MasteredRed

I think drones would probably be better suited for interplanetary transport. I mean, imagine this. You're traveling and then you come across a fleet of drones transporting large quantities of supplies for work projects with maybe a couple armed transports ensuring their safety. Or maybe you see a number of tankers carrying liquid fuel to an area over a desolate route that no one would normally travel. It's a very interesting sight and I think we could be benefited with such.

I mean, maybe you can make an illusion that the sonic boom in this universe is lower than the one in IRL, or you could say that the engines will just produce this sound after a certain point due to a mechanic in the technology. I mean, it's not impossible but making this effect as an actual representation of what happens in real life physics could break some things.

We won't get into one of these discussions, but I really do think that players all over the world should be welcomed into DU. After all, people of all nationalities should be welcomed.

I'll just make a comment. This will be great in September, hopefully. I really want to see the ideas people have for this game come true. It will be fantastic if this happens.

Fake accounts. All fake. It's biggly trouble. Huge. Again, jokes aside, good news. Let's hope to see the real accounts on the forums soon.

So twerk has been addressing this and his points are very valid. I didn't even think of the speed at the time, but he is right. A speed of similar sorts would break the feeling of the game. This is a matter of opinion, but I do think you are wrong on how your thought about travel in DU should be. The image for the game is that this would require time for things to happen. That means travel wouldn't be an easy feat and would require effort. That's generally what has been accepted. The idea to be able travel around a planet in 4 minutes?!?! That's just not acceptable. At the speed of sound, you are right that it would take only about 4 minutes to travel around the planet. There should take time for things to travel around. While we are not stating that planetary travel should take hours upon hours, this speed is too much. Not to mention, the technical limitations of loading objects ate a rate of this magnitude, that would be intense.

Kill it with fire

It would be cool. However implementing something like that in a game such as Dual Universe costs resources, time, and the immersion reward is all we get. That, as well, is very limited.

So, I think it'll be better to just wait till we have hand on management of the UI before we try and modify it.

I agree. So I'll add my own thoughts and opinions, as well as build on what people have said so far(and what I assume you meant when you started this conversation) So we want a nice balance of planets is one thing. There need to be planets that are procedurally generated that are interesting, unique, and add a bit more to exploration. So let's break down what they do for the gameplay. Planets serve for a number of purposes. More commonly used are the ability to build bases, store large quantities of items quickly, and mine for resources. Over time as new things are introduced, such as the various levels of ore are being unlocked, planets will be more of an venture and might even require exploration for the more advanced types of ore and resources that may be needed to build new and advanced tech. For that reason, as it is the most valuable, you can expect planets to serve that purpose first in the game. However people do need to live and they offer an inexpensive way to build and expand territory. Since planets are used for that secondly, we can assume people will not expand off of planets quickly without valid reason such as space and capital on resources. So now that we have this down, planets need to have some diversity. This topic was covered last year by a forum post so I will basically recap. There should be a number of unique biomes and climates that each planet can experience, and then different planet types for each biome and climate. This means that there will be a number of planet types and planet biomes for each type. For instance, on Alioth, we can expect it to be similar to an Earth-like planet. Contains a large land mass and some oceans, as what we have seen so far. This planet should be interesting to explore due to it's familiar, but not completely same nature. There will be other planets though, such as ice planets as we have seen in a teaser. Teaser #1: https://youtube.com/iUTyiMjjf7w?t=41s As we see, there will be different biomes. These polar ice caps look interesting and eventually, we might see a planet like this. We've also seen the desert planet. It seems that we will get different types of planets, so that doesn't look to be a problem. As can be said for the variety of each planet, we will see but it doesn't look to be a problem. Thank you

Oh this conversation is so controversial. Well here's the deal. You shouldn't. If you do decide to give your organization alts as it's playerbase, then they likely won't be in the alpha or beta, let alone in the finished product. Not only is it against the terms of service, but it also does no good like some expect. Unless you harvest a whole ton through alts but even then, you're out of luck if NQ figures out.

I know I'm a little late to this post, but there is some inherit value that shouldn't be overlooked here. Let me start with my own additions to the posts you made. Reavers should definitely become a name for such "world burners" in Dual Universe. There is no doubt about that in my mind. Alright. So the discussion on these matters are correct. I can confirm that with my knowledge, as I'm sure other people can as well. There is inherit value to constructs and property that has built upon in DU. The fact that people can be so insistent on destruction as the way a city falls siege is wrong. In truth though, the destruction of a city would be quite a problem for both the owner, and the person who wishes to conqueror such piece of value. So let us get over to debate about this. When you are looking to consider the cost of building something in DU, you have to take into consideration the cost of the materials, labor, shipping, and even maintenance of the structure over time. The level of detail that is simulated within this game of the real world economics and the value that is taken into consideration overtime is unprecedented. In order to ensure that these constructs do not go unused or their value lost, people will have to think strategically about a coo, social engineering, military conquest, and so forth. You can consider the actions that must be made to be highly calculated. Onto what difficulties are given when these things come about, it does appear that we can theorize that DU will rely heavily on the player workforce. If the workforce dies down, than expansion will start to slow. Eventually, we might have expansion of our constructs stop completely. When that is the case, we might have to prioritize the downscale of operations and carefully choose what to defend and protect. These things may take years, but it is simulated accurately. As well, the finances between what resources cost and what they are charged for mining, extraction, and shipping is a difference that should be made. No real connection. Just wanted to point that out for some people.

You know, this was a question in the past. While it was not asked this way(I don't believe) so we can go off that. I don't remember an exact link to the original articles, but the DU wiki page does have some information on this at the moment. http://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Interstellar_Travel So if we look at this, travel between planets is going to go something like this: Someone sends out a probe to explore. They likely know which direction to point it for the possibility of discovering a planet. Once it does come across a planet, there will likely be a ftl node on that probe that allows you to "jump" to it. Using fuel and resources, you can then travel to it and setup a warp gate. This has been the story since E3. You should know this if you did some research, but now you know. However this may be though, I have a couple points to bring up. We do not know any details about the FTL Node, to the cost of warpgate setup, and the resources that are involved in using a FTL drive. It has gotten to a point in which these things would be a good idea to find out about. In one instance, if fuel is needed for each FTL jump to a node, then how costly will it be to produce. We can assume it's dependent on the distance of the FTL Node and much more dependent on the mass of the object and it's containers that you are warping to that point. As well, while we will not find out how this mechanic is built until it is released after the game is released, it would be nice to know if warpgates will require so many types of resources and enough of a quantity that it will require multiple trips. This is something that should take thoughtful consideration for us to theorize and maybe the devs will get to these questions eventually.

So, we have discussed flying cities before. Traveling cities basically are the same thing(they could probably only exist if they are flying) and we decided the general answer would probably be no. This was only really the case though for cities that could enter into a planetary atmosphere and float. The exception to this rule could be a city that was self sustaining in space. In order for that to work though, here is what you would need. -A very wealthy sum of money. -A number of basic resources -Ability to supply city with lots of supplies via trade routes or cargo drop offs -The best engineers to design the most self-sufficient designs -Time and patience Assuming you gain all of those, you should be good to go... except it would still probably be a multi-organization project that would take many, many months to build. It's not impossible though. In EvE, there was a massive DeathStar that was made, capable of destroying entire fleets of ships. It was destroyed in recent memory but the idea is still there. It is very possible and very much a thing. There are some cons that you also need to take in. 1. This wouldn't be a traveling city There is no real way to create engines that could propel this thing into new sectors of the world. It likely isn't happening. The only real possibility of making it a traveling city is if you started off with momentum and built upon it(maybe, maybe not) but that's not a sure fire bet. It's going to be more stationary the larger it gets. At some point, the term city might mean a couple large structures that can support up to a thousand people(maybe more). 2. It's not cost effective Building a city like this would not be cost effective. Building a city on the ground is just as efficient and the cost for delivering supplies on the ground only get cheaper. While the same may be said about space travel, it is still going to be less economically viable to build it in space rather than on a planet which hosts the very resources used to build it. 3. At some point, just call it a space station The whole point of things like this is for them to serve as a station in space. While I have no doubt that someone will build a massive construct that has the potential to house all of their organization and then some, it is still just a space station. The fact of the matter is, a space station is much better for the economy, it creates jobs, and it doesn't necessarily have to house respawn nodes, survival gear, shops, and more. But there is a point brought up.... This will happen. We dare to dream the impossible for a reason and this is just simply one of those times. While I do say that smaller space stations are more economically viable, that is in investment/return. If this giant construct were to actually function, then there would be great rewards to be made. I doubt you'll get a traveling city, but a death star might have to suffice.

The problem is not so much the concept as rather it is the idea of how to get it into the game over time. As these ideas come through, the implementation of systems will take time. I'll give you an example. Of course credit is something we have in the real world(depending on what country you are in) and the ability to predict on how a person will take care of the funds they receive and pay you back is important. While not a supprise to most of you, the problem is getting a system like that in place and enough people on it. As most of this relies on trust and incentive to join these sorts of systems. One unbiased organization could begin a startup and offer credit services. While I am sure someone has thought of this and an organization might exist to accomplish this, the funds required to back the organization and get it off the ground are those that are worthy lengthy consideration. Creating such requires a larger entity. Here is where we get to the problem. There either needs to be a coalition to finance such organizations from a number of biased groups, such as the Terran Union, Band of Outlaws, Cinderfall Syndicate, Empire(s), and other orgs. This would largely be possible if there is a high need that outweighs the risks. Effectively creating services such as loans companies, banks, investment economics(stock market), and so forth will take time. I do imagine if someone can create this idea and execute it well, it will be interesting.

To be honest, there is no real incentive to actually join the alpha than to be a part of the group. It'll be fun but the beta will have more developments and will have some refined mechanics that are more balanced. I don't really think you'd mind either one though, as the gameplay will probably have continuous fun. However, if you do join the alpha, let me know. I'd enjoy seeing a master strategist in game.

To revive this post, we want to make another announcement. The DIverse Unified Alliance has been renamed. I present to the you the Diverse Unified Accord While the name may be changed, the meaning behind our project, and our endevors have not. Thank you all for following the Diverse Unified Accord.

Alright. You need to understand that your argument needs to have valid vetting. We've already had this argument over thousands of words, so you need to understand. I've skimmed through this specific topic, but most of it is memorized by heart due to the drama that went on about this in the fast. So, let us get into the discussion about how the three main options that have been said by the community. First: The Collision Argument The collision argument revolves around the idea that collision adds realism, skill, and simple mechanics that feel in place in this sort of game. Many argue that having collision would make hitting objects a penalty and allow users to require the skill to avoid such. There however are a couple main problems with this. First, many have said that collision would make the game fundamentally different, with things such as suicide attacks using smaller vessels to take out larger ones possible. This is a fundamental problem that is introduced when we add collision. Shields have been an argument against the possibility of suicide vessels, but this argument doesn't make any actual sense and in the end, doesn't line up with what we would expect. Secondly, an argument against collision has been the physical limitations of the game, such as the problem of counteracting collision and planet collision, due to the rotation of planets. This goes along with space stations and knocking them out of orbit with a suicide vessel, along with the idea of processing power. It is estimated that the processing power required to calculate collisions would cause major lag of the game. All in all, this is a negative option. Second: No-collision No-collision solves almost all of the problems stated. However, it's main downsides are that it doesn't inact realism or consequence. Third: Component-collision It has been argued that components could be able to explode when collided with. It seems reasonable and is a possibility. Most of the same downsides and upsides still apply, so take what you will with it. Either way, none of these posts have effectively changed the argument and how the devs perceived it(as we could guess) this problem, but it was mostly valid.

Not really. There are some people I know who were not able to acquire alpha due to their financial status, however they received alpha through the devs. It isn't many, but there are a few. As I should state though, it doesn't really matter if you post your age, give your current status in life, or whatever details. As long as you are a respectable, mature member in the community that does not antagonize the devs, members, and so forth, then you shouldn't really have a problem. If you truly want to be apart of the alpha team, then just be mature, active, and act respectable. On another note, I believe they might select more people for the alpha at another point. The kickstarter solved most of that, but there are some circumstances where people could not/can not pledge. In that case, the devs might look at those people. I don't really know at this point.

Well even then, your idea of economics needs to be at least at a simple level. Everything in economic structures works along the same lines, except in socialism. So you can almost always assume that governments raise funds, government distributes funds to other governmental workers, workers distribute those assets to their workers. For the sake of DU, that's most likely going to be how it works.

Sadly, this is very true. I mean, the case of why people are contributing now is due to how involved they want to be. Most aren't as involved though. Even then, the only reason people get involved in helping organizations now is due to what they hope to gain in the end. Simple and easy.. sadly true. The world is easy to predict sometimes.

Yeah see. All you have to do is.. oh wait I suppose I'm a bad example

I knew it was only time before someone did it. Well done. You have my applause.

So, this is a simple problem. GO FOR 4K MAN. JUST DO IT. A HIGHER SCREEN RES IS ALWAYS BETTER. None of the statements I just typed are true. Let's go into why you want 1440p. Assuming you want 1440p for it's resolution, you need to consider why this choice over 1080p. If you really just want it due to your preference, then go ahead with 1440p. However, if you are picking 1440p just for it's higher resolution, there isn't much reason to stay with 1440p over 4k if you are just wanting high resolution. So, down to the actual discussion. 1440p is a larger size compared to a 1080p monitor, offering a much higher space to work with, but so is 4k. Let me put down some percentages for you. Let's assume a 1080p monitor, or 1080x1920 is 100%. That would mean a 1440p monitor is 177% of a 1080p monitor, offering a 77% increase from a 1080p. However, 4k is much more dramatic. A 4k monitor is 300% of a 1080p monitor, meaning it is a very high increase at 200%! A 4k monitor is also at a 25% increase from a 1440p monitor! That is a dramatic increase. Now, to address another one of your concerns about scaling, as it can be a problem with some games. Most games however do not have that problem. If you are playing on modern games, you shouldn't see much of a problem at all, as these issues are commonly addressed with developers becoming increasingly aware of the resolution increase in monitors. With that being said, your final concern with 4k being worthless on a small screen is interesting. As the human eye has only so much of a resolution that it can cover, but I assure you that a 4k screen is still an increase. It is more noticeable on a big monitor, but it isn't worthless as has been described. One problem may be that content over streaming services, such as Netflix, Hulu, or some others may not support 4k, however that issue is being address and since you want to handle almost anything, I'm judging that as not a primary concern. In short, go ahead for 4k if you view it as worthwhile. Not all content will support it, but if you want this laptop to last a while, handle things smoother, and just be a better package, then 4k wouldn't be a problem.

I mean, that would make sense. To be fair though, I did pledge Ruby due to my love of the project, and the lifetime sub. I'm sure that the lifetime subscription option won't go away in system two though. Here is my assumption as to why. When you observe the reasons why people pledge in the first place, it is either noble or selfish or a little bit of both. So for people to pledge high at the Kickstarter, they go for a pledge that is available for most people who save up, so Ruby would be a fair place to put lifetime sub for the dedicated and ever so greedy backers. When it reaches phase two, expect it to be somewhere higher. Possibly at the emerald level now. This would be because there are people who are still dedicated, and much more greedy. So yeah. That's a rubbish theory thought up when I'm very tired. So if you read that, good for you. The moral is, lifetime sub is always possible when there is want and greed