0something0

The big problem is that destruction is so much easier then construction or protection. You(an individual or group) have to spend countless hours building and pay mercs(which I suspect will be costly due to the high demand) or guard it yourself 24/7, which may not be possible, while all it takes is a few people to just log in and open fire to destroy.
 And it seems like some people here are fine with this. I won't say any names but the real problem it seems like is the community's attitude towards the issue which potentially stems from NQ's *marketing* of DU as a "do-whatever-you-want" MMO (at least before the website change).

@Zamarus  I understand what you tried to imply, but what you see as pointless or invalid might be just the opposite to someone else. You don't have to like it, or even participate in those discussions, but you don't have any right to discourage them either. The Good Ol' Boys Club in this forum is no doubt strong, but it's not divine.
 
If NQ delivers, I plan on doing everything the game has to offer. I'll likely suck at all of it, but excelling isn't really my goal. Having fun is.
 
As for the game, there is a belief that it will be "player driven" and "emergent" game-play will dictate how the game develops. Those buzzwords are the basis for much of the pro PvP arguments in this thread. Players will be allowed to do whatever they want, including ganking and griefing because in theory, if players don't like it, they can organize and fight it... which is really just the other side of a PvP deathmatch, but regardless, NQ decided that PvP won't be allowed in certain areas. They also said they would intervene if needed. So, isn't the whole PvP freedom already crippled? Why not do away with the safe zones altogether?

The big problem is that destruction is so much easier then construction or protection. You(an individual or group) have to spend countless hours building and pay mercs(which I suspect will be costly due to the high demand) or guard it yourself 24/7, which may not be possible, while all it takes is a few people to just log in and open fire to destroy.
 And it seems like some people here are fine with this. I won't say any names but the real problem it seems like is the community's attitude towards the issue which potentially stems from NQ's *marketing* of DU as a "do-whatever-you-want" MMO (at least before the website change).

The big problem is that destruction is so much easier then construction or protection. You(an individual or group) have to spend countless hours building and pay mercs(which I suspect will be costly due to the high demand) or guard it yourself 24/7, which may not be possible, while all it takes is a few people to just log in and open fire to destroy.
 And it seems like some people here are fine with this. I won't say any names but the real problem it seems like is the community's attitude towards the issue which potentially stems from NQ's *marketing* of DU as a "do-whatever-you-want" MMO (at least before the website change).

The big problem is that destruction is so much easier then construction or protection. You(an individual or group) have to spend countless hours building and pay mercs(which I suspect will be costly due to the high demand) or guard it yourself 24/7, which may not be possible, while all it takes is a few people to just log in and open fire to destroy.
 And it seems like some people here are fine with this. I won't say any names but the real problem it seems like is the community's attitude towards the issue which potentially stems from NQ's *marketing* of DU as a "do-whatever-you-want" MMO (at least before the website change).

Yes, you can't have a single shard with people being able to run free killing others
 
Dom't force anything except for your will to harm other players. That is the definition of conflict: forcing your will on others when the parties have conflicting wills.
Destruction is inherently easier then construction. Its called entropy.  And balancing it contridicts:
Which will apply not only to cheaper armour but a shift in balance to favor defence.
 
Unless the mechanics make it so you can't counter them.
 
The real question here is: will thesw rules be strong enough?

The idea that im proposing here is that elements have a chance of breaking down the more they get used. So, every (arbitrary time) the machine gets used the chance of the machine stopping to function increases by a very small amount, but over time, the machine would become very unreliable, and it takes people with skills requirw to create the element to fix. Some benefits of this system would be: 
 
Nerfed automation: Due to parts breaking down, you cant just leave your fully automated factory alone 24/7 and "self contained" systems that tries to do everything will need large amounts of skilled personal to maintain. This allows expanded programming/automation capablities without disruption of balance. (And yes, I want to make Skynet, CaptainTwerkMotor)
 
Jobs: Spacecraft mechanics!
 
Logistics: Militaries and companies will need logistics trains to maintain their equipment. With logistics comes a entirely new aspect of operations. This also can be used as a substitute to survival mechanics. "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes, you can't have a single shard with people being able to run free killing others
 
Dom't force anything except for your will to harm other players. That is the definition of conflict: forcing your will on others when the parties have conflicting wills.
Destruction is inherently easier then construction. Its called entropy.  And balancing it contridicts:
Which will apply not only to cheaper armour but a shift in balance to favor defence.
 
Unless the mechanics make it so you can't counter them.
 
The real question here is: will thesw rules be strong enough?

The idea that im proposing here is that elements have a chance of breaking down the more they get used. So, every (arbitrary time) the machine gets used the chance of the machine stopping to function increases by a very small amount, but over time, the machine would become very unreliable, and it takes people with skills requirw to create the element to fix. Some benefits of this system would be: 
 
Nerfed automation: Due to parts breaking down, you cant just leave your fully automated factory alone 24/7 and "self contained" systems that tries to do everything will need large amounts of skilled personal to maintain. This allows expanded programming/automation capablities without disruption of balance. (And yes, I want to make Skynet, CaptainTwerkMotor)
 
Jobs: Spacecraft mechanics!
 
Logistics: Militaries and companies will need logistics trains to maintain their equipment. With logistics comes a entirely new aspect of operations. This also can be used as a substitute to survival mechanics. "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The idea that im proposing here is that elements have a chance of breaking down the more they get used. So, every (arbitrary time) the machine gets used the chance of the machine stopping to function increases by a very small amount, but over time, the machine would become very unreliable, and it takes people with skills requirw to create the element to fix. Some benefits of this system would be: 
 
Nerfed automation: Due to parts breaking down, you cant just leave your fully automated factory alone 24/7 and "self contained" systems that tries to do everything will need large amounts of skilled personal to maintain. This allows expanded programming/automation capablities without disruption of balance. (And yes, I want to make Skynet, CaptainTwerkMotor)
 
Jobs: Spacecraft mechanics!
 
Logistics: Militaries and companies will need logistics trains to maintain their equipment. With logistics comes a entirely new aspect of operations. This also can be used as a substitute to survival mechanics. "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The idea that im proposing here is that elements have a chance of breaking down the more they get used. So, every (arbitrary time) the machine gets used the chance of the machine stopping to function increases by a very small amount, but over time, the machine would become very unreliable, and it takes people with skills requirw to create the element to fix. Some benefits of this system would be: 
 
Nerfed automation: Due to parts breaking down, you cant just leave your fully automated factory alone 24/7 and "self contained" systems that tries to do everything will need large amounts of skilled personal to maintain. This allows expanded programming/automation capablities without disruption of balance. (And yes, I want to make Skynet, CaptainTwerkMotor)
 
Jobs: Spacecraft mechanics!
 
Logistics: Militaries and companies will need logistics trains to maintain their equipment. With logistics comes a entirely new aspect of operations. This also can be used as a substitute to survival mechanics. "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The idea that im proposing here is that elements have a chance of breaking down the more they get used. So, every (arbitrary time) the machine gets used the chance of the machine stopping to function increases by a very small amount, but over time, the machine would become very unreliable, and it takes people with skills requirw to create the element to fix. Some benefits of this system would be: 
 
Nerfed automation: Due to parts breaking down, you cant just leave your fully automated factory alone 24/7 and "self contained" systems that tries to do everything will need large amounts of skilled personal to maintain. This allows expanded programming/automation capablities without disruption of balance. (And yes, I want to make Skynet, CaptainTwerkMotor)
 
Jobs: Spacecraft mechanics!
 
Logistics: Militaries and companies will need logistics trains to maintain their equipment. With logistics comes a entirely new aspect of operations. This also can be used as a substitute to survival mechanics. "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The idea that im proposing here is that elements have a chance of breaking down the more they get used. So, every (arbitrary time) the machine gets used the chance of the machine stopping to function increases by a very small amount, but over time, the machine would become very unreliable, and it takes people with skills requirw to create the element to fix. Some benefits of this system would be: 
 
Nerfed automation: Due to parts breaking down, you cant just leave your fully automated factory alone 24/7 and "self contained" systems that tries to do everything will need large amounts of skilled personal to maintain. This allows expanded programming/automation capablities without disruption of balance. (And yes, I want to make Skynet, CaptainTwerkMotor)
 
Jobs: Spacecraft mechanics!
 
Logistics: Militaries and companies will need logistics trains to maintain their equipment. With logistics comes a entirely new aspect of operations. This also can be used as a substitute to survival mechanics. "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics." 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

RL industries have fared just fine even when much of their market is civilian. There will be demend for products without war thanks to civlian companies looking to expand their assets and people crashing their ships and such. This is especially true if machines have a limited lifespan.

I disagree with the whole notion of
 
"Its a big universe"
 
Because while the universe is big, most of it is empty space you can't  do much with. I also learned that its a good assumption that someone WILL find you from Minecraft factions because sooner or later, I would find my base wrecked. I also don't think relying on  cities for protection  is a good idea as they would be hot targets for people looking to get quick loot.
 
I also disagree with the notiom that war NEEDS to be an essential part of the economy as there are other sources of demand for constructs like habitation and civilisn transportation. 

"Luckily"? I will confess that I believe in a fully automated economy IRL so hopefully you guys will understand where I am coming from.  But there are diffrences in DU and in real life that I will have to recognize - notably the fact that people just appear without an established place in society, and that we are building up a society without *any* centralized control, differently from a real life space colony or in general. 
 
What if instead of limiting the software we limited the hardware? So we got limited processing power, storage, RAM, etc as well as large amounts of power draw and heat for the in-game computers? Basically limit the game to vaccum tubes and very early transistor technology.
 
On the original subject though, we are going to need methods of interacting with different voxels and functional elements(i,.e. storage containers). I think NQ has said they don't plan to add in drill elements, automated or not (i.e. no drilling ships). 
 
The lack of advanced automation will probably encourage more multiboxxing as programs can be written using xdotool and a VM with windows and GPU passthrough to turn yourself into a scripted robot.

Well experts in real life are not sure what automation would do to the economy(I , for one, support fully automated luxury space post-scarcity economy)  so lets just add automation and see what happens and make our predictions off that! (though to be fair for that to be valid there needs to be an economy with a lot of manual labor and see how automation will affect it so automation need to be added after launch to more accuratly simulate the effects of it to the economy.)  
 
One thing I find hypocritical is that there will be no doubt a lot of automation in the devices that we use like fly-by-wire in cockpits, automatic rod controls in nuclear reactors, automatic engine controlls, higher level languages, etc. If NQ wanted to truely elimnate automation, all those processes should be done by people. Then we got Dune Online. Without the Spice. But I digress. The thing is that automation is heavily looked down around here, espacially by a certain motor. 

Size of the Engine affects it's sound? lol. That depends on the bypass-ratio of the engine (lower-bypass produce less noise, believe it or not, because much of the noise will be contained in the exhaust). The Rotor-Blades(the Fan-Blades from the Intake of Compressor, especially), they are the cause of most of the noise in the Powerplant. Now, noise-production does not depend on the size(span) of the blades, but how fast it's rotating in RPM (once it reached supersonic-speed needed for takeoff, it becomes loud). This is called "Aerodynamic-noise" and it's the main of source of noise produced by aircrafts(and their powerplant, and their powerplant alone). Rotor-Blades make Aerodynamic-noise, they work through aerodynamics.
It depends on what type of exhaust too. Short-Duct-Converging-Nozzle with a Plug can reduce the noise produced by the exhaust(which comes from the Turbine-Blades). Also, if you are to taper a nozzle, it does reduce the sound too.
 
look at this picture, the green-triangle on the aft of the engine (on the exhaust), is the plug, and covering it, is the short-duct-nozzle;
 
 
It's not the size of the engine-nacelle, it's not the size of it's components(such as span of the blades) that affects it's noise-production, but the RPM of Blades, types and noise-reduction-designs of exhaust-system, and the bypass-ratio (primary-bypass-flow do not go through the exhaust-duct, it goes out of the bypass-nozzle which is part of the nacelle, so expect that to be loud. This is why in this picture, the exhaust of nacelle, AKA the "bypass-nozzle", it is zigzag-shaped or chevron-shaped, not straight-shaped, because such shape atleast reduce the sound from the bypass to some degree through lessening the turbulence. They designed that engine to be high-bypass because they need fuel-efficiency ofcourse). Smaller-engines can produce just as much sound too, it's not factor to it's size.
 
What I propose for this game, is make the engines louder when RPM increase. If you want more Thrust(you control this on the Throttle), the blades will have to rotate faster, making the aerodynamic-noise louder. Combustion-noise, in comparison, are not even that loud in real-life. 

"unfun and plain boring"
 
WRONG. Your interests may differ from mine, but personally, I am into coding and that kinda stuff. I would like for coding, logic circuits, robotics, etc to be a large part of the game.
 
"If they wish to do it (lua)"
 
which is purposely severely limited 
 
"It's a game after all"
 
Which should appeal to a wide playerbase. The game just shouldn't appeal to EVE players alone. Besides, I could make a game supposedly set in the present day but trebuchets and spears as the main weapons and say "its a game". The point is that immersion is a thing and it would be weird if there was no player-made automation but there was firmware-based automation.
 
 
 

Well experts in real life are not sure what automation would do to the economy(I , for one, support fully automated luxury space post-scarcity economy)  so lets just add automation and see what happens and make our predictions off that! (though to be fair for that to be valid there needs to be an economy with a lot of manual labor and see how automation will affect it so automation need to be added after launch to more accuratly simulate the effects of it to the economy.)  
 
One thing I find hypocritical is that there will be no doubt a lot of automation in the devices that we use like fly-by-wire in cockpits, automatic rod controls in nuclear reactors, automatic engine controlls, higher level languages, etc. If NQ wanted to truely elimnate automation, all those processes should be done by people. Then we got Dune Online. Without the Spice. But I digress. The thing is that automation is heavily looked down around here, espacially by a certain motor. 

One possible solution to the "destruction of matter though x" could be reintroducing the destroyed matter via an asteroid belt that forms around the starting planet. No player would keep trac of every single asteroid, so I wouldn't break immersion too much if new asteroids appeared in the belt (except when you purposefully completely mine a certain part of the belt, but thats your own fault then really) These asteroids would contain mostly dirt to fill up, but also very small amounts of basic ores, as to keep the starting planet a good starting point.

That might be a little discouraging. It wouldn't make much sense in a SciFi esque game to do a lot of manual labor. Automation in the refining process would have a logical place in the order of things. It could be immersion breaking to not to.

Author's Note: This short story is by no means complete, and probably is riddled with plot holes and errors that I originally intended to fix. But alas, the submission date has passed and I have chosen to release this story to the world. I thought NQ’s lore was geocentric and I wanted to explore the possibility of what happens offworld, to extraterrestrial peoples. In my version of the lore, the colonists manage to win their freedom and the right to robotics/AI from the UEF, creating a civilization around the outer planets and possibly creating a “fusion torch”(See Isaac Arthur’s “Colonizing Jupiter” for more information) to actually push Jupiter/Saturn to another planet. This is actually possible within a reasonable amount of time with automation! However, Earth degenerates into a backwaters ****hole at the same time. In the lore,a “technological renaissance” is described at the early 23rd century which allowed humanity to finally build the ark ships. However, due to the reactionary UEF and the independent organizations that was actually administering over the arkships(much like the public-private partnerships of today) thanks to the lack of large-scale political structure other then the aforementioned reactionaries, a particularly radical libertarian and conservative group was controlling the Novark and what to put in the Novark database. This act of revisionist history allowed for such a geocentric history in the archives and the lack of advanced Arkship technologies. But I digress. Coming back to the people living offworld, they gave the UEF the technologies needed for the arkships and the Novark group covered it up, wanting to preserve their ideologies. Their libertarian ideology also explains such an illogical way of colonizing another solar system, instead of mining asteroids to obtain the resources needed to establish a functioning civilization(see Isaac Arthur’s Early Interstellar Colonies for details, and yes, I do like his Youtube channel). Overall, the reason my “headcanon” so to speak is so different from the official canon is because of Novark’s revisionist history.
 
One final (unrelated) note: The Novark Safe Zone force field could have acted as a whipple shield, assuming the Novark was in a traditional rocket configuration(There is no way the Novark alone made the journey: there has to be external fuel tanks to get enough delta-V to accelerate to 0.995c and decelerate. But it is a different story if it was in a configuration like the ISV Venture Star or the Valkyrie, which makes sense since it takes more mass for the same material to withstand compressive stress(being pushed) then tensile stress(being pulled).
 
-0something0
 
"Standing inside the transparent dome and looking out at the red dust of the great deserts of Mars. I took in the sky and the pale blue dot we call “Earth”. I was nervous: I had a speech to give to the Trans-Ares Assembly, the organization created to handle things between colonies and to give a stronger voice for the colonies. Abruptly, my phone rang, notifying me of a text message stating:  “Mr. Cerman, the assembly begins in 10 minutes”. I hastily walked out the dome..."
 
The partial story here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BbWH45pNfJiM-hXtrOqg1B_0dCBxYAVTDkK8w8HHf8Q/edit?usp=sharing
 

I think you might be underestimating him. Don't let your 'hatred' of those who disagree stop you from thinking straight. Attacks against character are only useful if you want to undermine their ability to reason (and therefore bait them into doing what you want them to do). And attacking Twerk's character means you lose, since it is usually a last resort (it is also what he wants you to do).
 
Be rational, play devil's advocate, learn when to back down (I go by the phrase "If someone disagrees, check again to see if you are right").

Twelve pages ... I know this is a controversial topic but the actual discussion part is starting to degrade a bit. How about we take a minute look at the facts and approach this from a more constructive angle.
 
This discussion seems to revolve mostly around freedom vs safety and how to balance the two. Right now DU is planning to operate under the risk vs reward concept where you can choose to live in safety if you wish, or go out and live wildly. Living wildly is going to be incentivized in DU just as it was in eve. This concept is what NQ advertised and what drew 95% of us to this game. The ability to play in a sandbox with the freedom to do what we want, and I don't think that is going to change. If however if you believe otherwise and think the devs have seriously missed their mark then I encourage you to start a poll on the topic, after all this community can speak for itself on what it wants.
 
Now assuming I am correct and this is the kind of game we want to play then perhaps the point to be discussing is how much risk for how much reward? The details of the game are still a mystery. It is quite possible that NQ may implement a "standings/reputation" system to discourage senseless killing or incentivise it by flipping it around and granting bonuses to the best killers. It might be you lose everything on death or maybe you only have to suffer some minor losses and a respawn delay. You might need to take risky trips between safezones or maybe NQ will provide a safer means of doing so.
 
Rather than voicing concerns over what you think DU will become, talk about what you want DU to be. What level of risk vs reward is right for you? What do you think they should or should not allow? How do you suggest they go about accomplishing this? Keep in mind that we want DU to appeal to as many people as possible so try to come up with solutions that includes both extreme ends of the spectrum (at least as much as you can).