NanoDot

This part of the forum is called the "Idea Box". By definition, it's the place for dreaming !

The space elevator you suggest runs contrary to NQ's desire to have everything in the world built by players. It also leads to a few other issues... Players will go down to Alioth, collect resources, and then all go back up to the arkship in orbit to build their spaceships, which will lead to a huge concentration of player avatars and constructs in one tiny space. The arkship will have to provide large hangars where players can build and launch ships from (hundreds of players simultaneously). The arkship in orbit will also have to have its own safezone, which will be packed with hundreds of player-built space ships. This new arkship safezone will remove the need for a player-built "first foothold" in space, which is a significant goal in the current design.

Currently we have elements (created by NQ) that are used by players to create constructs. The player-built constructs can contain any number of elements of different types, and can have any shape that the builder desires. Elements are crafted from recipes (defined by NQ) that require specific components and refined resources, and they have a unique shape (pre-defined mesh created by NQ). A player's personal weapons will be a special kind of element, because it will be the only type of element (that we know of) that will be directly usable by a player avatar. To make the OP's idea work, NQ could create a new type of element template, where some or all of the components are placed in "slots" (pre-defined by NQ) during manufacture. The owner of the element can then swap out slotted components as required. Using that template, any element (guns, turrets, engines, scanners, etc) can then potentially be turned into a "configurable" element. The functions of the element (and its mesh) would be exactly the same in both cases, but the allowed attribute value ranges of the configurable element would have to be wider. That will have implications for balance, of course, so components will have to have positive and negative modifiers as well. NQ can then convert the "old" elements to the new configurable template whenever they like, and introduce the new version as part of a patch or major expansion. AFAIK, the crafting system in DU is a complete mystery at this point. There's been no devblog explaining the design, and we've seen no examples of recipes or examples of the "components" that will be used in crafting. That makes it a bit difficult to judge what kind of impact this suggestion will have on dev time. It will definitely require a whole bunch of new components. If that means a new 3D-mesh for each component, it will be a lot of work, but I suspect that components only have 2D inventory icons and will only ever exist in storage containers.

Lengthy discussion there. The lines between logout mechanics and rez features tend to get a bit blurred tho...

There is currently no mechanism in DU to claim a random volume of space. NQ have said they will consider those mechanics at some point after launch, but no promises were made. Territory control units (TCU) can only be deployed on bodies that have been divided into hexes by the game systems (planets and probably moons). Asteroids presumably will not support this, because they have irregular shapes and will therefore be very hard to equally divide into hexes. But you could probably "claim" an entire asteroid by placing a few large static cores. Space stations won't be able to "claim" a volume of space, they will be constructed by placing many large static cores.

Du has "resurrection nodes" already, and those are intended to handle the features that the OP seems to want to associate with "beds". Resurrection node mechanics devblog Rez nodes are quite important in DU, and will be expensive to create and operate, because they have significant tactical and strategic implications. It would not make sense to treat beds that way.

Having new players spawn in an orbiting arkship just introduces additional hassle. There's nothing a new player can do there except maybe things like tutorials. They can't mine or build up there, so everyone will be rushing to get to the planet's surface anyway. It would require a game-generated transport mechanism to get new players to the safezone on Alioth. It will create an extremely high concentration of avatars in a very small space in the first few days after launch. According to the lore, the "shield" that protects the safezone on the surface is generated by the arkship. If the arkship is now in orbit, some new lore will have to be created to support the safezone shield on the planet's surface. Personally, I think the idea of an orbiting arkship is more "realistic", but for game play reasons it's simply better to have the initial spawn for new players on Alioth's surface.

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".

That is not entirely true. Unlike EVE, resources are needed in DU for a lot more than shipbuilding and a few citadels or moon-mining towers. Infrastucture in DU will consume resources on scale never seen in EVE. Base and outpost and space station (and later stargate) construction will continuously consume resources, not only due to possible destruction, but because the play area will expand continuously. EVERYTHING in DU is player-built, there are no convenient neutral NPC stations anywhere as there are in EVE, which provide infinite free 100% secure berthing and storage. Fleets and "reserve ships" will need "safe harbours" all over the place, all those ships are permanently in the world. Outposts will be needed in strategic locations so that larger territory claims and their borders can more easily be patrolled and defended. Fuel and possibly ammo stocks will have to be kept in different places, travel times in DU are real. As certain resources are depleted, mining operations will move further and further away from "HQ". New outposts will be needed to safeguard those operations and provide logistical support, etc.

It's a game design issue. NQ have said they don't want a single player to be able to fly a battleship and control all it's functions and guns. Ships are mobile offensive weapons, so their impact on game play can be felt everywhere in DU's world. A single ship turret will probably be equal to several forward-facing guns on a fighter, otherwise there's no balance. But those fighter guns can only hit what's in front of the fighter, so a single pilot can fire them all. Turrets can fire in all directions independent of which direction the ship is moving, so a turret's DPS will in all likelihood be far greater than fighter-based weapons, simply because they can engage a target for longer. Base turrets are a different matter, they are purely defensive elements deployed in a static area to protect a base. They are also the only weapons that allow automation, because they will provide protection when a player is offline. Your base turrets will protect your ship too if it's parked inside the base.

The RDMS is the logical place to define relationships between you and other players, but I'm not sure that it's the place where the actions of specific elements will be defined. But it's not clear to me how elements will access the rules defined in the RDMS. For instance: Turret detects player X. Turret queries RDMS to determine player X status. RDMS returns that player X is "red". Turret script says "fire at red players" Turret fires. Will the RDMS have a specific section dealing with "Base turret actions" ? And where exactly will the RDMS rules be defined ? Can a single player define RDMS rules for themselves and their bases/constructs ? Or is the RDMS system an attribute of orgs only ? Does a turret have the ability to acquire it's own targets ? Or does it have to be linked to a scanner of some type ? Or can you link a scanner and a turret to a processing board and do some fancy Lua scripting for "fire control" ? So many questions...

I don't think there's any clear answer from NQ on that yet. If anyone has a solid reference in that regard, I'd be happy to see it.

At no point did I imply that NQ can't do automated defences or that it's "too difficult", and I certainly did not venture into the specifics of what server processors can or cannot handle (the latter was entirely your diversion). I was only referring to the implications of the apparent contradiction implied by the idea that "scripts only run when the owner is near them". Exactly what that means will become clear once NQ defines the scope in detail and/or we can test the mechanics ingame. The default functions of a base turret will in all likelihood be things like Set_Target(), Fire_at_Target(), etc. But the rules for defining valid targets will be defined by the owner, either via RDMS or scripts on some element or "target lists" defined on the turret itself or some other mechanism. Hence exactly how scripts are handled may be important.

Automated base defences will have to provide a "credible" level of defence, otherwise they are useless. A well-designed turret layout (with overlapping fields of fire, etc.) should make the base a "no-go area" for a single raider or two. Even a small group of attackers should have to proceed with some caution, bringing medics, spare ammo, heavy weapons, etc. But that protection should also come with a price tag, be it ammo, power supply needs, high component costs, etc. There's no "free lunch", but there should at least be some lunch... Offline protection will be VERY important in DU, because raiding and robbery will be a very popular activity. It's the only way for pirates and bandits to earn their living, because in DU there are no NPC's to "farm" for easy credits.

NQ clearly intend the establishing of safezones to be something only a large group of players will attempt. AND they will have to be defended... Arkship shield tech creates the safe zone: This is the kind of construct that will require a very large number of players and resources to create, and will be made available in the game much later. However, the energy cost of such a gigantic device, as well as the military protection that will be necessary to protect it against frontal attacks or sabotage, does not make it something you can just build in your garden with some friends. source: Arkship Security devblog Dropping inventory on death: You loose your inventory, your ship, possibly also your geographical position (you need to travel back to where you died) source: Quantum Immortality Devblog All these things might change before launch, but pinning your hopes on that fact is a very risky endeavour, because that's hoping that NQ will completely change the "spirit" of their intended game design...

Not so. We know that you can be attacked anywhere outside the arkship safezone, so the rule set is non-consensual FFA-PVP. We know that you drop your entire inventory contents on death, so "full-loot" applies. Your killer doesn't get all the loot though, a random part will be destroyed (same as EVE) before the "virtual loot container" pops into the world. You're trying to rationalize things here in a vain attempt to change the nature of the game. Avatar vs Avatar combat was in DU from the start. As was the non-consensual full-loot FFA-PVP rule set. CvC was a stretch goal, not because NQ "didn't really plan on adding combat", but because adding CvC before launch would require significant additional work. CvC was always going to be added, reaching the stretch goal just made the funds available to do it before launch. In every interview that JC has done, you will hear EVE mentioned several times. NQ have adapted many features from EVE., and the influence of EVE on DU's game design is undeniable. EVE players are not trying to shape DU into "EVE 2.0", NQ are leading the way...

I feel it's important that people clearly understand the kind of game play that exists in a game before they start playing. Until such time as all DU's systems are implemented and we know what shape the game play will take, I will stress the fact that DU includes non-consensual full-loot FFA-PVP in almost the entire game world. Trying to pretend that "everything will magically be allright for everyone" does nobody any favours. It will just lead to rage-quitting and DU will become "FU" to the disillusioned... DU will be far harsher than EVE-Online. EVE's "high-sec" space is littered with 1000's of 100% safe NPC stations where a player's stuff can be stored in complete safety. DU will have nothing like that. DU will have no 24/7 NPC police force that will instantly respond to punish "criminals". In DU you WILL lose your stuff, and probably fairly regularly... However, I don't intend to insult or ridicule other people's playstyle preferences. Those are just as valid as mine, just not within the rule-set of every game.

Quite so, the certification suggestion would simply enhance what can be done on the job market board. I was not suggesting that certs should be seen as "achievements" with some kind of rewards associated with it, merely as a secure and optional way of displaying your trained skill levels to others.

How they will do that is the big question, of course. In this recent interview, JC again remarked (18:50) that they were considering expanding the size of the Alioth safezone, for instance. The Arena Interview

My "Job Market" idea has been basically confirmed by JC ! Here's the interview, the feature is talked about at around 17:00: The Arena Interview

My comments weren't directed at you specifically, but rather at every prospective player of DU. "Nobody can predict the future", but only an idealist or a fool will ignore the lessons of history. Who knows, perhaps DU will be the first full-loot FFA-PVP game where that feature doesn't become the defining characteristic of the game. It's highly unlikely (given all past examples), but it's possible... So far, NQ have said they want to give players the ability to "rebuild civilization together". But they're not dictating the shape of that civilisation, that's left to the players to decide. It could just as well end up being a civilisation consisting of small tribes of murder-hobo's...

As always the devil is in the details... Nyz's post simply says that NQ will be: but then we also heard elsewhere that: This introduces an element of uncertainty regarding just how effective those base defences will be. We'll only know the full extent of the implementation once NQ reveals its final scope.

Stop trying to sugarcoat things ! It just makes the inevitable backlash worse when the "deceived" players realise the full extent of their predicament. DU is set to be a "full-loot FFA-PVP" game, let's not be coy about it ! If you're comfortable playing under those rules, all is well, else just walk away now and come back in 2 or 3 years' time to see if players really created those safe spaces where carebears can frolic unmolested...

How ? A script is just an arbitrary block of text until it is associated with a specific element. You can't just email somebody a script and expect it to work, the receiver will need to link that email text to a specific element. Perhaps there could be a list of "operators" defined for each element, which will automatically copy the relevant scripts to their clients, without allowing them to actually program the element ? Who will be the lucky 24 players in each org that have to spend an hour of their daily play time sitting in the base to keep the defences functioning ? Frankly, I cannot see how this can be avoided. Otherwise, automated base defences will only be practical for large orgs that can maintain an online presence 24/7...

If automated defences only work while you are online AND close to them, they will basically be useless. I'm quite sure they will not be trivially cheap to build, so why spend precious resources on something that will become a wonderful "target of opportunity" when you're offline ? Why spend hours designing a complex trap system (detectors, force fields, logic elements, etc) if the whole thing becomes inert the moment you leave the area ? If that is in fact true, then even orgs will not benefit from having a random player permanently present in their base, because the scripts will only run when the client that hosts them is online (i.e. scripts will only run when the specific player that created them is online and close to those scripted elements).