Supermega

@ostris I think I need to clarify my thought process....
 
I wasn't implying that PVP is less important. What I meant is DU has many features/ things you can do, and together all those features together form this complex sandbox game. No feature is more important then the other. My impression is that Novaquark intends for there to be a sort of symbiotic relationship between the features/play styles, where they effect each other in an dynamic an organic way. Hence the use of emergent gameplay to describe DU.
 
In Physics, a Complex Machine, is a combination of Simple machines.... PVP being like one of those simple machines, that makes up the Complex Machine that is DU...  thats was my thought process when I typed that. Not sure if that makes sense? but, apologies on my part lol. 

This was never up for debate nor was there disagreement on this. It's also not the topic the OP raised.

I understand. ill edit the post.

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.

There's only one thing that will stop DU from becoming "Rust in Space", and that's very careful game design.
 
That does not imply "rules to prevent PVP", but rather mechanics that make it less attractive as a primary game activity.
 
Let's face it, if destruction is easier, cheaper and more fun than building, we'll very quickly establish a dominant playstyle in DU.
 
Very few players are going to last long in DU if they never leave the arkship safezone. There are only basic resources there, and it represents... maybe 1% of DU's entire game world ? The MSA's have no resources at all, so what will anyone do all day if they don't leave that safezone ?
 
I have no idea what NQ have planned with regards to keeping DU balanced, but a handful of safezones is certainly not going to cut it.

There is several threads here on this and NQ have said that currently there is no planning for survival mechanics.

Which is where you and I have a different opinion. Or at least define 'do whatever you want' differently.

What concerns me is that it seems some consider PVP to be that unless you are in a safezone I am free to attack you, kill you, destroy your stuff or take it and I do not need a reason or justification for it. For me that realy goes against what I believe to be the very core of what DU is about. By following this doctrine you make the game like any other where it's all about me, myself and I.

Counterintutively, not moderating the simulation can lead to the simulation strangled by the players. Well, strangled by one type of player that goes around harming all the other players, leaving with only that type of player and a shrinking playerbase thanks to the one type of player driving all the others out.  On the other hand, an argument can be made about this being natural and humans naturally being jerks

@Anopheles
What you are saying is not really unique, there is many like yourself and that's fine.. You'd come across them in the threads already here.
 
But anyway. since were here and were already getting the usual arguments on this here's my thoughts.
That DU will have non-consensual PVP outside of the safezones is fine. That some seem to think that implies you should be allowed to just put up a blockade and shoot anything getting out of the safezone IMO is not. That some seem to think this means you can just gang up and attack/destroy anything or anyone who is doing anything outside the safezone is also not fine. DU should not become gank central. DU is a social, community and building game with PVP elements which I believe will be implemented to provide a means to resolve conflict when diplomacy fails. ARK style 'wait at the exit and shoot anything coming through' will very quickly kill the game and thus the content you seek.  
That said, from the little we know DU mechanics (for combat) really do not lend themselves well to EVE style ganks and will require actual organisation, command structure, planning and proper execution. I have yet to see any org that gives me the idea they can pull this off but some will try. No 'Wait for it ... press F1 to gank' in DU which is good.
 
Personally I do not buy into the 'all elements of DU are created equal' as some do. I expect and believe DU will focus around community, building and expansion. With that comes the need to have the ability to go to war when you have to. War is not a goal in DU, it is a tool/a means to an end. As such combat, I believe, will be implemented in such a way that it serves the purpose it is intended for and by that definition it will not be a primary function/mechanic in DU. Some, like @Lethys will disagree because it is a focal point for them which I understand and that's fine obviously, we'll see how this develops.
 
Frankly, I  see way more opportunities and profit using PVP in other areas such as markets and economy. Large scale PVP conflict will often be triggered/set up by events benefiting the economy and the players active there, much like in EVE.

The thing about PVPers especially pirates, is that it's a low effort - high reward situation.
As natural,pirates profit from other people's hard work.
So if stealing another man's cargo is not considered a high risk situation,we risk running into a gameplay inbalance.

The first half of your post sounds awesome.  Welcome.
 
As for the rest.  It kind of seems like your setting up an argument where there isn't one.  If you like how DU is currently planning to handle PVP then awesome.
 
If you don't understand why people would seek to restrict a free form sandbox.  I can explain that.  It's because they aren't interested in PVP sometimes, or at all.
 
We don't exactly know everything about how PVP is going to work yet but it sounds like NQ has a pretty good plan to me.
 
But if the kind of sandbox that you are looking for requires 100% unrestricted PVP.  Then you're asking NQ to chase away an entire category of player just to provide cannon fodder for a specific type of PVP player.
 
That doesn't make sense to me.
 
Why do all PVPers have to be pirates anyway?
 
More PVPers need to step up and start roleplaying as mild mannered traders, who are secretly armed to the teeth.  What's the fun in attacking me while i'm trying to build something anyway?
 
 
 
 

There are so many new members of organizations! Even limiting the map to organizations that have at least 6 members, this map has 4370 nodes.
in order to continue creating maps as they grow unwieldy, I have changed the display parameters a bit.
EDIT: now with 100% more Tortuga City...
Shockeray's Dual Universe Community Map 1.2.3 04-18-18 (<--click here for interactive)
Image:

(Soul Nebula is #5, woo!)

You got ideas for ships? Links ? Photos? Videos? Plans?
LINK THEM HERE
 
I've been following this blog for years.... http://conceptships.blogspot.com/ amazing ships there
 
Hope to see some amazing stuff

Considering they went free to increase the playerbase, I'd say it stands.

To be honest, EVE is only still going because it went (sort of) free.  And the more recent reviews are far more scathing than when I was still playing about 5 years ago.

Custom firewalls. What's next? Someone literally making an operating system. We need that. Desperately. Maybe even an internet.

We know DU will have PvP and non-PvP areas.
 
Well, they recently expanded safe zones to moons. That seems pretty real.
 
So lets just build another Eve and call it a day?  Why would you NOT want to cater to those players the same way the game caters to the hard core PvPer? Creative people don't need much (because they're creative). Just look at the recent city event. Most online PvP games are segmented anyway with the hardcore doing their super serious secret society thing, the small timers playing with their buddies, the lone wolves/griefers/gankers having their own version of fun. DU won't be any different in that regard, but it could be if it had a social/creative element where all those groups could mingle together from time to time. Bringing players together is something all MMO's, including DU is trying to achieve. The incentive is a larger player base, and a much more accessible game.

What is clear from last weekends city build is that there are people playing the game that enjoy the social aspect that cities provide. It is also clear that cities need planning, a government, law enforcement, garbage collection, entertainment, among a host of other things. All those "things" give players something to do. Some of it is sims in space, but some people like that kind of thing. If DU can get those kinds of people playing the same game as the space marines and quanta miners... it'd be the holy grail.
 
DU doesn't need reasons to build cities because people want to build cities. What DU needs are mechanics that cater to those people. It was touched on earlier, but in-game communications, yes I know discord, but in-game chat, especially localized, gets people closer together, it's social. Emotes, completely unnecessary, but again social. Trading, bartering, buying, selling, directly between in-game avatars, with goods and services that can't be magically obtained from terminals or email. There are players wanting to engage in those activities, just as there are players wanting to fly around and blow things up. I think there is room in the universe for both.
 
 

Wow, that's all amazing work.... I never had the pleasure of playing landmark. I don't understand why this game was canceled......

apart from the construction, Landmark had 0 gameplay but fortunately now have to DU

@ShioriStein You didn't get his idea.
 
It's like dress-up paper doll (google it):
Original BP is the doll itself.
Mod schematics is the dress.
Dress without doll is useless.
If you decide to sell both your dress (that you can copy as much as you like) together with doll (which you need to buy each time) cheaper than doll, you'll loose money.

So here's one from the discord. Idea courtesy of TheGreatPigeon who assures me he's too lazy to post it. I like it enough I'll put it up and give my thoughts on it.
 
The basic gist is to allow a construct made from a blueprint to be edited, and for those changes to, themselves, be saved as a blueprint. Unlike a normal blueprint, this new type (We'll call it a 'schematic' for now,) can't be used in a factory by itself or to make new constructs. In order to be used, it requires either a construct the original blueprint was for, or a copy of that blueprint alongside it.
 
A usage case:
X designs a fightercraft that's fairly popular. Z finds that it's undergunned and a little slow for his tastes. He adds some more weapons, changes the materials to lighten it up, and adds a sick spoiler just for fun. When he saves this, it becomes a schematic. If he has a copy of X's fighter, he can apply that schematic, in a factory or some other industrial unit, or possibly directly to the construct using guides and his nanoformer. If he has a BP, he can put both into a factory and produce a copy of the fighter with his schematic already applied.
 
If he has neither the fighter or the blueprint, his schematic doesn't do anything at all.
 
So this achieves a few things:
1: It allows iterative creativity while still protecting the IP of the original creator.
2: It can drive market sales for all parties. If Z's schematic is really popular, People are going to want to buy a lot more of X's fighter to get to use it!
3: It can allow players/orgs to customize their own variants of a construct without needing the original designer to do the work themselves, but still get paid for their original work.

Now obviously, as a toggle, a BP could still have an "Allow/Disallow schematics" sort of option, to give the original IP holder more control. But I think a system like this could allow for some very interesting interactions to take place, without any enormous degree of additional complexity.

A bounty system can be abused. Bad avatar A get 1 million credit bounty placed on its head, he goes to his mate (or players other avatar) who shoot bad avatar A and collects the bounty. This ends up being a win-win for the bad guys, not only did they cause a loss of some sort by the original act to get a bounty on their head, but they then end up fleecing the player again by collecting the very bounty that was meant to punish......  yep, rewarding the bad guys.
 
So bounties aren't as great as they may seem