ShioriStein

Okay , if that is your will mister.
 
Yeah it will make thing easier and save the server resource.

Buy today for yourself with a new ENERGY FOOD POPPICO!!!
 
One bar and you dont have to worry about food for one day!!!
 
You can go to deep space, fight pirate and loot them all without pause time for eating, food worrying.
 
Just 99.99 Quanta a bar for your entire day of fighting, looting, exploring.
 
 
P.s: This food not replace any kind of medicine and we wiill refuse to take any responsibility if anything happen with you.
 

It basically comes down to preference, not (solely) pros and cons if I think about it. On one end of the spectrum you have the "hardcore survival crowd" and on the other, the ones with a more casual or hassle-free mindset in that regard. 
 
I doubt you can change many stances solely through debate (here). I think it kinda boils down to "how many are in favor, against or indifferent about it and what would NQ's state be about it. 
 
I for one can only suggest a survival system where you have to eat maybe 1 to 2 times per real day. Or 3 maybe. By that I mean played time. A good balance can surely be found.
 
But why am I in favor of it? 
 
1) Challenges. This adds another layer to the game. As trivial as eating may sound, it adds logistics and planning and in some situations maybe reliance on others. 
 
2) Jobs. Farming, industry and maybe a further options to use some stuff for chemicals and further refining. Or beer brewing. If food items are planned without survival, adding survival (to be precise, need to eat)  would make all those objects more useful beyond "fluff or buff". 
 
3) Other stuff I can't think of right now and stay is not covered by 1 or 2
 
The need to eat could open a whole new market and I think this is not too much to ask for if you have to use various items only a few times per day (real hours). 

Maybe in wrong box, it need to change to general discussion .

But well for your answer: Yes, they can.

If they have enough human resource, resource and can be stability  ( like good organize your org to prevent corruption ) and unity why they cant ?

But it is very hard to keep unity and stability when you go to that point lmao.

Aaron the "salvage man".
Nice to meet you, i think in future we will got much deal

Just a small addition to all the good answers.
 
There should be no regeneration of ores, dirt should not be deleteble and plants should be able to regrow. And all this for e few reasons but mostly this: In reality nothing regenerates but most forms of plant life. The best reason to move from the start planet is to deplete it from every thing. Probably when the planet is depleted they will choose another starting planet for the new players. But to help people with a need to move into space, dont regenerate, create a need, and dont destroy waste. There are always people who are willing to recycle and regenerate....there is the word...old materials into new ones and make a whole economy of that alone. Waste management will be the most lucreative business in year two? three?. That should be the big picture. No easy gains, else they could also donate every player alot of materials every month in the ingame mail system.  Same should go for buildings, give them an owner, and a timeframe after which ownership is automatically ended. and after that you can take it or demolish it or recycle it.  That should be the idea, that will boost economy and choises people need to make.
 
Aaron

It have been confirmed to be hard to get/create ( massive amount of resource so solo/small group cant gather to get enough material ). But i dont think the idea hard to kill is balance, read again you will see that there will be a "shield" to against enemy fire, but once shield is weak to some point or gonna to break, a protect bubble online and will go down after a certain time so 2 side can prepare and fight with all they got.

 
 
Well you know only safe zone got no aggressive action ?  So if build a city the owner have to protect and enforce the law themselves. Like you can put the law no weapon in city or some area and you have to go pass check point each time.

Also i dont understand the "Frontier hex tiles have some protection (one day of sustained attacking) and are automatically reconstructed by the safe zone territory marker after a week of being destroyed" Why we have to automatic reconstruct it ? Remember this game have limited automation and reconstruct i think wont be one of them
 
And again you forget this is "player - driver" game right ? So apart from DAC, i dont see a limit why need put. But from your image you show me frontier marker like a border to expand the city and it cheap ... i think it will broke the game so much. Image the ability you make hundred of it with so cheap and no restrict or disadvantage ... nope.

Frontier marker idea have been discuss in this forum not so long ago, you can find it. You should know that there should be a balance between advantage and disadvantage (risk ) so it will not break the game.
 
Well sorry but i dont have time for the above idea of this, because it will break the game for sure like this one. All thing in DU should be protection by the player themselve not mechanic. Not everything is perfect safe (well i say the thing outside of safezone ) so if a title that is invincible or the advantage of it far more than it disadvantage it will break the balance of the game. Dont wrong me, i love to see city in DU but DU is not "city simulation" game, it is a MMO Sandbox.
 
This is why i say it will BREAK the game. Nobody want a longer war when you can get a faster war. If you say i destroy or hack the main Territory Claim and all other will be either destroy or will be claim by another, it will more balance than this.

I've pointed out this problem. They have solutions ;).
 
Regards,
Shadow

Tks for information, is this what they confirm ? Because if ship not de-own many of people will dock/park their ship or maybe entire org fleet at safezone and take all space. I do hope the "de-own" system also apply for the dynamic like ship, Garage owner will have job to do :))

 
 
Umu if ship can despawn i think it will broke the game when you only need to hide enough of time and boom your ship is despawn.
 
Okay thanks for this even new information. But i hope it will not despawn. The feeling of rage when you are hunt down someone and they just despawn before you can even shot their ship.

RIP those who anti social but think they are the main character, who can make big org have to scare when hear their name .
.
.
.
.
.
.
But who know maybe some lonewolf can do that, i will interesting to see if they once appear.

RIP those who anti social but think they are the main character, who can make big org have to scare when hear their name .
.
.
.
.
.
.
But who know maybe some lonewolf can do that, i will interesting to see if they once appear.

If i have to choose between server resource for other better thing and multi coding ... i will choose the first.

Script only one part of DU. It good if we have multi coding but consider on the nowday technology and cost for server resource i think we "shouldn't" have multi coding yet for the sake of performance and stability. But who know 10+ year more server become cheaper and stronger so DU will got multi code 

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 agree. You can't protect people from themselves

Hilarious for me to see some drama on forum about someone get scam by players that never leave the safe zone.

Doesn't even need to be UA to ASA or smth. It's enough If a builder scamms you. Cause he certainly never leaves the zone

How would you enforce that? Kick everyone out the safezone who killed one guy? 2? 20?
What about wars and the people participating there?
What about accidently killed people?
You want this to be a "who shot first" thing? Cause that can be abused (as you see in various games nowadays) and people will be griefed. 
 
And again: If there's a tradehub somewhere in the safezone then ppl can just exclude Others from trading there. Let players handle it. 
 
Besides a pvper can just circumvent this with an alt. And since safezones are huge it doesn't really matter at all. Cause ppl who don't want to PvP won't go out there anyway. 
And you can't exclude ppl from the arkzone in any way as this is the primary RN node for everyone
 

While I cannot speak for NovaQuark, at this time Lua will be the only language implemented. I'll drop some links for you that may give you more information on the language itself and point you in the right direction.
 
https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Lua_Scripting
 
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2015/09/18/lua-script-and-distributed-processing-units/
 
 
 
- Mercutio
 

Well that huge area are actually pretty big you know ? it can hold thousand of hexagon  territory size and each hexagon have each side is 1 Km mean it very huge . And also they are promise that the TU ( Territory Unit ) is very expensive, a solo / small group cant make it ( or can but will take long time to gather enough resource ) so it will be a huge safe area for builder, for anything you want. Also i think it can even hold 10000 player without the feeling of crowd.

@MookMcMook RIP =]]

@ShioriStein Why not build said monument in memory of said player?! Then 50yrs (in-game time) later when the revolution erupts players can haul down such a symbol of tyranny and oppression and smelt it for building something new "in the new ""Eternal Empire"" 's name!"

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.
 

Hi everyone! 
Here are some answers to your questions and additional information to your feedback

@FleetAdmiralCoke
We are not sure to understand what you call "safe building zones to very small areas in very specific places". Moons having MSA will have thousands of territories each. Arkship Secure Areas will also contain thousands of safe territories. Those are not particularly "very small" areas. Planets will be huge, and safe areas, while limited, will be huge too.
 
About choosing the location of a city outside the MSA and the ASA, it has never been confirmed that we will let players choose a place for a city, then make it officially invulnerable. The idea may have been mentioned somewhere, but it was just an idea and with this idea comes a lot of issues of game balance. The most obvious possible abuse is the following: 
 
If we let players choose which location should become permanently safe, then you will have very big organizations, able to mobilize hundreds or even thousands of players installing invulnerable cities just next to their smaller opponents, giving endless possibilities of harassing theme easily. That would give an unfair advantage to big organizations. Abuses can be made by installing invulnerable cities on high value resources with no revert that once it has happened. Unless we find a reasonable way to prevent such issues, it's unlikely that the Secure Areas location could be decided by players.
 
Now, all the explanations above are for MSA and ASA, for areas 100% safe with no exception.
However, that won't prevent players to build heavily protected cities in Unsecure Areas. A city built in an Unsecure Area will still have a chance to be attacked and destroyed. We won't start to give details here of what could be reinforce defense for such cases (cities in Unsecure Areas) but it could be the topic of a new DevBlog in the future. The present DevBlog was released mainly to answer the recurrent questions of "Will Dual Universe be a complete Free For All game ?", the answer is "No, there will be room for very different player types, but it doesn't mean it will appeal to everyone either."

@Lethys
- If we were to use domes instead of bubbles, what would happen if an agressor starts to dig a tunnel under the dome?
- About DPS saturation and the risk of player blobs, we will take that into consideration. For now, it's still too early to confirm how PvP Mechanics will work.
- MSA can't be placed anywhere as those will be located on specific moons, decided by Novaquark.
 
@Hades
It's still too early to give details on the final mechanics for the Protection Bubble. As said to FleetAdmiralCoke, this Devblog was meant to address recurrent questions from newcomers. We won't give right now the details regarding the protection bubble.
 
@AeonReign
Well, for game balance reason, basic protection (protection bubble mechanics) should be affordable and not that expensive, otherwise playing in Unsecure Areas will be only viable for people that never disconnect from the game (and we don't want to encourage such behavior).
 
 
@Takao
 
Thanks for reporting the typos.
1) In Arkship & Moon Secure Areas, you CAN'T claim an already claimed territory, for obvious reasons.
2) If you install Forcefields in a certain manner, it may lead to a situation where you can prevent people to enter a territory.
3) MSA won't be on every moon. There will be MSA only on moons decided by Novaquark.
As said to Hades, we won't go into details for now.
 
@PerksPlus
Moons with MSA won't be next to planets with valuable resources.
Or else, it would nullify the concept of "risk vs reward".
Moons with MSA will be near planets with ASA, or with low valuable resources.
That means that if some pirate want to ambush miners gathering valuable resources, he will need some time to go back to the safest area (and plenty of time to be intercepted). Moreover, we are considering also game mechanics that could discourage greatly the behavior "Go In/Go Out" from a Secure Area abusively, just to ambush people without taking any risk.
 
@Shadow 
@Ben Fargo
We won't go into the details of the Protection Bubble mechanics yet.
As said to Hades, this Devblog was meant to address recurrent questions from newcomers.
There will be another Devblog later giving more details on that aspect, and it will most likely be when we will talk about PvP
 
@Zamarus
The difference between ASA and MSA:
- ASA will get have basic, low-value material in the ground. Players who just want to build things without being bothered by PvP (and aren't interested to compete with other players in terms of construct optimization or combat) will be advised to stay in this type of safe area.
- MSA are Safe Areas with no other perks than being a safe place. So yes, if you want to build in Sanctuary Areas, it will necessitate to bring resources from outside.
 
@lethak
@yamamushi
@LittleJoe
Of course, we have considered APIs.
But as already said before, it means additional development time (far more than just an email alert) and we want to stay focus on the features promised during the Kickstarter first, for the official release. However, there is a high chance that the dev team plan something on this topic once the game will be launched (we prefer to take the proper time to develop one if we want to avoid issues)
 
@mrjacobean
@Kurock
- There will be MSA only on moons decided by Novaquark, nowhere else.
- If a moon has a MSA, it will cover the whole moon (unlike ASA, which will cover only a part of the planet where it's located).
- No, "Sanctuary tile" can't be taken by military means, just like territories in an ASA.
- Moons with a MSA will be always near a planet having an ASA (there might be reasons for that reccuring "coincidence") so only near no to low value resources, nowhere near high value resources.
- Yes, We plan some means to gain ownership of a Sanctuary tile that is occupied by a owner inactive for a long time (and one of the current idea considered is that inactive user assets will be archived but not lost. The inactive user would just lose the ownership of the territory).
 
@supermega
Sending a notification to a Discord in case of agression has been added in the Feature Suggestion list and will be discussed with the developer team. However, depending of the feasibility and the amount of time to develop such a feature, it may or may not be implemented. If the idea is validated, it may also be implemented after the official release.  In any case, thanks for giving the idea!
 
@Setzar
the "Force Field" Unit doesn't create a "Safe Zone" (if we stick to our definition of Safe Zone in Dual Universe), it's indeed more like a barrier that prevents entry from unauthorized entity. 
 
@CyberCrunch
This is a bit too soon to talk advanced game mechanics regarding cities located in Unsecure Areas.
Let's just say that the dev team is currently thinking of something that has similar points with what you suggested (not to the point to make permanent Safe Areas decided by the players though), but again, we will talk advanced mechanics in another DevBlog. This one was made to give only the basics
 
@Fins_T
We have several Ogame players among Novaquark staff so we know (and understand) what you're taking about
We totally agree that needing to check regularly if you're attacked is tiring (even if there are fleetsaving strategies and the use of moons to temper that) and that's why Protection Bubble mechanics, with email alert/notification will be put in place: to inform you only when necessary without having to check constantly in-game if you're attacked or not, and giving you the opportunity to manage your real life without being permenanently worried of what's happening to your assets in-game.

However, in terms of gameplay, combat mechanics will far more similar to EVE Online than Ogame: You can't just assume in advance what will be the strength of the defense, the number of player coming to defend a territory, etc. Moreover, one player can't have an overwhelming force built by himself alone. So, a combat result will be far less predictable than in Ogame. Player numbers, the involvement, and the skills of each of them are all factor that will impact victory or defeat, because no matter how much spaceships has... it can only use one at a time, and even a huge battleship with lots of weapon turret won't be used efficiently by a player alone.
 
We don't plan to copy Ogame much in this regard, because in Dual Universe, you play a colonist, not a governor managing an empire with many planets and a whole fleet at your command from the start (unless you achieve the difficult goal of having many real players accepting your rulership to colonize planets and pilot the said fleet under your command, but even then, there will be natural limits of how much firepower you will be able to bring to take down opponent bases).
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.
 

In order to make scanned deposit locations (more) sellable I would suggest the abillity to generate ore scanning results, which are normal items that can be traded.
The scan results can not be manipulated, so their information is correct.
They store the following information about the ore vein:
Type(s) of ore Amount of that ore Depth Planet Position (some sort of projection at the location in the ground where the deposit is) The hex field on the map Date at which the scan was done  
The amount of ore, depths and the exact position would be depending on the players scanning skill and precision at which the deposit was triangulated.
So you don't have the exact amount of ore and not the exact location, so you have some error there, of course.
When you place the scan result on the market players can see everything, except the exact position and the hex field on the planet.
That way you can effectivly sell scanning results without the need for a huge amount of trust involved.
One problem would still be, that the ore deposit might be already mined, so players should be able to rescan deposits and then update their scan results on the market.

Well this might be take DU a several years to get it. Because one ship need 2+ player to battle (not count fighter) amd a 6000 ship battle it will seem like more than 12000+ player will join it and wow, i LOVE to see that scene. (i hope that time come the CPU and server are already god like to handle those without drop fps  )