Razorwire

There is a difference between static and dynamic constructs, I believe, depending on the the initial placed core.
Protection bubble generators therefore could only be deployable on static constructs.
.

While I agree with you, I don't know the answer.
 
You can add your voice here on this subject:
 
~ Merwyn

I'm happy to buy the extra pack and have it applied to this account.
It just won't let me. have spoken to support, they say it can't be done.

I want to upgrade.
I don't want to have to make a new account to do so and have seperate rewards on seperate accounts.
I don't need a discount (though it would be nice).
 
So some kind of upgrade path or a way of merging accounts would be fantastic.

That link or quote is hidden. Is it from a Restricted forum area?
 
 
Nope.
Been talking to Support; the only way you can buy a supporter pack when you already own any founder pack is to make a seperate second account.
The two accounts would be totally seperate, with each getting it's own rewards.
Upgrades and merging accounts are not possible.
 
I'm starting to get a little frustrated with it all, tbh. I wanted Ruby, but they closed upgrades before I could save the cash. Now I want Patron, but I lose what I currently have and have to make a new forum account if I buy Patron now.

Well, I'd rather devs to work on the game and validate first messages myself, if you don't mind :).
 
~ Merwyn

Then just stick a label on it, as in your two examples there.
If I want to play 20 hours straight on a Saturday because I can't get on in the week due to work, why should I be punished? I shouldn't, is the answer.
 
A warning on the initial load screen is enough. If an informed adult hurts themselves, that's on them; don't restrict my service because they might ignore the warning.

Then just stick a label on it, as in your two examples there.
If I want to play 20 hours straight on a Saturday because I can't get on in the week due to work, why should I be punished? I shouldn't, is the answer.
 
A warning on the initial load screen is enough. If an informed adult hurts themselves, that's on them; don't restrict my service because they might ignore the warning.

Then just stick a label on it, as in your two examples there.
If I want to play 20 hours straight on a Saturday because I can't get on in the week due to work, why should I be punished? I shouldn't, is the answer.
 
A warning on the initial load screen is enough. If an informed adult hurts themselves, that's on them; don't restrict my service because they might ignore the warning.

Then just stick a label on it, as in your two examples there.
If I want to play 20 hours straight on a Saturday because I can't get on in the week due to work, why should I be punished? I shouldn't, is the answer.
 
A warning on the initial load screen is enough. If an informed adult hurts themselves, that's on them; don't restrict my service because they might ignore the warning.

That's why I didn't write "I will be surprised when...", I wrote "I'll be very surprised if...", which to me does not even imply a little hope.

Just to be... exact: 
- I think there will be no life-subs available in the new packs.
- I think there will be no pre-alpha access available in the new packs.
- I'm truly disappointed that I didn't have the money back when I could have upgraded to Ruby for the life-sub.
- I can afford Ruby twice-over now, which just makes it feel worse that I missed my only chance, just because my car blew up.

I heard that clouds will be handled in the cloud.  Pretty sure that means the Amazon, so expect rain.

Doubt it. Those kinds of offers are expensive for the devs over time; they effectively remove a player from the funding stream once their package cost is exceeded by whatever the subs would have cost to that point. They are a reward for very early backers with deep pockets who take a chance on an early concept. Once early backing is done, the life-sub offers always vanish, and never return. 

Im fine with this.
 
My main point/desire was to have a ground battle occur, not just "Take down shield - don something easy - gain the territory". So we are both on the same page.

Ok, I'll try again.
I was offering counter-points to an artificial 7 day timer between knocking out a TU and being able to place a new one, if it's merely to stimulate a ground war. I don't think you need to, I think it'll happen anyway if both sides are prepared.

It should take as long as it takes to take the ground. If one side is throwing heavy resources at the fight or is very clever about it and the other isn't, or if one side doesn't even show up, it should be over very quickly one way or the other.
Remember that a TU is likely not the same as an area protection device; say knocking down the shield sets off a siege timer to give the owner time to respond, the TU is still inside the siege-shield. It'll all be settled only once both sides have been given time to muster, and that's when your war starts, mixed forces and complex ground defences and all. And *that* bit should take as long as it takes.
 
I guess all I'm saying is that I don't want to knock down a shield, wait the 24hr (or whatever) siege-timer out, flatten the defences, kill all the defenders and destroy their spawn-room, blow up their TU and then *still* have to wait a long arbitrary time before I can drop my own TU. Nor do I want to destroy a TU only to have a hidden defender on the other side of the hex instantly drop another one.
I'd go for a 5 min timer before you can place a TU on a territory that has recently lost one, and a 15 min timer on placing a TU where *you* have recently lost one. Gives both sides some reaction time and prevents ninja TU replacement.
 
We'll see what we get, and we'll poke it until it breaks and they fix it. Then we'll poke it again.
 
And don't worry about opportunist griefers, Devs have said that TUs are going to be expensive, and that there will be some kind of offline protection; greifers won't likely spend all that cash on a TU in the first place, and if they do, you'll get warning and time to react.

That's not that simple
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

Precisely.  I don’t think a timer on laying a TU down is necessary, however, I do think there should be a duration before a shield can go up.  For example, Group A takes over Group Bs area, they lay down a claim and shield.  The shield won’t go online for x amount of time. That way Group B can regroup and try and take it back.
 
However, I think x should be hours not days.  If there was a shield on the claim before it was taken, they had 2 days to prepare.

Hi everyone,
 
It seems the DevBlog was not clear enough on some points.
We have said it many times before, and we'll continue to say it again:
While many players wants to see Dual Universe with a dominant gameplay aspect, it's important to understand that it's NOT the case. 
 
Building gameplay is as important as Combat gameplay. Not more, not less. Balancing both won't be easy and we are aware of it. No, Building is not the major feature of Dual Universe. If the Building aspect has been made first, it's only because, it was making total sense to start the development with this part: we are pretty much in R&D field regarding the Voxel technology. It was an essential piece of tech to build the base of the game: Voxels were necessary to create editable planets in the first place. Then the logical next step was to develop tools to give players to manipulate voxels. That wouldn't make sense to develop Combat gameplay before the two previous steps because, there wouldn't even something to destroy, or even an environment where the combat could happen.
 
The order in which the features are developed are NOT by order of importance.
It's just a matter of logical game development roadmap.

We have no plan to make Dual Universe a total free for all PvP game, just as we won't make it a whole game universe safe, just because some players want to explore it completely without taking any risk. While we don't plan to make our game some kind of "EVE Online 2.0", we don't want either to make a "No Man's Sky 2.0". We understand this may not appeal to everyone taste, and we totally understand that. However, if there is something that is very unlikely to change, it's the fact that there's no intention to catter to only one specific category of players. 
 
A final word about the griefing and the mindset of the community. Our point of view is that griefing mainly proliferates when it's an easy way to get rewards with little effort, not necessarily because many people really wants to play that way. Of course, there are people who like to grief just for the enjoyment of annoying other players but we are convinced they're not a majority. If game mechanics are designed in such a way that griefing doesn't give easy rewards, then griefing will be naturally limited. 
 
Why not simply remove the possibility of griefing, then?

Yes, it would be clearly easier and quicker to remove the ability to grief other players, but while we have no intention to encourage griefing, removing it totally would go against the very definition of the sandbox concept: players are free to interact in the way they want. If we remove any kind of interaction, then we are not in a Sandbox MMORPG anymore: we would be in a Theme Park one. And that is not Novaquark's vision. We want a game universe where bad behavior is discouraged by game mechanics and heavy in consequences if a player still choose to do so, than arbitrarily forbid the said behavior. We want players to be free but also to live with the consequences of their choices. That's what Sandbox mean to us at Novaquark.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

I think "revive" mechanics in DU will most probably be either severely limited or absent entirely.
 
Those mechanics are fine for "shooter" games, where the emphasis is on keeping the player engaged in "fun" combat for as long as possible.
 
DU's whole combat philosophy seems to be more focused on strategy than tactics. DU does not seem to be designed to facilitate and sustain a high level of combat activity: distances are large, travel time is significant, big ships need crews, etc. When taken together, all those factors do not support constant pew-pew...
 
The importance of rez nodes (and safeguarding them during battle) is clearly mentioned in the design docs. If you've traveled a long distance to launch an attack in DU, you better bring a ship with a rez node, otherwise you'll not be replacing any fallen comrades in that battle. If the enemy finds and destroys your rez node, the battle is basically over, unless you have a decidedly superior force. A "battlefield rez" mechanic would dilute the strategic importance of the rez node.
 
Consider the consequences of dying during a base assault in DU: you respawn at your team's rez node, naked and unarmed. Your weapons, armour, grenades, etc. are still on your corpse on the field. One of your squadmates may have saved your gear (if they could manage that without over-encumbering themselves), but you'd have to first meet-up with that soldier before you can get re-equipped. So, the assault team will have to bring not only a rez node, but also a stock of spare weapons, armour, etc., so that respawned troops don't have to run around the fight in shorts and t-shirt looking for their corpse...
 
If there's a battlefield rez, you're back in the fight almost instantly, fully equipped and already on the frontlines. If you have to rejoin the battle from wherever the rez node is safely hidden, you travel alone and vulnerable until you can rejoin your squad. And while you're out of the fight, your squad has to fight a man or two short.

I'm not convinced someone stumbling upon a massive ship or a stocked base would be a bad thing. The big important stuff is likely to be org owned anyway so it's highly unlikely to happen in the first place. If a player with the capability to build a massive star ship left the game, and another player comes along and claims all those resources... won't that preserve the economy in a way?

 
 
The "nice" thing would be the non-essential cosmetic derelict part, but not removing structures wouldn't be an additional anything. They are talking about "archiving" peoples stuff when a player skips town, but they could just as easily leave it in place. I know real life sneaks up on people sometimes, but everyone is buying into a persistent universe. That persistence is one of the core elements of the game. Artificially locking up resources for an indefinite period of time seems to go against the DU way.

To give a clear image of what we have in mind, here is an example:
Let's say you want to build a car.
With low resources in an ASA, you will be able to build this:

 
This will do the job as a car. 
However, don't expect high performances in speed, security, comfort and such.
Don't expect either to win a race, or any competition with it.
 
However, with high value resources you will be able to build this:

 
Now with this car, you will be able to compete with other players in a race.
The car will have far better speed, better security and comfort, due to high quality Elements crafted and used in it.
 
So with low value materials, you will be able to do things that you could with high value materials but with the minimal specs you could ever imagine, just to get started.
We hope this give a clear idea of what we have in mind now
 
Best Regards.
Nyzaltar.
 

ofc - which doesn't help most ppl as
1) you need to train ingame skills to set those (which most ppl don't do as they just want to buy their stuff quickly)
2) someone needs to fulfil that order, which can take days to weeks
3) doesn't help the fact that a trader can't sell his items