AlexCout

What is griefing to you in a game like this? And why should it be moderated by devs. For example if its about ruining buildings and environments. Killing people with no reason and so, why can't the players play around it or cooperate against it? Also why should NQ need to monitor the freedom. I think a report system where they deal with the obvious stuff would be enough at its max.

I'm disappointed in this community. There have already been at least 2 threads about people hoping for censorship and pretty much first thing people think about after seeing screens introduced is how to censor what other people put on them. If it is a screen then it is something located in certain place in the world that you can see if you are there. If you see something you take offence to in someone else's construct you can either ignore it or go somewhere else. If you are building as a group/organisation then the group can have internal rules on what to have in the common construct and outsiders have the previous 2 options. 
 
I swear with some of the people here I might just have to build the nazi moonbase from Iron Sky (image from the movie through google)
 just to trigger the easily offended who think other's should be controlled by their personal feelings. I don't care about your NSFWs (that I had to google). Unless you work for Novaquark or plan to run youtube channel on DU, Dual Universe is not your work (Not Safe For Work) and I don't have a wife (Not Safe For Wife) +If you have one, its not something that should affect anyone else.
 
You'll have my support if someone puts up irl threat/direct incitement of violence/crime, reveals personal information or spread false information about a person. If you try to censor beyond that I'm 99% likely against you.
 
Would also safe NQ's time and resources to not control what people do and let people deal with disagreements and make rules between/inside organisations in-game.
 
Damn I think this is my third rant on this subject. 
 
 

In the video just released we saw that there was a button with a getState(), but not the door. Every item in the game should have a getState() function. Also every item should have tags and a list so I can do something like "close all exterior doors of the ship", "is there any door open?", etc.
 
Regards.

Animations occur client side, not server side. They are however stored on the server, so the server would need enough space to store them. Bringing up processing power here makes no sense.
 
 
 
What if someone in Eve made 100,000 titans and undocked them from citadels all at once?
 
What if someone in WoW created 500,000 lvl 1 gnomes and marched them all into a city and killed everyone.
 
It wouldn't happen, you're being ridiculous
 
 

a permanent weather is a good idea however It shouldn't be like random, there should be causes of the permanent weather (low orbiting planet could have a really high temperature). If there aren't, this could end up in a kinda boring state
 

I believe that would be feasible as well, if not even quite easy. Procedual generation allows for quite a few options, maybe create high radiation planets only in systems with a white star that is especially energy rich, similar to the ones with gamma ray bursts. Toxic environments could be created if a system is especially gas rich, so generating gas clouds near the hazardous planet would make sense

The other day, I've been asked if there are uninhabitable planets. 
I responded we don't know yet, but the chances are quite low for something like that to appear. That's when I thought of some kind of permanent weather on life hostile planets, for example a corrosive or poisonous atmosphere or a planet with high radiation. Things that are simply always present in a planet's atmosphere might be feasible if a dynamic weather system is difficult to implement.

JC posted this tweet this evening, 
 
 
Based on the responses in that thread, that puts a roadblock in the way of being able to use LuaSocket to push HTTP requests up to servers.
 
I should explain what that means...
 
If we had the ability to post data over HTTP to our own application servers, we'd able to do things like create phone apps that track the status of your ships, dashboards for having a high level overview of a fleet of ships, sites that track statistics about ships and other constructs, tools that notify you automatically if something happens through your phone, market tracking applications, etc.
 
(Note that this would not allow you to play the game remotely, this is entirely about receiving data and rendering it appropriately)
 
 
My "idea" is to integrate LuaSocket into the LUA sandbox for outbound requests only so that we can post data to our own applications for external use. That way we don't have to get explicit access to load our own modules. It would give us the opportunity to build the kind of tools mentioned above and would allow for NQ to specifically limit what can and can't be posted upstream. 
 
I think it would be a nice middle ground and a convenient way of giving us an "API" to use without NQ having to explicitly create one themselves (and arguably less work than creating a maintaining a whole API for this purpose). 
 
 
And since I don't want to keep bothering JC on twitter at 7 in the morning..... to address the issue about DDoS's, I think it should enforce a FQDN policy that only allows for remote hosts to be specified by domain name instead of IP addresses (thus not having stale IP's sticking around that could be flooded later on), and at that point it would be up to the application authors to be able to handle the traffic (which is a whole other conversation that I'd be happy to explain how to address). Or by the time there are millions of players, they might an API at that point we'd just migrate to using instead  
 
But I do understand the problem of stale scripts sitting out there that are abandoned by their authors/maintainers and then years down the line causing headaches for people. 
 
There's also the issue of someone maliciously targeting a site, getting the script on tens of thousands of ships, and then sitting back while that site gets flooded with traffic.
 
 
Perhaps someone has an idea about it that doesn't involve just turning off the feature later on down the road when they give us a real API?
 
 
The only "solution" that is coming to mind involves having some type of standard handshake for receiving the data, and if it fails, then not enabling the feature. That way if a site can't actually process the data, it doesn't receive any more requests from said client until the client is restarted. If it's getting too much traffic, the handshake would time out and fail quietly, otherwise, it would have the acknowledgment that the application can actually handle the data and it would proceed to send. Periodically it could check that the application is still there by initiating another handshake. It could even be something set in user options under "Enable Data Publishing Through Lua", and default to "no" or "off", thus minimizing the impact even further. 
 
The problem with that idea is that it now starts to put even work on NQ's side for what may amount to otherwise a trivial feature that only a handful of us end up using. I mean, I know there's plenty of people here that could hack together a handshake method like that in a few hours, but putting that into the game is a whole other thing altogether, on top of the already loaded roadmap. 
 
 
Okay this post turned into me thinking out loud, sorry >_<
 
 

oh I wasn't saying don't put the system in. iv played games in the past where a troll was griefed off the server. It is a legitimate tactic. And I don't think there will be a correlation between Bounty price, fame, and org size. You could be a well known troll but not be in a big org, or you may just be a thorn in the side of one person who dislikes you enough to spend a small fortune.

I agree. Please provide more detail.
 
That said, I think including NPCs would both set the game development back and require many systems to be redesigned. 

I understand the desire for complexity, but complexity isn't inherently valuable. If we're going to have multiple fuel types, there needs to be a reason for it. Just tossing in new options that don't really result in different outcomes is not valuable complexity, or a good addition to the game. 
 
EVE was the perfect example. They used to have 8 different types of each module, 90% of which never got used because there were 2 clear "best" options. DU needs to avoid making the same mistake by not adding pointless complexity. If these fuels aren't going to add realvariety (and I mean legitimate differences, not just a few percentage points either way to different stats), then we shouldn't have them. All good gameplay needs to have a legitimate reason for existing, and "I want it to be hard" is not a good reason. That will only make the barrier higher for new players, and that's bad for growth.
 
 
So what does make good complexity and variety? I would say something like the Factorio fuel/power system, where you can burn coal directly to power extractors, or you can burn coal to make electricity, or you can set up a solar power system, and so on. Burning coal directly (for DU, old fashion rocket fuel) is really cheap and simple, but high maintenance (refilling fuel bays over and over) and requires a lot of fuel. Using coal to power steam engines (in DU, perhaps nuclear reactors) is more expensive to set up (reactors require a lot of resources to build), but they use fuel more efficiently and are less maintenance in the long term. Finally, setting up a solar power network (for DU, perhaps Antimatter, or whatever) is advanced, requires lots of space, and is very resource intensive, but it lasts forever and requires no fuel input once it's up and running.
 
A similar system would be good for DU because it would allow people to invest the proper level of resources and complexity to suit the needs of each ship. A cheap, throwaway patrol ship or scout, for example, doesn't need a complex and expensive reactor system, but a capital ship would really need one.

NQ already said that they want this game to be immersive and hard to master. So as already discussed several times:
- yes you can solo a battleship
- no it won't be as good as if you manned it with People. In fact, it sucks.
 
So for the sake of that Argument alone you want to man your ships.
All of your points are rendered useless as arguments if NQ just doesn't implement them or not as you said (no 3rd Person, Special skills for Navigation/targeting/Shooting/driving/Engineering,.......).
 
So yes, imho you really want to man your bigger ships. You CAN fly them alone if you need to, but you're fucked when pirates show up