0something0

I mean, there could be an in-game version of the International Standards Organization created and run by players because one of the core concepts of DU is emergent gameplay in a player-run universe.

I have in mind a concept ui for a balanced system that allows for multiple turrets per person that basically forces micromanagement of turret subsystems.
 
I havent been able to find time to work on it though.

Good day everybody,
First of all I would like to say that I recently discovered Dual Universe but was fascinated from the beginning with NQ's vision - a game in which EVERYONE can do what HE wants!
Now I read the comments here and lose my hopes of a game without limits
A game in which everyone can do what he wants, should not have the condition of having a crew. That should not be misunderstood. I know that NQ also wants players to team up and do great things and I think that's a great thing but for me that does not mean that every player needs a crew to experience the full potential of this game !!
I, for example, have imagined joining an organization and like to play with the members of this organization but I do not want to be able to cooperate with other players every time I am online in order to play or steer and defend my ship , Sometimes I just want to switch off and do my thing and then I would like to have the opportunity to do it alone! And I think others also like to play alone. Which does not mean that these players do not belong to a group ...
The idea that a ship with many weapon systems can not be fully controlled by a single player is absolute nonsense!
In Dual Universe we are all part of a high-tech society. A society that is able to travel and populate star systems.
So why should not this society, or at least some with the necessary skills, be able to create a ship that has 100 weapons systems, all of which can be controlled by one person? Of course it is difficult for a person to handle but it would be a shame if this possibility does not even exist!
And for those who say that a group is always better than a single person, they are seriously mistaken. Groups have many advantages but also have disadvantages. A single person only has to take care of himself and any mistake made can only be traced back to himself. This is not the case with a group. Here I have read some comments in which it is said that it would be much better if a ship with all its weapons, etc. can only be used by several people. I see a lot of big problems and many have been mentioned here as, for example, if a player with an important role in the crew is not online the ship may not be fit for Action.
Another reason that I think was not mentioned yet is this:
Not every player will have friends with whom he starts to play Dual Universe, so anyone who starts playing without friends will NEED to seek a crew. I do not think everyone wants to put together a crew. A motley crew really only brings disadvantages. And finding a crew to work with is not easy and takes a lot of time.
Therefore, it must be the case that even large ships with complex systems can be handled by a PLAYER using LUA.
Another possibility that flew through my mind is the following:
If the Unit Core is brought into play in small variations so that you can build droids, it is possible that a single player could use a big ship with all its features. To do this, he would need to set only the droids through the LUA so that they activate the weapons, shields, etc. You can program the weapons, shields and whatever else you can with LUA beforehand, so that these elements follow very simple commands.
An example where you can see that in full glory is Star Wars.
I think droids would be an awesome Extension.
 
 
As a final word, I just want to say please remember that this should be a game in which everyone, whether alone or in the group should be able to do anything.
It should be a game without limits so be so nice and do not set yourself the Limits.
 
 
https://youtu.be/4Vrf50dZrv4?t=98 at Minute 1:38 the devs said u can attach severel Elements like weapons, doors etc. to a Control pad! So there is not one Person = one weapon. 

I am wondering if it would be able to ram the ship non-destructively. Correct me if I am wrong, but the way weapons work is they cause damage to the voxels to the point where they completely destroy them. So, could some ship be knife-shaped, have tons of weapons in front and fire a hole into another ship, through which it will insert its tip (for some reason, this sounds dirty to me, sorry) into the created entrance, "locking" the two ships together. Then the ramming ship could influence the movement of both constructs (just like Hammerhead corvette did in Rogue One).
Imagine ton of small ships swarming huge one, creating holes in its hull, entering through them and through coordination of players operating those ships, moving the huge ship into any location, as if they were its own thrusters.

Stop being so salty. 

Well - the main reason for wanting to try playing solo would be a satisfaction of having my little and insignificant 'legacy' worked out just by me. It may be not obtainable in DU environment, but it's something tempting for me. This absolutely DOES NOT MEAN not communicating with other players and not respecting the rules that apply on their respective territories.

Think of me as someone who's dreaming about self-sustaining his little life as a space nomad, being able to move from location to location and experience life as someone who contributes to re-building civilization on his own terms, helping whenever he can, provided he agrees with the principles of some encountered orgs (being rather pro peaceful coexistence, technological advancements, infrastructure building, diplomatic solutions rather than warmongering), while staying away from hostiles. It's probably the longing for some kind of Lucky Lucke's type of roaming freedom, just without chasing some villains part. 

Yes, loners are on disadvantage, however I believe it always can be balanced a little with some effort. Of course, I advocate for my playstyle, just as other respective members advocate for theirs. However my playstyle wouldn't be disruptive for big groups of players, it won't really break anything, if correctly applied.

And yes - manpower is a challenge for loners, and a big argument for cooperation. However, social interactions can be sometimes hard, and sometimes crowd thinking makes you a piece of a puzzle/bigger picture, and you might be forced to do something you don't really support or agree with, but you just want to stay safe and accepted. I don't want to feel squished by great power play, just to contribute to some epic fleets clashes or grand destruction. I would like to control my involvement, I want to have good options.

I'm not trying to say I'll always play like this, however for now it seems most attractive. At the start of a game I don't want to over-invest in social structure which might turn out toxic or pursuing different set of gameplay principles than mine. 

No, this is what you don't get, an alliance in EVE is not a group of 10000 people ,it's a group of smaller entities. The corp I was part of was a 20 man corporation, we did outr thing, had our small clique going and we would group up with other smaller corporations in the alliance to set up a fleet - or join one someone was organising on the spot.
 
Your group of bros IS welcome in DU, what is not to be expected is you wanting an equal level of logistics with a 10000 people alliance that has dedicated space truckers, repairmen, gunners and scouts.

And even then, the way DU is designed (combat is about hit chance that's depedent on speed and tranversal lengths) you can have a smaller group of people who go up against a larger number of ships IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TOOLS FOR THE JOB. If the enemy has 100 ships ,but no coordination or they got guns that are meant for short range brawls and you got a fleet of 20 ships but are meant for high speeds (to the point of being impossible to hit) and a lot of tracking speed for your long range guns, you can defeat the enemy. That has been done in EVE, point is, the skillcap for such a job is not low. The way NQ developes DU isn ot "low skillcap", it is about "easy to learn, hard to master" gameplay.

What you are basically asking is "can I have failsafes for not being baited into a battle I will lose" and the answer is "no".

Most people unfamiliar with EVE think the "Null-Sec Empire" means 1 corp controlling vast amounts of space. That's far from the truth. Your 20 people brocorp has a place in EVE and so will in DU.  If you want your 20 man corp have a specific role, you can do that as well, you can specialise, the same way some corps in alliances specialise in bomber fleets and tactics, similar to a "spec ops" team of people.

What people seem to want, is being an Empire, without having to work for it, have to fight wars or have to do diplomacy - which is evident in this communtiy, that most of the carebears don't want to do diplomacy, cause they are antisocial AF.

No, you won't be anything important without trying for it. You won't be infamous unless you make that infamy happen. You won't become famous or respected, if you don't make it happen. No NPC will be there to tell you "Welcome Important Hero Person, Leader of the Carebear Army" to tell you how important you are. You'll have to work for it.

Rooks & Kings in EVE Online ,are a group of 20 people, who went up against the biggest coalitions of the game back when everyone was happy with each other. There is a video of them standing their ground protecting Providence for hours, after coalitions (amounting to 20000 people total) would send fleet after fleet to be destroyed by RnK until they overpowered them and then on top of that,  RnK GOT AWAY with one of the most epic escapes in space game history.

What's my point? They worked to get where they are now as an organisation, they worked to get to the point of people seeing one of their scouts and going like "... uh./... let's just not go that way guys, that way is probably where RnK will be waiting for us" even if they are a fleet of Battleships. RnK accepted "we have less guns, so we must maximise our total fleet efficiency and coordination to win" and win they have. There are countless videos of theirs where they engage enemy fleets that outnumber them 5 to 1 and 10 to 1.

More or less, anyone who wants to be "the underdog" in DU, should accept some basic Art of War rules : Know yourself and know the enemy, and in a thousand battles, you'll have a thousand victories. And that goes for any game out there. If you don't know for example, that Ceramic Steel is not a good armor against kinetic weapons, that is YOUR FAULT and if a smaller group of ships pelts your ships with railguns fro m100km off, that is you sucking at the game. And that's a part of NQ's design for DU, different materials providing different resistances to damage sources. You may think - like a person who's not familiar with EVE - that this is a 4-way rock-paper-scissors, in reality, EVE's combat system is inspired by games like Might & Magic card games (yeah, look it up, that's their inspiration), in which case, you build a ship smart like you'd build a deck of cards, or you build it stupid, and stupid ships are blown off the sky really fast, but here is the catch - your budies can use theri cards o ntheir ships to assist your card's shortcomings, i.e. "remtoe shield boosters" that restore your shields. 

Your 20 man bro-corp, if it has proper intelligence (or pay for it, there's no same in spywork) and you fit your ships to exploit the enemy's wekaness in their armor, then you will win. You attacking first means nothing, if you are not equipped to exploit the eneny's weakness.


Brute force might sound like a good plan, until you see videos like this :
 


Watch it or not, it's a good video to inspire you to be more tactical.

RnK is borderline philosophy if you watch their videos.

There was another thread here about the implications of resurrection by alternate timelines. I would have posted this here but I didn't want to necro that thread. 
 
Anyway, currently, the lore explanation on respawn upon death is that you get transported to an alternate universe. However, my idea was that you have a near-up-to-date scan of your brain being sent to the arkship servers/res nodes and when you die, a backup copy of your brain is loaded onto an android/clone with mind interface implants at the res node. This mainly is for purposes of avoiding the implications of jumping into alternate universes. 

Collision as in bumping into other stuff, I mean, not necessarily causing destruction.

The problem imho is that allowing ram damage will potentially introduce "one-shot-kill" weapons.
 
The arms race will be to design the cheapest possible ram ship that produces the highest possible collision damage.
 
Nobody is going to be happy if a 20 ton fighter traveling at 20000 km/h just scratches a battleship's paintwork... how can the damage be kept "plausible" in situations like that ?
 
In "RL", suicide attacks are not viable as long-term tactics if the person carrying out the attack has to be highly trained, because it takes a lot of time and money to train pilots (even if you have an endless supply of willing kamikaze's).
In an MMO, it's a simple matter, because the highly trained pilot just respawns, which leads to totally implausable "cheese tactics".

And possibly create a market for navigators that know orbital mechanics.
 
Yay for emergent gameplay!

On the other hand, this would give more power to the smaller players or groups so large, established groups won't be in control over everything. There could also be automated CIWS turrets to counter rammers.

I guess i should have been clearer. I should have asked if "Orbital mechanics" was to be implemented. I would like to see orbital data on MFD screens and be able to design those screens and script them also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics

As you can see here the Multi function displays in KSP. Displaying different data such as orbital data, vessel camera views, ship status, heading, attitude, fuel, speed in m/s, scanner data of planets (useful when looking for natural resources such as ore, landing areas ( topography ), water etc etc. To me this is important for the immersion factor. No "space" type games mmo have this. Space is hard to achieve IRL and IMO it should feel this way in game not just "run and gun" mixed with minecraft and world of warcraft and a "magic" space ship that does everything for you because it is so advanced and futuristic and no flight planning or real thinking is required to fly it. To me that is so boring. THEY ALL DO THAT and it drives me crazy. I want to do real life stuff and I dont mind near future 100-200 years but it has to feel real and believable. I want to be able to interact inside the ship cockpit. Or switch seats. Or walk around inside a big ship or space station like goto my own living quarters,goto bridge, lounge, interact with computer screens etc etc. There is no sound in space unless it is inside the ship itself. I bought the game space engineers on steam i played it about hour and havent played it since. I need realism. Will this game get close to this at all? 

While we of course don't know details of things like lighting and shadows in the game, its probably inherent that an object in front of a planets light source would cast a shadow on the planet. So I would think it would cast shadows, yes..
 
Now, it may not work perfectly like this; some flaws could be shadows having a max distance, texture errors, or the world just doesn't really get any darker, i.e. the sun isn't really creating all the light but rather the game renders the world light when there is a sun in the sky. 
 
Also, the concept youre talking about, building an object at the L1 point between a planet and it's star, would in real life be a quite efficient way to wipe out most life on Earth, one way I thought of after watching yet another movie where an advanced alien race feels that the best way to kill everyone is to resort to WWII dog fights. 

Unless getting into space is difficult, launch-assist megastructures will be out of the question, and space seems pretty easy. This means no space elevators, mass drivers, orbital rings, or lofstrom loops. This leaves us with larger megastructures which will take like a decade in real life to build not considering the lack of property protection so far.

Nukes tend to not be world-ending explosions in vacuum.

Geez, can't wait until we get actual starmaps...

Well, can we at least see basic rain/snow? And maybe seasons?(Even though there is no planetary orbital movement)
 
so, every hex has a boolean var called "IsPrecipitating", and a random generator function is rolled every time the hex is loaded in or every minute. it also checks for nearby hex's weather, and if a majority of nearby hexes have a certain weather type, it will be biased towards that weather
 
 
 

And possibly create a market for navigators that know orbital mechanics.
 
Yay for emergent gameplay!

The Org has been created! Join here! https://community.dualthegame.com/organization/hyper-endeavor-foundation#tab-posts

I also was thinking that there could be spy mapping satellites to get updates on the planetary surface on the map shown in the May DevDiary, and telescopes for detecting planets around other stars. They would be rather s***ty, and it just tells you the orbit and type(Terrestrial? Gas? etc), size, and the average temperature of the planet. To get extra details, we would have to send a probe. Speaking of probes, doesn't there have to be at least one person on ships for control? Say, we could have the probes be automated but is very fragile and cannot be edited, and needs connection by radio.

So, should I create an actual org?

See? I don't mean to shame anyone here but...
 
SCIENCE!

The Tempest Mission would be happy to have you as a partner in the "How far can we go?" endeavor.
 
 
 
 

I like the idea of finite materials better though... It allows for a freer market instead of having the system controlled by Frenchmen. Δ