vertex

You're welcome - no worries! On the contrary - thanks for bumping the cc0 to the top of the list. And thanks for your inquiries indeed, they help me advance as well. It's awesome to get new perspectives and inspiration this way ❤️ cc0 is merely a reaction to some people getting overly afraid of not being able to lock down everything they create. We don't even know if we will be able to lock down code and design - maybe this whole idea won't even find any application in DU. I don't speak for everyone now, but at least I don't have a desire to piss at the legs of fair trading builders. Only in the soup of those that scream "product piracy" from the top of their lungs even before they made any product or started selling. Those who claim DU will fail if we can't secure "intellectual property" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, I didn't give static/space cores any thought until now. As in reality - homes (usually) aren't something you mass-produce and sell from stock. If someone builds something that he doesn't intend to sell in the first place, there is no DRM in effect - it's not a proprietary "product". Hence I think this got nothing to do with our business Same for dynamic cores - unique constructs are not targeted by the cc0. The creator would first have to blueprint it and offer to sell a proprietary/protected version to other players. Then these players might fly around with their new ship and they learn that it doesn't perform as well as they hoped in certain situations. They might want to change that button position on that other screen, or remove the seat that always gets in the way when there's an emergency. That's when they'd wish for the permission to modify their construct. That's where the cc0 comes in and rescues this poor fella, who loves his construct, but can't change the things that really vex him about it. If it's a unique construct, never sold, never locked down - have fun with it - none of our business /edit/ps Of course they can always ask the original creator to change stuff for them, too. If their support/service is good, there wouldn't be much incentive to call out for copycats, I guess.

Thanks for the nice feedback - I too think it's fun One thing you got wrong tho: We don't aim at cheap knock-offs. I get how that feels implied - like some dude at the australian bazar selling cheap "Roolex" - but that's far from what we would do. We're more like that tuning garage, where you drive your shiny sports car in and get it back with improved stats. Nobody would call that a cheap copy - not only because copying something will be everything but cheap, but because we'll be even more expensive than the original, because we will provide full access to everything and won't do mass-production or whatever. So far it's unclear if we even got the skills or manpower needed - or if anyone likes to do anything at all. Sadly the org news got wiped, where I said that the only serious rule in cc0 is "no obligations" - so there might as well be lots of people in our org that just want to make a statement, but will never move a finger to actually copy anything. You said it: the idea is fun. That's what it's all about - the idea. Tho if someone really puts down the coin, cc0 will most probably get active on the job. Just that nobody will call this cheap - it's the opposite - it's people wealthy enough to afford not only the original, but a dedicated group of "tuners" that take the original and create a copy from it, which will take a long time and for an exact replica we'll need access to the original. We liberate proprietary design and a liberated version of an otherwise locked-down construct will be much more expensive. That was my main argument in previous discussions - a DRM infected product should sell for way less, because the buyer gets way less for the money. For all I care you could just as well ask the original designer, if he's willing to provide you an unlocked version if you pay him just as much as you'd pay us. Given that through mass-production of locked down constructs you can sell cheaper to the masses, he might even be inclined to setup a contract and get this one-time big bonus /edit/ps Oh, I've put that "no obligations" bit into the OP too. Ha, cool. /edit/ps2 Just thought about some crazy designer may ask an incredible amount of money for his proprietary crap. In that case, well, we might be cheaper, true, but it would be an even sweeter treat if we can provide a better version at lower cost

The next test session starts on February 6th. See this page for the schedule: https://www.dualthegame.com/en/server-status/ Since Alpha 3 just dropped, we currently have pretty short test sessions, but expect them to get back to 96 hours once Alpha 3 got smoothed out a bit more Ps: you can read "Alpha 3 Test 06 February 2020" on the very top of dualthegame.com which links to the page above.

Yeah, great grapics, but the gameplay sucks.

"Why would they have to continue living when you don't see them?" - Bernd Lehahn @Context I like that username ? Yeah, I'm holding on to my quanta as well - even during alpha, even if I lose it all, I just like the fact being on the liquid side of things. Plus it's fun learning about some economics. Bought stuff from the market, delivered it 35km to another market, made 50k from it. Doesn't matter if it stays - for now I count it as a success

I've seen "Ready Player One" yesterday. Not about to discuss that movie tho. Watched it because JC kept referencing the book over and over and I didn't want to read it, since a friend already complained about it being a bit out there overly referencing 80's pop culture all the time. Tho seeing this topic again, I feel like adding this: when I look at the vision of "The OASIS" in Ready Player One and linking it to the vision of "emergent gameplay", I think maybe players will create challenges that you can win some day. Like what prevents us from having people to put in quanta in order to enter a race event and have them win the pot in the end? 50% goes to 1st place, 30% to second place, 10% to 3rd and the remaining 10% to the organizer? The participants would have to arrive and be registered at the starting location. Race starts once the organizer announces the destination, where containers await. These could be like the vending machines that give out the speeder parts at the markets. The first to arrive would take an item from each of three containers, where the first would contain an amount of 3, second 2 and third only 1 - plus having a cooldown, so 1st and 2nd place wouldn't just take it all. This should result in 1st winner handing in 3 tokens, second 2 and third only 1. There you have it. To win in DU means winning the CC0 race or whatever other challenges we create. DU will be another world - like Second Life. We are the ones to fill it with goals. Think Last Man Standing once pvp is solid!

To win DU is to uncover The Secret. But I don't need that to be happy in DU @BiGEdge I'd hit like, but let's not unearth that topic again.

Pew pew pew! I steal all yer ducks! Err... dacs! Boy, I was unable to read this inflated thread completely, but I still want to add to the front that welcomes DACs being sold ig, oog and wherever people chose to wave them around. It seems like all of this is based on the definition of pay to win. I read blablabla DACs ARE pay to win blabla that is FACT blablabla. But all I hear is... DACs are not pay to win. You should get your definition of p2w straight before even continuing the debate. One side just claiming their interpretation being "FACT" doesn't help anyone and you can't discuss a matter if your terms ain't synchronized in the slightest. To me "pay to win" is not synonymous to "pay for advantage". Pay to win implies that you need to pay in order to win. As soon as you can win without paying more than everyone else does for subscription, it's not "pay to win" anymore. You brought up the example of GTA Online? Guess what - I paid for a shark card once to gift it, because I was stupid enough to blow a friends sale worth a million bucks and I wanted to make up for it. Otherwise I'm above level 200, got everything I want, can take up any challange I like - just from doing the default gameplay. That is not pay to win, even if the conversion of real life money to in-game currency is way more direct than selling DACs in DU. As long as you don't acknowledge there's a difference between getting a (probably little) advantage with selling DAC in order to maybe speed up a win versus a title where you can only win in theory by playing, like all those "free to play - pay to win" titles out there, I consider the claim DU being p2w rather offensive. All discussion with this completely being overlooked is futile to begin with. By the way: if someone needs to get personal, I think that person should calm down, take a breath and consider the possibility of just being plain wrong. Nothing bad there - we all are at times. Just grow up Edit, post scriptum Could even think of DACs being the opposite of pay to win, because you can play to pay. Of course you'll need longer to achieve something, but do it long enough and (in theory, because we ain't there yet) you could win without paying anything. That's the opposite of the definition for "pay to win" where you can only win if you pay (more).

Well, I'd expect some form of "Intellectual Property Repossession Corps" to evolve in the future as part of emergent gameplay. As I understand it players will have to set up their own police force and rules. Quite frankly I do have a slight fraction of fear that NQ might get the impression that this organization is aimed towards harrassing other players or organizations. That's definitely not the intended purpose, but if this concern should arise, I'll close the gates without resistance. Tho I hope this won't be the case and we'll be allowed to have our fun I think we'll see during Alpha/Beta how this plays out and if it creates too much discord we'll start with a blank slate on release, living within the yet to be finalized ruleset. I've just blindly accepted the first member and missed to read the application. First time I got one from somebody I didn't already know Does anyone know if I can still view the original application message again somewhere? @Kiwi well, we have a rule that no org member is allowed to work against his or her other organizations he/she is a member of - at least not on account of CC0. This one rule already excludes anarchy as organization form. Tho even "anarchy" and "organization" do somewhat exclude each other already. Then again what else but anarchy is Dual Universe in the beginning? Anarchy is prone to give birth to groups or clans, which will have their own set of rules and moral code - what else is this world but anarchy with huge clans called France, Germany, EU or USA? Apart from that I might add some anarchistic touch to the organization - I really like that idea - thank you /edit/1st Oh and another thing regarding the placement of this organization: I think it makes a great target for all the military groups to track and hunt down "counterfeit product". I don't know if we'll even get there, but don't see everyone stealing from you as a problem, when you could see it as incentive to act and prosecute instead. Something the "IPRC" can put your awesome products to good use for, eh?

To all the poor souls that bought a proprietary design and don't like the seat color: come to us! We'll provide you with an accurate replica, improved with our own scripts and your own individual taste. Everything you buy from us is yours. Feel free to modify, copy, paste or mass produce. We're out there for you to free code and design. They lock it? We break it. They hide it? We find it. They try to control you? We'll set you free again. They want to protect the seller from the buyer? Don't let them cheat you. We'll always find a way to replicate and recreate - and because we don't have to think the stuff up, we'll excel at improving what others first had to imagine. Support freedom. Join us today. No obligations. As first act of revolution I've copied and improved upon this cool looking logo. Join and you'll be free to wave it around too! Or don't join and wave it around anyways. This is based on an image in public domain and I put my creation into CC0 too Apply today - everyone will be accepted and if we feel like it we may rebuild someones HQ at a nicer location, eh? https://community.dualthegame.com/organization/copycat/ Disclaimer Since no obligations, in contrast to everything else, is meant serious, we might never get anything done. Don't let this little note keep us from enjoying the ride tho - there will be enough flamable beverages and other kinds of mind altering substances. Just remember the only serious part: no obligations. Regarding "Free code and design!" Think of free speech, not free beer - although there shall be beer of course. Update 2020-03-20 Since the organization's page likes to be inaccessible at times, here's our discord link. Feel free to join now!

Important edit in front of this posting: I just learned more about the topic and need to relativize. When I looked at that "voxel library", I took it as some kind of "ingame construct" that lets you copy individual voxels to use somewhere else. But now I've found the "Voxel Element Library" on trello, which actually sounds very useful and is currently listed as "should make it to beta" - so all of my following concerns already are largely accounted for. Still I'd like to see an option to manipulate vertices (not me of course, please) individually, but that library would be a huge improvement already. I hope for a voxel editor too, since that "voxel library", while surely being a great achievement, really looks awful for what it implies and makes building a virtual world almost harder than building the same thing in the real world. It basically is the opposite of what I am looking for when using a computer to get creative. When I have an idea, the computer shall aid me achieve it - not add artificial barriers, solely based on technology limitations and lack of development. For this developers should be the ones creating comfortable interfaces for humans to make the software do as desired/intended. If the human needs to run the code in their brain over and over again, because the developer failed to provide a proper tool, it invalidates the whole concept of computing, where you find software algorithms for repeated tasks like these. I agree that, in my past too, there was a time when I was still "discovering computers" and considered myself soo witty while hacking one workaround for the lack of tools after another into my machine - but today I know this should not even be necessary, because the pleasure in creativity and construction neither least nor last scales with the use of proper, professional tools and should never become a dull chore. If it's the tool that makes it hard to create what you desire and the game designer can't find another way to "challenge the player", then (in my personal opinion!) the concept is just seriously flawed. Another side to this is that yes, as already said, it makes the people capable of going through such a hassle, somewhat rare and special. But that is not what you want for "emergent gameplay" and a "player-built world", because everyone wants to get creative at some point and if the most basic shapes are this hard to achieve, then yes, you may have one very beautiful construct in a thousand, but it also means 999 others, that look like mashed potatoes, clutter the whole scenery On the other hand, a beautiful work of art does not just come for free with professional tools - the artists still need a sense for aesthetics - but then they could focus on this, instead of becoming some kind of hybrid between borderline OCD and what they originally wanted to do @Tordan I can see why you've got mixed feelings about this, but I really think that proper tools just make the whole world more beautiful and enable many more artistic people to get creative. In my opinion this outweighs the glorified elitism for a small handful of so-called "voxelmancers" by far

Update: fixed it on my end using Stylish. Here's the simple CSS solution to remove only the <a> tag that contains the "Mark Read" action: .cForumList .cForumRow div.ipsDataItem_icon.ipsDataItem_category a[data-action="markAsRead"] { display: none; } ...and because it looked so empty... .cForumList .cForumRow.ipsDataItem_unread div.ipsDataItem_icon.ipsDataItem_category:before { content: '=)'; } Done!

Yarr! But seriously - alpha could be applied to other elements, like screens or windows, too. Next thought: from a technical perspective it would work for lights too - reducing alpha on light radiation would enable us to "fake" the "lightness" part of HSL in RGBA, because alpha would serve a similar idea as lightness, at least keeping the hue the same. To calculate a soft pulse for three channels is more work than just shifting alpha up and down, always using the same values for RGB. If alpha on light-emitting elements doesn't work out engine-wise, one could always translate the fourth channel internally - or just not add this method to the LUA object of these DPUs. But maybe they'll just go for setPower() with a 0 to 1 factor. Or 0 to 255. Or 0% to 100%. Alpha, power, lightness... in the end the results are similar for light emitters

They're white when there's something new to read and grey when there's nothing new. Simple: I'm a moron. I see white - I click

Regarding the icon layout and functional consistency of these forums... There are these "voice bubble" icons in front of thread titles that look very similar to the voice bubbles in front of forum area titles. Issue: Inconsistent behavior The icon in front of the forum titles marks ALL threads inside that forum read. The icon in front of the thread titles jumps to the first unread posting. Multiple times now I accidentally marked whole forum areas read, because I intuitively clicked on that icon. Possible solutions, ordered by personal preference descending: disable the "Mark forum as read" on the forum area index - the function would still be accessible from inside the forum, where we have a button on top to do the same add a confirmation "You're about to mark the whole forum as read. Continue?" on the forum area index (maybe in combination with 3.) significantly change the design of those two functions that are very different from each other (however still, the similar layout/position would lead to intuitively target that area for the wrong reason...) make the icon in front of thread titles (that now do "Go to first unread post") do "Mark this thread read" instead (but as "mark something read" is a very destructive and afaik irreversible(?) function, I strongly feel against this solution - it's just an "at least it would be consistent" kind of thing...) Thank you for your consideration

I like the general idea But I don't think we need three inputs. LUA scripting should be way more sophisticated than wasting 3 connectors for 24bit color settings. I guess if this will be realized, we'd rather get proper light setting methods for the LUA object on the DPU for key,value in pairs(self.StatusLights) do self.StatusLights[key].setColorRGB(230, 32, 8) end <edit> Regarding the code: to change the color of all your status related illumination, you'd first add all those lights to a table and then use a method to go through all of them and set the color. I've put fixed values for RGB above, but you could pass them as arguments to your method and use something like self.SetStatusLightRGB(230, 32, 8) on a button element labeled "Enable Alert!". </edit> Or .setColorHSL() maybe? What happens on .setColorRGBA() then? Do we get octarine!?

Mmh, ich steh auf #Einhornkotze Another thought regarding double names: whoever names a ship "Millenium Falcon" doesn't care about originality anyways. My guess is that original names will emerge on their own - for original constructs.

Maybe it's not worse at all if the name is accompanied by the names of the designer, builder and owner? So it's not just some "Hammerhead Corvette", but the Hammerhead Corvette, Property of Dorlas by SirDrinksalot built at Gamma Curill Prime Constructions

TheBlender: Ya, me ken! I wos jost doin a pun.. Vellnn: Hey, what's wrong with that? In fact I already thought about a small orbital glider named "CVAN Megalore" and designated as "Multipurpose Carrier of Ark-Battlestar Class". Later maybe a capital ship called "Rural Speeder MK 2¼" classified as "Medium Sized Hovercraft". I'm especially fond of the "one quarter" part in the designation. No?

I don't think the idea is to have predefined classes that players *have* to chose from - or is it? I wouldn't like that very much As I understand it "the idea" is to have a thread (about ship classes) that will serve as general chit-chat, right? Quote: "I think there should be a thread" - okays, nice idea, do it, I think the thread should go into the General Discussions forum tho Anyhow, since we are here now, I think the classes will be... Hovercraft (can't cloud) Plane (can't space) Shuttle (can't... errr... outperform other classes) Spaceship (can't atmosphere) ´

Oh, post scriptum: aye, this is a cool aspect! But I don't think you need the ram option for this. The boarding capsule could be realized without it doing high damage to the construct from impact. Sure, you could say it's Kyrium on the outside - but whoa that's expensive! If you don't have Kyrium, the impact would be bad for the boarding crew too - so just carefully attach your boarding capsule to the ship, pressurize it and weld your way through the hull. Will work just as well for entering constructs. No need for goating =)

Just a note of personal preference: I really don't like ram tactics for sanbox games where players design their own ships. True, I am a strong supporter of the #edprotestgoat (Goat will ram you anyways, David!), but in ED the ship designs are fixed. In a game where the ram tactics option would make "ram capability" a single valid construction goal, it would directly oppose the micro management of the weapon and defensive equipment options NQ will give us. It's a bit difficult for me to put this in English... but it's about balancing combat. You'll have weapons and counter measures. The more complex these are, the more tactical depth we will experience as players. Introducing the option to ignore all of this implied gameplay, by building voxel torpedoes and such, is not only about trolling, but about what players will/can chose to do. As I said - it's a personal preference and you may disagree. I can even see your point there - freedom of choice and all. But, on this very personal level and for this very topic, I really disliked the "Throw a construct at em!" tactic that is possible in other games with player built constructs. In my opinion it leads to low-end warfare (mediocre at best, because I really want to use the term "mediocre") and a dull snowball fight experience overall. Design of a battleship should be more complex than just slamming dem hammer plates in the front and get dem biggest drives in da back, yo