual Universe,  formerly known as Hyper Endeavor Foundation. However, nothing really much happened. School started and the DU hype train has slowed down considerably with the NDA still in place. But fear not, as I am still alive! Looking back, I thought HEF sounded kinda cringy so I rebranded the organization. Now, we are ready for re-launch!
 
Community Page
Discord Server

More then a year ago, me and some other members of the community including @yamamushi made an organization committed to push the limits of Dual Universe,  formerly known as Hyper Endeavor Foundation. However, nothing really much happened. School started and the DU hype train has slowed down considerably with the NDA still in place. But fear not, as I am still alive! Looking back, I thought HEF sounded kinda cringy so I rebranded the organization. Now, we are ready for re-launch!
 
Community Page
Discord Server

More then a year ago, me and some other members of the community including @yamamushi made an organization committed to push the limits of Dual Universe,  formerly known as Hyper Endeavor Foundation. However, nothing really much happened. School started and the DU hype train has slowed down considerably with the NDA still in place. But fear not, as I am still alive! Looking back, I thought HEF sounded kinda cringy so I rebranded the organization. Now, we are ready for re-launch!
 
Community Page
Discord Server

So now this community has gone from Death star (which devs called technically possible but unlikely)  to a dyson sphere. NQ you are going to need more powerful servers. 
 
 
Oh and a Dyson swarm is more likely than fixed sphere, at least in the real world it would be. 

How about a "tree" voxel? When you plant a tree, voxel data would be stored there as a tree root blocm and the client would render a tree model accordingly.

How about a "tree" voxel? When you plant a tree, voxel data would be stored there as a tree root blocm and the client would render a tree model accordingly.

Hmm that spot could really use a mountain, couldn't it? *makes calls *is lazy so also hires people to build mountain *is rich apparently enough to buy a mountain so also hires a mountain designer to make the mountain look good. * wants place for money storage so goes through a similar process for building an impenetrable vault inside the mountain using even more materials than it took to build the mountain. 
 
TLDR: Yeah seems like a thing that could happen

How far can you go? until you reach floating point errors.

It also depends on the weapons available and the medium that combat happens in. If NQ decides to implement the more realistic Newtonian motion in space, then dogfights as we know it probably will not become a thing outside of atmospheres. If air-to-air guided missiles are common, dogfighting will be almost nonexistent like irl, and I see no reason why humanity would have reverted to WWII-era combat style after 500 years of technological advancement.

The idea of "dogfighting in space" is probably totally unrealistic, the only reason why anyone would expect it to happen is because that's the way it happens "in the movies" and in the space combat games Chris Roberts used to make 20 years ago (e.g. Wing Commander and Privateer).
 
StarWars is "space fantasy", but more recently the TV series "The Expanse" has shown us a far more realistic depiction of what space combat may actually be like.
 
We don't even have dogfights in atmosphere anymore in RL, it's all missiles now and firing at radar blips that you can't even see with the naked eye. Warfare is not a sport, it's all about killing the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible, while avoiding being killed yourself. The most "futuristic" weapons research in RL is focusing on unmanned remotely controlled war machines and missile-based warfare.
 
However, we're usually happy to abandon realism in games because it makes it more "fun". If DU wasn't pushing the limits of technology, we probably would have twitchy dogfights modeled on WWII aerial combat.
 
If DU was purely a "space combat game", NQ would be spending 100% of their dev effort in making it as "immersive" as possible, instead of spending 25-30% of the dev hours on combat systems and the rest of the time on the voxel-based server tech and the myriad other features that make up the virtual world of DU...

IMO it would be the best with weapon grouping. So if you can handle controling multiple guns, then good for you. But if you have weapons that differ greatly (tracking speed, firing angles, ect.) You better have more people to help.
 
There are tons of other tasks that could encourage multi-crewed ships, i.e.: combat repairs, boarding, piloting small crafts as direct support.
 
Just please, no mindles sitting and clicking, that could be done by dumbest AI.
 

The rumoured "one-player-per-turret" requirement may have some practical roots though.
 
If turreted ships need multicrew setups, it reduces the number of ships in a battle by a significant amount, which reduces server load. If that battleship didn't need 5 players to man its 5 turrets, there would be 6 battleships in that battle, instead of just one...