Felonu

Sorry if anybody has an issue with me snipping parts. I'm trying to keep in the context of everything I'm responding to, but don't want my posts to be massive. Those were actually the posts I was talking about when I agreed that some people might be saying PvP was less important. I disagree with that stance also. I don't consider the information they've given so far to be indicative of a "hard-core" PvP style. I think full loot drop/partial looting, with safe money/dacs, and with safe storage of goods not to be that hardcore. Then you add in protection bubbles on some stuff, and entire safe moons, and you have a system that can be balanced and fun for a large population of PvP and non-PvP oriented players.

All ships would end up just having every type of available sensor, because it would be too much of a disadvantage not to. I doubt it ends up being any different gameplay than magic cloaks, and magic see invisibility in the long run. I think adding optimizations to different build ideas has to be very carefully thought about. Any time you make one design over another more optimized you reduce the viability of creativity in design.

I agree with you that there are hurdles and that NQ will find a good balance. As far as laying a TCU down, I don't think it would work that way. I would assume it would be the same as someone flying a dynamic construct into an area - The area owner can allow/disallow new constructs from being added, but the original owner still has ownership of his construct as long as it's there. The TCU owner would be able to destroy the construct however because they have rights to do so in their own territory.

@maxxuser Using profanity is against the forum rules. I understand you are frustrated, but game developers have to make decisions about what areas they want to specifically handle. This means a company that is in France might decide to handle most places in their common format, and then handle specific other places in ways that work for them. In this case the only place they seem to have specifically handled was the US. Constructive debate and discussion of whether that is a good practice, or other areas should be handled is much more effective at getting something changed than just rage-leaving.

There have been multiple posts (most of the posts you seem to be taking as saying PVP is a small part of the game) saying that having a balance is important. I see no posts saying they want safety everywhere. I do agree with you that some people seem to think PvP is less important than PvE, and NQ says that isn't right. I kinda get the impression you think the opposite, and that would be wrong too. According to NQ there is a balance between PVP, and PVE that has to exist in the game. This balance is the common debate on this subject. You talk about bringing PvP into the safezones, and some people are talking about safety measures being brought outside of them. I believe this is a valid debate, and if your PvE focused friends left then it means the balance may not be in the proper place for them. I personally find it more worthwhile to stick around and make my voice heard on where I would like to see the balance, and see where NQ actually goes with the balance before making any hard decisions. I specifically called out protections outside of safezones and TCUs. It is the belief of some that protection bubbles will only exist on TCUs since they released the information about those. I don't believe that was what they meant, but I think that is the point of discussions like this. Personally I think that if protection bubbles can be applied to ships and if they are not too expensive they would help the PvP/PvE balance quite a bit. I know there has to be limits on it, though, so that the PvP leaning customers are served properly also. I want to wait on NQ's ideas on the subject before getting too into the specifics though.

The three quotes you pointed out were all saying very specifically that it doesn’t need to be 100% one way or the other. You quoted people saying they are against 100% pvp as an example of people being 100% against pvp. The person you responded to was talking about how there is granularity that can be taken into account and it doesn’t have to be a for/against debate. I just wanted to point out the fallacy of the all or nothing context of your response to the idea of moderation. In some ways I can agree with nanoman and some others here. I think that 100% protection inside the bubbles doesn’t necessarily mean that we need 0% protection outside. If that is the case anyone who wants to avoid pvp only gets to experience a very small (<1%) percentage of the game. I’m hoping there will be some protections outside of safe zones and tcu, and am waiting for more information from NQ.

Information on what survival mechanics will exist has not been released as far as I know. As long as we don't have to log in every day, or eat/drink more than every few hours of game play I think it would add some nice agricultural aspects. There are already threads about whether people want this mechanic or not.

You could take control of an area (possibly within a protected area) and try to create a "Museum" of sorts where you could congregate interesting designs. You would be able to allow people to place a BPed design down (you could give them access to place, and then remove it after done). That way you could create a place for people to show off their creations without having a special mechanism for it. This wouldn't be perfect (designs that are dependent on the landscape would be difficult/impossible to do justice), but should be possible. That doesn't mean I dislike your idea. I am just trying to explain 1 way it could be implemented without special mechanisms outside what has already been said would be in the game.

A lot of people just ignore polls like this too. I, personally, don't see the point in voting.

Remember not to take everything said on the forums as fact. People regularly treat their expectations and interpretations of NQs statements as fact, but that doesn't make it true. I'm not speaking to the limitations of FTL. I don't remember any specific details about the rarity of them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Not enough options

You are turning your post away from DU Ports, and toward Win vs Linux debate. There are plenty of places that debate can be made, but this game forum probably isn't the best place.

Please be careful of NDA conversations about your gameplay experiences in the game. Your experience with using WINE could be considered covered by NDA.

I don't think that's the general opinion. Some people seem to think that, but according to NQ force-fields are intended to protect items while players are offline. Big organizations aren't going to need these defenses as much because they're likely to have people online more often, and better defensive abilities.

There was already a way to counter it. Attack the base.

One reason to build would be to compete. If another org wants to hurt this orgs bottom line ( and hopefully there will be enough competition that this will always be true). They’ll set up a competitive market across the street. Or if there isn’t as much business there a smaller outfit could build a smaller market base with less overhead to compete by having less expensive trade fees.

Actually everyone who buys them is profiting. The people that are hurt are the other dac hoarders that have to sell dacs at the lower price. This is basic market economics, and I don't think is a problem.

Not yet, but possibly in the future.

This sounds like something that could be built by players. I don’t know that we would need anything special for this purpose.

Actually it seems like the antigravity units will be needed by the new flight mechanisms they mentioned in the recent news release . Also, if static constructs by definition don’t have velocity, then gravity can’t move the construct. This would mean that antigravity units would be more of a rp device on these structures than a necessity.

I don’t think your questions can be answered without breaking the NDA.

What would be the problem with that? I don't see any issues with the land not being a viable defense. As long as it doesn't destroy any faster than mining would in an unprotected area it wouldn't change anything significant. The don't "dig", but they have a delayed blast so they don't go off until they are underground. They penetrate much further than the blast pattern. This was only an example using what we have today that makes sense for the way the real world works though. A weapon that is even more effective could exist in the game. We'll have to see where it goes for this. I would expect that the physics of preserving the matter would be too complex to have, and invulnerable terrain would be even worse than disappearing terrain for realism in my opinion.

@CalenLoki I think you are making a couple of assumptions about weapons that I think keeps you from accepting how they will likely solve the deep base problem. The main assumption is that if a weapon is strong enough to dig easily then it must go through all built structures easily as well. I don't think you will be right about this. This goes back to the idea that if a nanoformer can mine hard materials quickly, then it should be able to atomize other people immediately. It makes no sense to allow that for gameplay, and so won't likely be the way it works. Sometimes reality would impede gameplay and you need to separate the game to make it more fun. 2 easy solutions are giving dirt and low value rock less armor values than basic building materials so that it can be easily removed by weapons, or making weapons designed for this purpose. A weapon example would be an explosive that when placed are positioned some distance underground before exploding (again would go through natural resources easily, but would be stopped by man-made defenses). I mentioned before bunker buster missiles that exist today as an example of this second option before. No weapon used in these examples should drop collectible resources however, so that mining is not affected. Redesigning the protection systems seems like a much more dramatic change to solve a problem that could easily be solved in simple ways.

Well, it's all speculative currently. I don't think having underground bases will make you invulnerable, and stated my reason why. You think they would be and stated your reasons. When we have more information about the mechanics of these things the debate will actually have some level of accuracy.

If you have an etsy store or something you should let us know. I think people would pay to have these cute guys on their desk.