Oxyorum
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Oxyorum
-
-
3 hours ago, Anonymous said:
The whole point of RDM is exactly to allow this. However you've missed a key point - the residence - the building - it is technically an organisation.
What you would need to do is either set up a body corporate model, or the landlord sets up an org which renters "join" when they rent a property. The rules of the org (which can be a member of another org, such as a company that owns the building, or a city, or a nation etc) are then set to allow members to only build in an area where they have RDM permissions (their room). In that scenario - the use of sub cores, or a core with complex lua etc are all possible.
Remember this is the same scenario that one would use to build a hotel - the hotel guests need some "build" permission on some level (like putting their stuff on a bed), as well as RDM permissions around room access etc. So they may have to the temporarily "join an org" - I can see this process actually being semi automated so it is seamless and non intrusive to players - it might be a particular NQ defined type of org though, as to prevent abuse of players (since it is an artificial construct that allows us to mimic a real life experience).
So IMO a skeleton building really isn't needed so much as the org is. e.g A construction org builds a building (not a skeleton - just a building with fixtures, not fittings), it has doors and rooms, it is sold to an org as residential or hotel or whatever, they then fit it out, tailor the RDM to suit the intended purpose - selling them as apartments to individuals, renting them, hotel model, etc. The the individuals (now a member of the "building org") get to fit out their own room; and get to give guests RDM permissions for just that room, and so on.
An office building or mall is also exactly the same thing - shopkeepers sublet their shops in a mall and get fit out rights.
This is an excellent idea. I would think, however, that if RDMS is going to be as extensive as we are being lead to believe, we could probably have the organization for the building, and have those who manage the building as the only actual members (all legates probably). Then, they can give roles to tenants and whoever else they want. This is all assuming that orgs can give temporary roles to people that are not members of the organization.
-
19 minutes ago, Mucus said:
for those who have not seen RDM
RDM may solve permissions but it does not provide a static structure to attach cores to. RDM would help manage it but essentially the residence idea is about a skeleton structure that cores could be attached to. Think of it as a forma for a building shape where players donate a core of a certain size to attach to the structure.
The alternative is the placement of a core with rooms created with voxels and use doors with RDM. Cores would then need to be placed above each other to make a tall building.
A skeleton to attach cores is not very practical. In my opinion, its redundant because any one of those cores could manage the whole building most likely.
Why not have one core for the entire building, along with the rooms made with voxels and RDMS control for each room? I don't think that cores will have a limit to the amount of voxels/elements attached to them.
-
On 11/8/2018 at 9:38 AM, Mucus said:
In defined HEX areas could a hexagon be subdivided into smaller areas like residence areas of say 64 M cubed or whatever makers sense( perhaps selected), these would constitute a layer. A player would need to have 1 static contruct of the specified size
Each residence area a player can build within that area whatever residence they like EG: residence, storage, landing pad , workshop etc.
Each residence layer could be stacked so that dense living areas could be created ( think high rise city) as a residence zone.
Essentially the residence zone is a skeleton structure for building. As opposed to random stacking of static constructs on top of each other.
Each layer would have some access provided , eg: turbo lift or concourse.
These residence zones would be owned by either the game or organisations.
Residence zones could be purchased layer by layer (foundation , floors) as one complete structure.
layers could be pre designed EG: market , landing area. bunkers, communications , storage, defences (blue prints perhaps)
Organisations could buy the structure and allow members to build in specified zones
Visibility of other players inside the residence could be turned on or off dependant on performance of the game.
lua could be allowed for residence areas and the zone as a whole. Optional either way.
This idea assumes technical limitations are overcome or it would operate within known working limitations.
this could be also used with dynamic contructs for space stations
I agree with @ShioriStein. RDMS can be used to sort this out. You can assign special roles/rags for each residence, and only the tenant of said residence would be able to affect the residence itself. This way, you would only need one static core for the entire building while still providing access to the people who pay to live there (and JC already confirmed that there will be the ability to charge people monthly or weekly with RDMS).
-
5 hours ago, TheMasterArchitect said:
I only think these standards could happen with large alliances with hundreds of groups in it. But really I don't think this will ever happen. Each group will have it's own style of designing.
The only thing that will be standardized are things that already exist in game such as core units.
Core units already have standard sizes, as is shown by some of the earlier videos. There is no need to "standardize" them.
As for standards in general, I am positive that there will be use of them when the game is released. Standardized landing dock sizes, standard road sizes and standard rules for flight in cities are some of the possibilities. Standards can be helpful for travel between cities/jurisdictions as well as trade between players.
3 hours ago, Miamato said:Unless there is a possibility to merge several grids into single one - there is no point in complex standards system.
In other words if you want to 'dock' on someones else station - the only standard you should follow is the size of docking area/hangar/doors.
But for example if it would be possible to delegate building of big parts to different 'companies', then transport them somehow and further assemble into single construct - it would be nice to have inbuilt mechanics to check whether those parts fulfill standards requirements. But I doubt that it would be possible to merge constructs in nearest future
I do not believe that the game's architecture would allow for merging of constructs (grids) together in the way you are describing.
I am pretty sure that we will be able to delegate work to other organizations, but not for modules.
In practice, an organization will be able to use RDMS in order to allow other organizations to work on their buildings/ships, bringing their expertise and compensating them for their work.
-
Just my two cents,
In my opinion, for any standard, the key will be to define the standard in such a way that it can be implemented in any number of ways by organizations that choose to adopt it. That way, individual organizations or players are responsible to ensure that they are adopting the standard effectively and neither are constrained to a hard set of rules that they may not be comfortable following. It will be best to define things in terms of limits that NQ have placed on various things, which we will know by release.
For example, let's say that someone wants to make a standard for communications while docking. Let's say that the organization wants everyone that wants to land to use a specific encryption solution that they have written. Who is going to land at their spaceport? No one, because who knows what type of weirdness might be in that code (tracking code, killswitches, etc), especially if it can access the internet. The better way would be to say "all pilots need to use X encryption algorithm". Let's use RSA for our purposes. All organizations that want to adopt the standard can either get an implementation from the internet that they trust, or write one. Then, when a player wants to land (assuming they can also encrypt using RSA - they are responsible for ensuring that they can), they can ask the spaceport for its public key and then, having received it, begin the docking process. This is just an example.
Ultimately, it will be up to individual organizations to decide whether they want to follow any standard at all.
-
6 hours ago, Lethys said:
You talk about stargates. Stargates != ftl drives
Yeah, my bad. I ended up getting mixed up. Also thanks for finding the actual source for the probe stuff.
If we are talking about FTL drives specifically:
6 hours ago, Lethys said:Perhaps those start/end points use the same method (sending a probe) as stargates, perhaps it's completely different.
Like, you have to travel there once by normal means (space engines) and then you can set your ftl points in some kind of map for example, once you've been there.Sending probes is iirc only for building stargates rn where you send a probe to a distant star -> wait for it to arrive -> you build the first stargate while that probe is en route -> once probe arrives you can do a one-time jump to the location of that probe -> build a second stargate there -> link them for instant travel inbetweenI agree. For FTL travel with drives, perhaps something like a beacon can be placed down in space. This beacon would allow a ship to lock on to it and then initiate FTL travel to that location. People have to physically travel to the beacon location in order to be able to travel to it at FTL speeds later. The data on the beacons can also be shared between players or at the organization level (think corp bookmarks from Eve Online), or even sold on the market. Who knows?
I mean, it would be possible to use a probe like for stargates, perhaps as an upgrade to going to the location yourself and setting up the beacon from scratch. This would be useful if the location is say, weeks away by space ship or something like that. You'd send the probe, do a one-time FTL cruise to that location, then build the ftl beacon proper so you can continue to travel there in the future at FTL speeds.
That seems more promising. To me, simple teleportation would not feel immersive enough. From a mechanics standpoint, teleportation gates will force the same monotonous camping gameplay you see in eve. Although I would be worried about this because the only other place I have seen this is in the STO sector map travel... I suppose it would have been better without the ridiculous clunky cartoon overlay and the overall feeling that I am a model-hacked superman (cryptic used the same engine for the space game as they did for the marvel heroes game or whatever it was) and felt too juiced up and looked bad, it didn't feel like space travel at all..
I feel very strongly that for DU to deliver w/regards to it's single-shardedness it has to include free FTL flight without any gimmicks both for the added immersion and the sheer thrill of flying and walking around on a ship at superluminal velocities. I also feel that interstellar flight should not be easy and designing ships to fly FTL should be an involved process.
I agree, if we are talking about FTL drives, teleportation would be boring. Let it take some time to get from point A to point B. The only type of FTL travel that is like teleporting should be moving from one system to another via a stargate, since you'd imagine you'll be moving so fast it is akin to teleporting. It would be dope to have it so some materials just don't fare well at superluminal velocities. Players would need to employ things like shields around the ship to protect from the effects of FTL travel or enhanced materials that can take punishment at those speeds.
-
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
So rn it's basically handled as:
- set start and end location (however that's done)
- travel at ftl speeds between those points
- you may be intersepted by pirates en route with special interdiction bubbles
Considering the nature of DU and other mechanics so far, I actually like that system
I agree. As for how to set the start/end points, for going between systems, they've said that you will need to send out a probe that will eventually reach the destination (for going between systems).
This same principle can be applied to in-system travel as well by just having people go to the end location they want and setting a probe there, linking it to the start location via a gate, probe or whatever else NQ decides.
I do wonder though for travel between systems. I would imagine that we would have to build a stargate on both sides. I'm thinking that the probe can be traveled to via an actual stargate, but you may not end up exactly at the location of the probe and will have to travel to it. Once at the destination side with all your equipment you can then build the destination stargate and complete the connection.
Note that this is all speculation until we get more info from NQ.
-
10 minutes ago, Lulichika said:
well now that you say "Ex-Eve" players, i'm thinking about all the players that were banned or kicked from the community looking to settle their roots in this game. Which may lead to a trend of Ex-eve players coming to DU as an alternative to Eve. And seeing how devoted most of the players in Eve are ,some even willing to fork over 1000s of dollars on titans, what horrible thing could they have done to be kicked from that community. Maybe steal from a major faction, initiate a war between two super powers for their own benefit, scamming new players into giving them all they have until they penniless, attacking players in real life for IN-GAME benefit. I'm just worried that this new space sim with the advance politics promised on launch will leave the community being a hub for Ex-Eve players, while pushing those that were here from the start out of the community due to toxicity.
Nothing like palace intrigue to spice up the gameplay.
Seriously though, I am not sure if this will happen. There is no indication that those people will actually want to move over (barring Frogswarm and probably a few others). We will cross that bridge when we get there I guess.
-
1 hour ago, looCsIyerT said:
I have been following this game since around when you were able to buy a gold backer package, I planned on buying one for a while, but unfortunately missed the deadline. I afterwards patiently waited for my next opportunity to be able to buy a pack to support the game and hopefully play the game early. With the background stuff out of the way my question was: Will any of the backer rewards be available in the future, and if so when? Also to a further extent, are there plans for any way to support the game, and incentives to do so in the future? With the kickstarter you could essentially support the game as much as you wanted and be rewarded accordingly but the current system is somewhat more limiting. I understand and even appreciate that early backers get greater, and many exclusive rewards, the game is still pretty far from finished and I was hoping to be able to have more pledges and etc available. Oddly enough after finally being able to play this game and see that it is truly, and becoming a game that I have wanted for a long time, and despite being against companies trying to milk their games, I find myself asking to be able to support this game even more, and see it as well deserved with the ambition that this project has and how seriously it is taken. I don't currently see myself hopeful of pay to win mechanics once the game releases but I do hope to see more expansions to the supporter system that you have now, and too be able to upgrade my contribution to the game in the future, especially while the game is in development.
My understanding is that all of the kickstarter backer specific rewards (lifetime sub, etc.) will not be returning. The only packages that you can buy at this time are the supporter packages available on the website now. If you really want to support the game, you can buy all of the supporter packs instead of one. Hoping someone for Novaquark can give you a more official answer.
-
22 minutes ago, Raza157 said:
Hi,
I already know I do not want pre alpha, the play time is too limited for me.
In the would of crowd funding gaming it is difficult to know what you are buying into. I don,t mind working through kinks and trying new game content that may never make it to launch. I also understand downtime's for server maintenance and updates and game crashes
What i would like to know is how much access will be granted to servers in Alpha 1 & 2,
Thank you
Though I cannot speak in an official capacity for Novaquark, I suspect that we will have 24/7 testing by the time of Alpha 1.
-
9 minutes ago, Destrin said:
I am a little confused at why anti-grav engines just stop working 1km above the surface. Why can we not use these for take off and landing?
They aren't engines. They should not be used for take-off or landing, at least that's my understanding.
From the dev-blog:
QuoteThis altitude can be set by the player, but cannot go below 1000m. So, you can still land with a large ship, but you need some rocket boosters to lift it up at least over 1000m to be able to then activate the Antigrav Generator.
They start working 1000m above the surface. I imagine that these are meant for very large structures that wont be doing a lot of moving and are too massive to use vertical boosters or other methods, such as logistics or support vessels, floating cities, and other sky-based structures.
-
1 hour ago, kleyten said:
im a patron backer since yesterday^^ i hope it wont take long then
If you are really in a hurry, you can email support and ask nicely for them to give you access. I bought patron access today and I was able to get forum access an hour later.
-
2 hours ago, Nanoman said:
Hmm I'm thinking maybe it's a good idea if the web-api allows access to the databank elements on ones own constructs or something (would require authentication of course). Maybe even not just for reading but also for writing. This could be a fairly simple and flexible way of exchanging data between the game and the web without compromising security or privacy. I don't know, just a thought.
With the proper scripting that could also enable management of all kinds of in-game things, without having to login to the game.
Agreed. I understand that NQ may not want to implement an API at this time because they are concerned it will lead to unfair advantages by some (i remember someone at NQ saying something like this - please correct me if I am wrong), I feel that an API for certain aspects of the game can be a valuable tool, especially for the larger organizations. For example, being able to read information on storage containers to keep inventory on resource amounts or receiving market data on a specific item from the day before (real-time market info gathering would not be good, not to mention that it can be a really fun job for someone to do). Refer to the CREST API from Eve Online, which does allow you to pull market data on a specific item, given certain arguments that you pass to it. The freshest information you can obtain is of the day before (as far as I am aware), which while valuable for seeing long-term trends, is not necessarily good for doing anything in the short term (in hours). This is my opinion of course. Those who are more experience with this kind of thing are free to correct me.
Its just a matter of finding the right things to implement and what limits to impose on those aspects of the interface to give as much utility as possible.
-
We will most likely be using a "sandboxed" Lua which has functions considered to be unsafe disabled and only affectsthe constructs in-game.
If you want an example of what I mean, check out ComputerCraft for minecraft.
I now exist and did not before.
in Org Updates & Announcements
Posted
Welcome to Dual Universe!
good to have you with us