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.

Why can you only have radar on moving ships? That is the king of artificial limit I'm talking about. A movable object and a not movable object (if there are any differences after release) are actually the same thing, if you aren't moving. Why couldn't a ship have all the sensors work if it isn't moving? If you are going to use that mechanic, why not a mechanic that just says you have an X% chance to see an enemy at Y range, and adjust those by the stealthers stealth skill, and the detectors scanning skill. That goes back to adjusting the possibility of being seen based on different factors. The test could just as effectively be done based on the quality of the detection system vs the quality of the stealth system and further adjusted by things like the profile of the stealth ship, etc. This doesn't require complex systems of 5 different sensors that detect different types of effects from the stealth ship. Why couldn't you just have a jammer on your ship? Radar is very sensitive to jamming, and because of the way jamming would likely work it would basically blind the sensor. Again the idea that you have to place something beforehand, and then go pick it up doesn't make sense. Again this would require mechanics that don't make sense to me to limit the behavior of these devices in this way. All of this also is based on the limitation that other types of sensors can not be on your ship..... because. It might be one way to enforce balance, but is unnecessarily complex. It relies on limitations that don't make sense, at least to me, and could all be wrapped up in a nice format as a scanner unit, and a some stealth technologies. If you make them both have reliability factors, and allow skill to play a part in whether they are implemented properly the mechanic ends up being fairly balanced.

The point is that everyone will just have all the sensors. It doesn't matter how many different types are created. And all ships will either not be able to stealth, or will have all the types of stealth possible. If you make it so that you can't hide from 1 sensor if you are hiding from a different type, then stealth just ends up not being possible. If you make some kind of limit to what kinds of sensors that can be combined on a ship, people will just find ways to work around it. It ends up working so all ships that want to stealth have all types of stealth technology available and all ships that need to be able to detect them have all types of sensors. It ends up being the same functionality as the "Magic Cloaks" just with different fluff. The only way to keep people from putting all the different sensors on probably every ship would be to create artificial limits on the sensors so that they just can't be put on the ships, and even then people will just make small cores with the different sensors and permanantly "dock" them on the ship. My point is that all these rules, and complexities don't end up changing anything. They are mechanics that are easily gotten around and end up just costing more money to accomplish the same function as the "magic cloak" or a single sensor type.

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying the detection and stealth are unnecessary. I was pointing out that having multiple types of detection and ways around them doesn't benefit the game play. If people need that to feel immersed in the game I don't have any problem with it, but to me it is added complexity for no real benefit. I wasn't saying the detection and stealth are unnecessary.

All of this discussion is just fluff for how stealth/detection works. None of it is needed for actual game play. If you have different sensors, and different types of stealth it will simply require adding all of them to every ship to be able to perform that function. It will add nothing to the gameplay except cost unless there is some "magical" limit of not having certain types of mechanics on the ship together.

You are acting like it's a canadian thing.... Austrailia, Asia, africa, south america, even antarctica are all getting treated the exact same way.

I would say that it shows they decided to make everywhere outside of the US pay the same price for an item. It has nothing to do with any specific country (edit- other than US). NQ decided a specific thing about the US. Their are no other countries paying any different, whether next to the US, or on the other side of the world. NAFTA is an agreement made between the countries in North America, and deals with taxes and regulations between the governments. Businesses are not bound to sell the same items or if they do to sell them at the same rate even when they are located in the countries affected. If NQ decided to set aside a different pricing between Ontario, and Quebec they would be within their rights to do so. You can keep complaining about this, but that doesn't help your case. It would be much more effective to simply ask for support from the forums to have NQ come out and explain their stance on US having a different price. Starting your first thread on a forum and then being as aggressive as you were tends to throw up a wall between yourself and the people you are apparently trying to appeal to. Also, profanity is still against the forum rules.

The company is not in the US. The business is in Europe. NAFTA does not apply to them.

So your point is US get's the packages for less expensive than anywhere else, and you don't think it should be that way. You may be right, but NQ can set prices however they want. However, we can assume they didn't set this up without reason. It could be because of the VAT as brought up before, or some other reason. They don't have to explain the reasons, but it would probably help some people's frustrations.

The OP was a very vague start of a discussion about restrictions placed on what people can do outside of safe zones. The rest of the conversation was what generally ends up getting brought up about PvP vs non-PvP play styles. The discussion is still valuable to a point about what should be protect-able, how those protections should be implemented, and where they should be able to be implemented. All types of protection are a restriction of peoples ability to do whatever they want, and so there is a struggle of different protections vs the limitations those protections enforce.

@maxxuser Blaze is right here. It is actually cheaper for you than it would be for someone in the US based on exchange rates. 282.43 CAD = 220.23 USD ; 230 USD = 295.03 CAD