dualism

In my opinion it is not plain and simple unless other mechanics enable it to be so and it becomes >90% of the function or so. In this case it requires real money to be able to flow into your character in some way - and not just subscription time. I have been trying to read through stuff but I don't remember for DU about a shop (cosmetic only or pay2win products), the subject of RCE or 'black markets'. I only recall a point made that in-game subscription time tokens (was a 3 letter acronym) will all be bought with real money even if they can then be traded inside the game, enabling some successful players to earn enough in-game to be playing essentially for free. NQ will still be getting someone to pay for your time, however. Ok, thinking about it for a second: that would already be a mechanism for buying skills from others against paying them their subscriptions... one avatar can pay2win (at least the skills) by paying for others, ok, yes. This doesn't kill the advantage of an old character, however, but it does weaken it, alright. Ok, is it part of the NQ ethic to fight against pay2win elements emerging in DU, or is this a hot issue for you more personally Lethys? By the way, I'm happy you are answering me because it is helping me to think about things and I do not know/remember NQ's position. So far I have liked the dev posts, but I keep forgetting what I agree with them about lol...

I did write "Yes, that could be a good thing" (that everyone's skills are their own and NOT tradeable). But if you want me to think a few seconds about extractability: it adds an internal in-game marketable value to the actions people take instead of being stuck on the avatar for ever. A player might want to change profession after a while. Does this mean having to start over pretty much on the new skills needed or will NQ have a range of avatar skills that are very broad in nature and will affect stuff you don't currently do too? #6 A downside of skill extractability could be that it increases farming and alts, especially if the active avatar has automated skill gains, yes. #7 On the other hand there is the question of high levels when an avatar finds it really hard timewise to gain more of a certain skill. If the gains from having skills continue to rise even at a high level, then high level players seeking an advantage over each other will have to time-grind or get some bonus skill from NQ by doing things even more dangerous or so. #8 Quests for skill gains? Of course, NQ may decide to flatten out the effects of skills per profession to horizontal at some level instead of some low but still noticeable linear progression. #9 Emergent gameplay - will there be a few super-pilots out there after a few years or just lots of maxed ones?

The consequence of not being able to trade in skills is that everyone's skills are their own. Yes, that could be a good thing. I wonder if the skills will then max at some point per field, such as a 100% efficiency factor, or rather no ineffiency from still learning how to craft, repair, fire a weap etc for a certain skill level, and how high up this will be.

Hi, although the planet will be pretty big as such, there won't be anything better than low value resources on it apparently. We will have to be able to get off the planet with the lowest craftable spaceships, otherwise we would be stuck, but there then comes the question of where higher quality stuff will be made. I imagine it has to be where better ores/mats are available. #3 I'm left a little wondering what cargo volumes will be like and whether ores being refined or products being made will translate into the volumes of those plus waste of some type or another. The volume of Alioth may even increase over time come to think of it .. ;) Any word on a debate on skills? #4 It seems to me that this will be a pretty big factor in the game if death keeps knocking people back but skills will grow and enable new activities/levels of action. #5 Any word on whether skills will be extractable and tradeable?

Hi, I'm fairly new here but have been reading intently and think there is already a great deal of insight and experience out there. What I haven't yet found is a way to track my experiences and discussion flow, especially on how mechanics 'can' interact and how the devs actually plan to interact them or hopefully balance them. One of the things I lack most is knowledge about what good conversations have happened before - I've just been seeing really great points here and there that would usually take things off-topic if looked at further. Can something like this thread started by me here be a place for links, quotes, discussions on the basic concept of interaction and consequences in game development? I hope so. I may play with note-type styles here and see what happens: #1: One example on consequences is a thread about the consequences-of-non-regenerating-planets-and-ressources #2: For starters: Is there a similar thread about avatars gaining skills? I have read so far that each account will be able to have up to 3 avatars (source not remembered but was NQ), but only 1 will be skilling at any particular time. Presumably this is the avatar you choose to have active and you can switch between them quite quickly. [Is this a great way of not being bored on a big ship if there is no battle, for example? I didn't think of this at the time when I commented in that thread how-will-the-large-crew-that-large-ship-may-have-work-in-a-game-like-this ] I think I read that skill gaining can be automated, but this makes me a bit sceptical about people having several accounts and active alts instead of inactive second and third characters, although I really like the idea of implementing avatars which individuals may switch to. I repeat for starters here: is there a discussion on skill gains in DU and its consequences? (Mods: Is this the right place for such a discussion and format? Should this be somewhere I haven't yet discovered? Thanks and sorry for any possible errors on my part in this first thread creation.)

Yup. Were you successful and would you generally expect to be, depending on what you are faced with? Well, one other option at least in a virtual universe is not to play - which would be unfortunate but may indeed be true for many new players. The NQ line seems to be that if we want an in-game result to be one way, we must work for it, maybe against others working towards something else. This is fine, but to cater for different playstyles they will all need to maintain playability in a changing universe. NQ will be setting fundamental rules all over the place, sometimes by design and sometimes because the algorithms will provide their own quirks. If an ASA planet only has low value resources, both inside and outside the ASA area, it could be because of procedural generation restraints - who knows? The devs must also decide what to put more effort into and where to put less - I do understand that. I have now read that rocks will become harder and less easy to mine as you go down (Q&A transcript on homepage), so this may also create a form of balance on landscape outcomes too. Problems with terrain griefers? Just let them hit bedrock...! - or something like that.

I was trying to look at the subject of depletion and if there will be areas that suffer greatly from it. What I meant was that if most of the planet is not a place where people will be mining, then the places where they do will suffer more. At some point things may begin to break in the newbie experience. If my first basic vehicle is a hover bike, for example, then I need terrain to be hoverable and not have holes that may even trap such a vehicle completely. There cannot really be terrain maps available for navigation because terrain is not set in stone () and I doubt NQ will restrict slop angles either. Thus, the most basic of vehicles for anything other than a well-kept city must be able to actually fly and not hover, which is no problem, but it becomes a basic minimum for a BP. I understand it will be up to players and orgs to fill in holes and stuff - the question is, will they? I personally doubt it for non-territories. I will search for the topic of farms, but suspect they will be easily 'griefable' because by their nature, farms are also very visible (usually). Yes, protection bubbles etc etc, but anything in pvp becomes a question of risk v. reward, or temporary fun = short-term risk only.. but this is a different topic now.

Hi - I meant that the ASA parts of a planet will see high mining activity but there may be little 'use' for the rest of the surface as it will be pvp but not have better resources unless there is at least 'medium' value (or not absolutuely basic low level) stuff there. This would be worse for depletion of the ASA even if NQ opens up a new 'new arrival' ASA planet after whatever period of time because people would still be active in the ASA cities and keep resurrecting there after death 'locally' I would imagine.

NQ wants the players to have a high level of freedom of action, but obviously there will be limitations through what is provided. Ideally for such a mindset there will be the ability to make bigger and more powerful weapons/ships until practically the costs will outweigh the practical use and thus be an 'evolutionary dead end'. Ships and crews becoming bigger comes with advantages and disadvantages, both in terms of resources and fun factor. Whether it becomes more fun or more necessity to have/crew a mothership/battleship as part of a large group's workload will depend on what emerges. My guess is that battles will tend to be rarer the bigger they are - how often does the Enterprise actually fire on something and for how long? Players seeking only this will likely not find it that often unless it is seen as profitable for smaller ships working together to attack big ships too. It then comes down to factors such as smaller fighters and crews being removed from battle back to an ASA, while possibly noone dies on board a bigger ship unless the ship is destroyed or boarded. Ressurection node rarity could have a massive impact on where a big ship is more valuable, for example. On the question of fun, is it actually fun to not die but be bored instead? Probably not, so ships with big crews will need activities other than pvp action. Transporting goods, while a good use of the ship itself, may not require much more than the pilot staying awake, so will a crew on board have other tasks or fun (holodecks?) such as crafting, designing bps, etc etc, or will big ships have skeleton crews which can quickly call upon crew from nearby when a battle threatens? In turn, this brings on questions such as the element of surprise, long-distance scanners etc, also which hours of the day might an org ship be vulnerable. Where might it go for the night shift? If I weigh various advantages/disadvantages, I reckon a ship having a hangar for boarding/departing while in space will be vital once some size is reached, and planet-landing will be vital to keep smaller-crewed ships safe at MSA/ASA's when their crews are inactive or not on board at all. This may be one of the main determinants of a size gap between bigger and smaller ship classes. One other small point to ask of the NQ devs is maybe whether safe areas will include the space around an MSA too. I assume yes, so that dockyards can be built to build big ships that cannot cope with an atmosphere? Ok, that may mean smaller ships can be safe in moon orbit too, but will crews have a way to leave (airlock transfer...)? I guess it is really a small point, but opportunities have to be there in order to have options ...

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/12700-devblog-feedback-our-thoughts-on-territory-protection-mechanics/&do=findComment&comment=77920 I'm beginning to get a picture here - and thanks Lethys too for answers. The above means that the entire planet with ASA only has low value resources - your basic car and sports car example lower down suggests that space flight will be possible from low value resources, but very very basic. This leads me to believe that mining in unclaimed territory of an ASA will be very high - and possibly conveniently allowed for members of groups with territory unit(s) near to the resurrection point, meaning mining will be high there too to simply save time. I am unsure of any benefit of the rest of the ASA planet unless a distinction is made between low value and at least some medium value resources in the unprotected areas of an ASA planet. Maybe readers such as myself are over-estimating the volumes of what we will need to grind/mine from an ASA planet. Maybe the energy content of fuel is set to be massive and a cubic metre of digging will set anybody up to leave the planet with good fuel range - I dunno. Maybe people building stuff will also be using little more than dirt as well, so the 'volume' of a planet and resources cannot really be depleted by activity, merely moved from holes to mountains at the very most extreme or turned into 'structures'?

I'm pretty new here, so I don't know what is considered taking a thread off-topic, but I find I am often drawn to thinking about the consequencies of consequencies. In this particular case it is the consequencies of death and players presumably returning time and time again to the arkship area, even after resurection nodes begin to appear later on. What I don't know is how much death will set a player back and will mean "scratching the surface" all over again for low value materials. Even if there is some kind of common org storage room for quickly replacing lost stuff, will masses of low value materials be required to sustain re-equipping, or will blueprints not use anything that can be depleted from the ark territory and close by? My imagination says that death may keep all/most of your skills (I dunno) , but what about resources? Basically, what will a ressurected avatar's inventory look like, empty, a percentage of what it had on death, or certain minimum volumes of stuff if the avatar had some? Sorry for not being able to find out this myself as I have no access (but want it!). However, my expectation is that the death mechanics (among others) could have a large effect on depletions. After all, there is a big difference between a chosen 'destructive' playstyle by a few and necessity for pretty much everybody lots of the time... Also as an aside: will 'dirt' also have to come from somewhere to fill in holes, and will it restrict deaper mining if others have to dig through it again first? Thanks edit: I've seen some discussion about whether the subscription tokens (I forget the name) should be lootable or not, which ties in in some way to what money or valueables avatars retain after death, which affects their ability to 'get back out there' without using up local resources... again the consequencies of a game mechanic on this thread's topic of 'local' depletions.

this is one of probably thousands of cases of designing a feature to be useful but restricting it in some way to prevent misuse. I was thinking of something like your avatar is moved into the terrain by 5 metres or whatever and set to inactive except for a dig-out/wake up command or so. You would not be 'altering' the terrain as such, but you could be found if someone happens to dig you up. I expect players will very often find they have to go afk at the least, so what can they do to partially protect themselves quickly? If players in pvp will almost always have a vehicle, I would expect some kind of hide vehicle feature would also be VERY helpful - again without it being a quicker route to terrain alteration. I guess the main reason for thinking about logout/afk mechanics is the rather large inconvenience and penalty associated with death! On the other hand, a dig-in feature should not be misusable by running around a corner to escape somebody and then quickly activating dig-in lol. The feature would just need to activate on a 30-second automatic timer or so maybe...

oldish thread - latest discussion fizzled out Nov 17. I'd like to ask if there is any news on this issue. It's another one of these big headache issues of being various degrees of safe/powerless when you leave and rejoin rl. My opinions: If in a safe zone on foot, enable on-spot logout and disappear + reappear on logon at current ground height (or selectable) if terrain altered while away. Maybe some kind of drone video of location activated and allow a spawn point to be chosen. If on pvp territory, have a quick 'dig-in' feature to bury yourself and maybe a vehicle in the existing terrain and then log off or go afk. It doesn't make you 100% safe, but goes a long way towards this. Also have a dig-out function or login similar to above. If on a ship, then the ship may or may not have 'safer' cyros or 'hiding places' or 'escape pods' which may or may not be destroyed/salvageable if the rest of the ship is destroyed. Other than that, you move with your ship, including the ability to be transported by the 'night-shift' crew... If in a single-seater ship, possibly have silent mode activation, but a risky option. Possibly autopilot option, but vulnerable... Other than this, maybe you can be a 'guest' in territories, which if entered under guest status allows safe logout and protection of supplies unless the territory sustains massive damage by 3rd party attack or so. I realise this is a complicated set of suggestions, but it is likely to be a big issue for many people in practice I feel, so various solutions should be on offer here.

Yes, maybe joining one of many groups that will want to invite you could indeed be good, but will it in effect be essential for beginners? This obviously relates to what will be possible without joining a group, of which resource availability will be a biggie. Ok, I read the Arkship Secure Areas will only have low value resources. I still assume that unclaimed territories in ASAs will have a lot of bulk mining going on, though, mainly because the value will also presumably be low but volumes required for building etc will be quite high. One associated problem I have is with the continued high activity in ASAs and close by beyond. It is said that death will result in respawn at the ASA without your items and mats (left at point where you died and can be looted). The need to (re)stock will not just apply to newbies, but thus also to anyone who dies. Even if groups have common stocks for members to reequip from, the mats will need to come from somewhere - and close to base will presumably be much more efficient, both inside and out of the ASA. This is why I believe that the ASA should be an exception if the basic idea is to have no regen systems - and there could still be problems with medium level material landscapes close by. It does depend on how much people keep killing each other over resources I guess, as it will effect where the most dangerous zones for mining are. And it will depend on the cost to kill in PvP as well -and whether you can shoot from moving vehicles or whatever (i.e. the chance to escape a battle by fleeing...). They are linked dev opportunities for maybe lowering a devastation of a landscape in highly visited areas?

Thanks for the reply. was that a typo with 'die' - or what do you mean? Some of the worries in this thread are about depletion and the way areas will look and not be attractive to new players. Have you got any links to dev posts on the size and scope of a starter safe zone run by the 'arkship'? Outside this, will there be areas which cannot be claimed, or will orgs form rings around the starting area and try to attract new players as quickly as possible? If no resources are available to new players within a certain range after a short amount of time, then new players will be forced to sign up to an org without having learnt much first. I guess it comes down to what pathways devs design in for individual freedom for newcomers whenever they may join. The consequences of non-regeneration will surely never be more important than around the starting area, so the question is about how much the issue is minimised there, and then whether or not this is carried over to other areas at all. One solution could be to provide each new player with sustainable and safe transportation at a range that minimises resource issues for them and enables them to get to isolated areas reasonably quickly at game start if they choose to be either alone or set up fairly small groups. Things will very much tie into each other quickly here, which is why I wanted to start off on a selected question and see what happens. I believe the topic of regeneration is one key area for how new players will cope/succeed early on and will influence retention.

The above assumes a 65km radius planet, I believe. While assuming this calc is correct, it still means that some 10 % of the surface could be lowered by 300m or so in under 2 years by 1000 people. My first concern is with the area around the starting area and the depletion of resources and the look of the place there after a short while. Without any regeneration it will quickly become a dump AND a depleted area for newcomers I feel. I strongly believe that the starter area and surroundings will have to be 'managed' in some way that involves 'regeneration'. There could be the alternative of the original mothership moving around either slowly and continuously or in periodic jumps to fresher places on the planet, but if devs go for permanent placement of the safe starter area, then I would want them to consider regen. At a simple level it could just be quarries and forests etc, depending on resourse needs, which throw people out every 24 hrs and then regenerate. There could even be procedures for who has (or still has) access to such areas as skills develop etc. Players may thus need to 'move on' from basic resource gathering at least in the beginner area. I agree with earlier comments that not absolutely everything sould be player-driven. Some structures, opportunities and constraints should be built in by devs for at least the area(s) where new players meet the game. (Hello mods - first post here. Thank you for reading and hopefully approving )