Felonu

I think having the ability to warn and make people aware of “restrictions” when they enter should be enough. Possibly with a notification system for the owner of the land if the restrictions are broken (if stealth is not utilized effectively). This would allow it to be dealt with in game, and wouldn’t have any artificial sustems. It would simply be a notification, and alert system.

Yes you can update your pledge if you purchase a lower tier and want to later.

There is no definite answer of whether survival mechanics will be implemented. Make sure to check out the trello, news/devblogs, and the other posts in the idea box here to see if your other ideas have already been suggested.

I beleive Lethys has mentioned some people already working on a 3d positioning system. They wouldn't be able to share how it works, or access the the system itself because of the NDA.

Actually he said it won't give free resources in the real game. So it will have free resources, but they will only be usable for prototyping.

As the specifics of whether or not the rdms system will have tools to allow popular voting systems of an org have not yet been released this statement is inherently false or NDA breaking. I will consider the terms organization, government, tribe, corporation, coop, commune, party, etc to be interchangeable. They all have the same basic meaning with only variance in experiential association (different feelings based on your experience). I believe it would benefit the final game to have tools to allow for any type of governance the devs can find a way to accommodate. However the idea that all members of the game have to belong to any specific type of organization is absolutism, and tyrannical no matter what type of governance that organization has. I agree with a number of the other people here who do not want any rules outside of those necessary as decided by NQ to be applied to everyone. All types/sizes of organization/government are sets of rules that are set in place and ways to enforce those rules on the members. Whoever is in charge (whether it be 1 person, a board, or all the members) make rules, need some means to enforce them (police/elders/enforcers/HR department/Boss), and a way to punish offenders (imprisoned/cast out/beat up/fired). All rules take away liberty from people. By default all people have as much liberty as they possibly can have. When you start making rules you might protect people from each other's actions, but you have placed boundaries on every persons liberty as well. The idea of making every person be a part of an org/gov by default means that you are reducing the baseline of how much freedom people have by default. I hope this helps you to understand why some others, and myself are against the idea of a government that all people are made a part of by default.

There will need to be balancing done by NQ in accordance with their vision of the game. If you make anything both expensive and ineffective then it loses any point in existing (Not that they won't exist at all, you can find evidence of that in any sky mall magazine). There are ways of limiting things without pushing them into the not worth it part of the value chart. I think automated defenses should be somewhere above the cost of normal turrets (could be same cost + cost of buying/effort of making a script to run them), and have max effectiveness below the average user manually using a turret. How much cost above, and effectiveness below I'll leave up to NQ to find the balance that is in line with their vision. The balance of these things will be much easier to debate when we have working functionality in place, because balancing any game in relation to another game never works. Every game needs to adjust until the right balance is maintained.

The specific purpose that I quoted was to protect your bases while you are offline for periods of time throughout the day. My statement when applied in context was that automated turrets could be used for other purposes (Like increasing the defensive capabilities while you are active), but should not be needed to keep you from getting attacked when offline. To add to that idea, NQ has talked about scripts being run on local machines so automated defenses probably won't work when there is no active user online anyway.

The defense bubbles are intended for this purpose as stated by NQ. They have a 24-48 hour duration (Which I hope is able to be ended by the defender) so that offline owners can’t be raided without time to prepare for defense. That doesn’t mean I don’t think some automated defenses are needed, but just not for this purpose.

If your land is in a protected area it can't be taken.

This is believed to be true by some people, but is an interpretation of JC's words. Some of us still think this may not actually be the intention of his words.

To tie the idea back to the OP, cloaking technology is one aspect that can be use in this balance by limiting the PvP exposure for those individuals. We don't know how all the protections will be implemented, or how that will balance the different playstyles yet. We can only take NQ at it's word that they intend to do so. This is why I believe these discussions about the different ways to implement these technologies are important, and you see me commenting as much as I do on them. I, personally, have little interest in the PvP gameplay, but see the value in it. I want the game to be fun for me, because the building aspect in a single shard universe is a dream come true. For that to be true there does need to be a balance between more and less aggressive play styles.

I believe that is a misconception of the PvP discussions on this forum. Most discussions turn at one point to balance between PvP, and Non-PvP. If you take the forums as an indicator of what people want (which would not be an effective measure) then there are probably just as many people wanting non-PvP activities as wanting PvP. To be fair it is probably a lot of people that want to do some of both (but with a preference one way or other) and a small amount that want only one or the other. We need balance as NQ has pointed out so that all play styles are represented.

Based on the tone of their comments about it I think they believe they can make the safe area last a while. I don't know how they plan to do so, but they don't seem to be worried about it. The fact that they seem to have thought out other systems so well gives me confidence that they have a good plan in place.

Resources are expected to be finite. I don't have time to look up the reference right now, but if someone else doesn't I'll add one later.