NanoDot

There will never be an "Australian server", or any regional servers anywhere else in the world. Except for China, which is an exception to any rule... DU is a single-shard game, just like EVE-Online, which means there will only be one "game world" running for all players, regardless of where on the globe they may be.

We need to make a distinction here between what player's "can do" and what they're "allowed to do". For instance, you may not be allowed to land your ship in someone's city, but you CAN do it if you're prepared to deal with the consequences... It's unlikely that there will be game rules that allow players to make certain spaces into "no-fly zones", with the game engine enforcing the rule by making it impossible for players to fly into that space. It's more likely that an intruder will be given a warning when entering such a zone, with a "You will be shot down if you don't leave this area in the next 60 seconds"... the owner of that zone would have to have the means of shooting down the intruder, of course...

Applying logic to the subscription "debate" is fruitless, because game monetization experts have refined the art of exploiting human psychology ! Most players players probably spend more in F2P microtransactions annually than they'd ever do on a fixed monthly sub, but unlike the fixed sub, they don't keep careful record of their impulse spending in F2P games. They'll insist that their spending is "voluntary", and they are not "forced" to spend in order to play. And spending on items in a Cash Shop is psychologically more justifiable, because the amounts are usually smaller than a sub and each purchase represents clear "value for money". The player knows exactly what they get for what they spend, whereas it's a whole lot more tricky to assign discrete "value for money" to an access fee. Specially when there's loads of other games that have NO access fee... The F2P model also allows players to "game-hop" to their hearts content, they can dabble in 20 different MMO's over the course of a year, with no upfront costs involved. Cash Shops and microtransactions have won the psychological war years ago...

The amount of cloud-based servers needed to run DU will vary dynamically depending on player load. DU's game world is not made up of "static zones" that are assigned to specific servers (like the "classic" MMO model), but instead the "zones" in DU will shrink and expand dynamically depending on player activity and player distribution in the game world. In a "classic" MMO, the amount of objects and models in a given zone is static, only the amount of players in the area varies. But in DU, nothing is static, not even the shape of the planet surface, so the amount of processing power needed to run a "zone" could vary drastically, depending on what players are doing in that area. For instance, if there are 100 players on Alioth (all within 30km of the arkship), it could take 2 servers to run Alioth, but if there are 1000 players spread across the entire planet, it may take 8 servers to run Alioth. Once those 1000 players have built a few hundred structures, it may take 18 servers to run Alioth... Using cloud-based servers allows that flexibility, as it allows the "pool" of servers to be adjusted dynamically. But there's always an "overhead cost" involved, which means that it's not cost-effective to have small groups of players scattered across 100's of solar systems, because that starts increasing the server cost per player. Speculating on DU's operating costs will be wild guesswork at best, because the architecture is unique.

You could probably persuade them to "take instruction" by mounting a few autocannons around the landing pad...

It remains to be seen what kind of a thing bumping will be in DU. It was widely used in EVE (still is ?) to interrupt ships spooling up for a warp jump. We don't know yet how warp mechanics will work in DU, so we don't know if those tactics will work in DU.

Scammers, spies and thieves are a universal problem, regardless of which political system your org adopts. The problem with "democratic" models is that you cannot act unilaterally as a leader, you have to have the support of the majority of members. And that requires presenting convincing arguments and evidence before acting against anyone. It also means that "secret agenda's" are more difficult to maintain. Keeping your leadership position in a democratic org is much more difficult than in more authoritarian models, because you really have to be a skilled politician and good at managing people. Those traits are not in everyone's skillset by default.

EVE-Online has had "corporation shares" (i.e. the potential to trade stocks in player corps) since forever. It turned out to be one of the least used features in EVE... because no corp leader wants to risk the potential of a "hostile takeover"... The founders of orgs in DU will behave exactly as they do in any other MMO, they won't use any system that could see them removed from control of the org they created. So I'd expect "democratic" orgs to be virtually non-existent, other than having some very limited form of "token democracy" (e.g. all members can vote, but the leaders have the absolute right to veto any decision).

Of course, some players strive to reach that goal ! There's always those that want to be known as the "biggest badass" group on the server, who'll try to become the most "feared and hated", because surviving under those conditions is seen as the greatest achievement of skill in the game...

I can't vote in the poll, because the options are too limited. 1. To trade BPC's (blueprint copies) effectively, we'll need: the ability to see the build requirements (materials and skills) of BPC's traded on the market. the ability to see the "Engineering Report" stats for the construct that will be built from that BPC, otherwise you'll be buying "blind". the ability to see an image of the construct built from the BPC, because each one will be unique (unlike EVE where ship shapes are pre-defined). The ability to compare one or more BPC's will be a "nice to have", but it's not essential. 2. The person creating the BPC should have the ability to specify whether further blueprinting from the manufactured construct will be allowed. A simple "Yes/No" option will probably suffice, because it will be impossible to control based on "% of difference", due to that being extremely easy to exploit. 3. The person that creates the BPC should be able to specify the amount of "runs" that the BPC will produce. There's no need for complications in this area.

All voxel engines are not created equal, of course. There's no implicit guarantee that DU's engine will allow everything that was possible in Landmark. The scope of DU's game world may possibly limit certain aspects of "voxelmancy", due to the associated server loads, etc. It remains to be seen what can and can't be done in DU's voxel world.

I can't see any role for "neutral" orgs in DU. The most often cited example in this thread is the "Red Cross", but they would have no purpose in DU, because DU has no need for field hospitals, refugee support or care of prisoners, etc. In MMO's, all players can heal themselves with medpacks, so there's no need to provide "doctors" and specialised medical care to a civilian population that lacks those skills. There's no distinction in MMO's between military and civilian targets, there's only "the enemy". When orgs go to war, all members of the opposing group are targets, because they're all directly involved in fighting or supporting the fighters. The opposing org is the equivalent of an army, all members are seen as military personnel. No org in DU is going to allow a 3rd party to heal their enemy or provide rez nodes, etc. Anyone trying that will be attacked without mercy, because it's not a "neutral" action.

What % of the overall playerbase do they represent ? And what kind of "RP-specific" features are they using ? MMO developers look at the metrics of player activity to decide where to spend their dev time. Most devs would jump at the chance to increase player numbers, so if they're ALL "ignoring" the RP crowd, my guess is that their data simply doesn't support spending money on that niche...

If your "RP" makes you an easy target, you will get hit. So weave your RP into the fabric of the game, there will be no "special protections" for RP-centered activities. There's nothing stopping you from integrating a healthy dose of RP in the way you play the game, but it needs to seamlessly fit with the nature of DU's game play. I'm sure we'll have emotes, and with luck we may even be able to sit in chairs ! As far as MMO's providing specific RP support, that concept died long ago due to the ROI on developing those features. The user base that uses them is simply too small to make it cost-effective.

This thread needs Arthur C. Clarke's famous 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I don't think we'll be getting any "super powers", but it may feel like it when you consider the tech we'll be wielding...

We don't know if it will be possible to have symbols on ships, NQ have said they'd like to implement "painting" of voxels, but there's no ETA on that (source is January 2018 AMA). The possibility of deception is huge, however. If you're in visual range of another ship, you're probably within weapons range. Attack decisions will probably be made long before that. We don't know how scanning will work, or at what range ships will show up on your scanners and/or minimap. We don't know if the game will identify ships for us, by displaying "name tags" above ships. We don't know if it will be possible to "spoof" ship transponder tags so that you can "look like someone else" on a radar screen. Neutral ships may be recognized by certain orgs, but not by others, so YMMV. I doubt anyone will trust a neutral if it's armed, and if it isn't, pirates and bandits will love the heads-up...

Concepts like "very expensive" or "takes a long time" are just speedbumps in MMO's. All they do is delay the point where everyone "has it". If a feature is significantly valuable, players will do ridiculous things to get that advantage... which inevitably leads to it being nerfed severely once "too many" players have it...

I don't think NQ want players flying off to colonise their "own systems", so I expect they'll make it very hard to do outside of the "planned expansion" represented by the introduction of stargate mechanics. I may be wrong, time will tell. If there's no way to measure the distance to those little dots of light in the sky, you could potentially fly for months without "getting there". You may never get there... I expect that once the stargate expansion arrives, we'll be given the means to target a specific set of stars, so that jumpgates can be built. I do not expect that we'll be able to expand in any and all directions. That can easily be achieved by limiting the range of the stargate probes, so that a defined volume of space can be expanded into. NQ can can arrange the placement of stars any way they like, DU is not Elite Dangerous where our RL galaxy is mapped as realistically as possible, so the distances between stars in DU will be whatever NQ wants them to be. I also don't believe that the planned FTL drives will help us to reach other stars. I think those drives will need some mechanism (like beacons) that have to be placed before you can warp from point-to-point. FTL drives won't just be "super engines" that make you go incredibly fast, warping between points will be a defined process.

The planned RDMS (Rights and Duties Management System) for DU will be the most sophisticated system ever seen in an MMO. The devblogs are currently being migrated to a new section of the website, once that's complete you'll be able to find the relevant blog more easily.

Unfortunately, a "PVE-only mode" would break DU's design. Just like in EVE, DU needs item destruction to drive the economy. If mined resources are not removed from the world via construct destruction, the economy will stagnate, because more and more resources will come into play every day.

I suspect that the real desire behind all these "mining tool" requests is to allow a greater volume of ore per hour to be extracted. The rate that resources enter game play is very important, because if the rate of mining exceeds the rate of material destruction, it means that the market could become oversupplied with resources, leading to depressed prices and no sense of "scarcity". If materials are not destroyed in DU, the "pool" of resources available to players will grow continuously. The faster you can mine, the quicker the existing resource deposits will be exhausted, which means expansion to other systems will have to happen faster, which will lead to lower player densities, etc. Perhaps it will be self-correcting though, because if resources become dirt-cheap, PVP can flourish (replacing losses will be cheap and easy), which will make it harder to mine, etc.

If you're thinking in terms of "Early Access", which is usually understood to be a fully playable version of a game, but with some bugs and ongoing development, you will be disappointed. DU is in pre-alpha, there isn't much "game" yet, and we only get access to the servers one day a week. Most people that have bought in up to this point have done so because they feel the game will be worthwhile, and are therefore willing to support the development with upfront cash in exchange for a great game later. The actual game play we're getting currently is not what we're paying $100+ for, we all believe we'll get our value for money later, that's what crowdfunding is all about, after all. If you really want to enjoy just playing the game, wait until late in alpha2 or even beta, because by then we will probably have 24/7 access and almost all the features will be implemented.

Yup, no collision damage is totally unrealistic. So is respawning after death... The simulation breaks down because in RL the fear of death (and the associated economic cost) limits the popularity of kamikaze attacks. And of course, suicide ramming is not much fun for the victim in game play terms. Aside from the technical difficulties in "correctly" implementing collision damage, it would probably result in a meta where only small and very large ships are practical in game play. Large chunks of metal with a few engines attached will become the most popular weapons for destroying medium (and even large) ships and planetary bases. That may be quite realistic, but it certainly won't make for very entertaining game play... We selectively implement realism in games whenever it suits the intended design, but whenever it is inconvenient technically or undesirable in game play terms, we abandon realism and replace it with pure fantasy (a.k.a. game lore). Realistic simulation in DU is fairly superficial and confined to very specific features.

The idea of "dogfighting in space" is probably totally unrealistic, the only reason why anyone would expect it to happen is because that's the way it happens "in the movies" and in the space combat games Chris Roberts used to make 20 years ago (e.g. Wing Commander and Privateer). StarWars is "space fantasy", but more recently the TV series "The Expanse" has shown us a far more realistic depiction of what space combat may actually be like. We don't even have dogfights in atmosphere anymore in RL, it's all missiles now and firing at radar blips that you can't even see with the naked eye. Warfare is not a sport, it's all about killing the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible, while avoiding being killed yourself. The most "futuristic" weapons research in RL is focusing on unmanned remotely controlled war machines and missile-based warfare. However, we're usually happy to abandon realism in games because it makes it more "fun". If DU wasn't pushing the limits of technology, we probably would have twitchy dogfights modeled on WWII aerial combat. If DU was purely a "space combat game", NQ would be spending 100% of their dev effort in making it as "immersive" as possible, instead of spending 25-30% of the dev hours on combat systems and the rest of the time on the voxel-based server tech and the myriad other features that make up the virtual world of DU...

Your preferences shape your conclusion, of course. Sounds like you'd prefer if ALL players could spend 90% of their game time in PVP, with the "boring" stuff like mining and manufacturing as automated as possible. Nothing wrong with that goal, provided you're the kind of player that likes to PVP all the time. NQ are not marketing DU as a "PVP game" though. They are trying to provide activities that will accommodate a wide range of playstyles. DU has PVP, but it's not the focus of the game. If you don't like mining and crafting, leave that to those who will enjoy it, and just buy your military gear on the market. That's how it's worked in EVE for the last 15 years...