CalenLoki

Sundies can't spawn vehicles, only infantry. And for that we have spawn room.
 
I'd rather have all short-distance travel conventional. Wan't reinforcements? Bring carriers full of fighters (so your downed pilots can fly something again). Retreat and repair larger units. Protect those carriers by either placing them in safe distance (at cost of slower reinforcement) or escorting them.
In general pay adequate price to tactical advantage.

Sundies can't spawn vehicles, only infantry. And for that we have spawn room.
 
I'd rather have all short-distance travel conventional. Wan't reinforcements? Bring carriers full of fighters (so your downed pilots can fly something again). Retreat and repair larger units. Protect those carriers by either placing them in safe distance (at cost of slower reinforcement) or escorting them.
In general pay adequate price to tactical advantage.

Sundies can't spawn vehicles, only infantry. And for that we have spawn room.
 
I'd rather have all short-distance travel conventional. Wan't reinforcements? Bring carriers full of fighters (so your downed pilots can fly something again). Retreat and repair larger units. Protect those carriers by either placing them in safe distance (at cost of slower reinforcement) or escorting them.
In general pay adequate price to tactical advantage.

or you can just GAS them.

I've read and watched some NQ statements about CvC combat. And it seems that there will be localised damage (both voxels and elements). Maybe I watched something outdated? What's the most recent article?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efu_129hI9o around 9:45 to 13:00
https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/841-ask-us-anything-event/&tab=comments#comment-8072
 
NQ also stated that you can aim at specific point at the ship (which is selected randomly, if the target is too far for you to select anything specific). Then damage is deal within certain sphere from that point. I bet damage will be applied from outside-in, thus it need ray-casting to check what is outside.
And that system need to check if locked target is "valid" which probably means there is clear line of sight, is within weapon reach, ect. So it needs to use ray-casting too.
 
Also don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating for FPS style aiming - it's still done via lock&fire (so AI assisted aiming). Thus it's not affected by lag or interpolation, and not reflex based.
I'm only suggesting (or wildly speculating) how hit chances could be calculated via ray-casting, rather than some arbitrary % numbers.
Only twitch skill I mentioned was evasive manoeuvring in CvC, not aiming. And it only prevents usage of oversized guns against small targets. And it's more of tactical skill to know when and which direction to turn.
 
Unlike FTD and other games, DU have one huge advantage: voxels are small. 64 times smaller compared to FTD. Thus we don't need any elaborate penetration calculations, going through voxels without destroying them, partially damaging voxels, ect. We can have just 0/1 system where voxels are either alive or dead. If projectile (ray) damage potential is higher than voxel resistance, remove it. Then damage potential is reduced accordingly, and proceed to the next voxel. Repeat until damage potential is lower than voxel resistance.
Weapons with high AP would be simply those with high damage potential per shoot, while low AP would just spray small bullets.
My main concern regarding shields is that they protect weak-spots in armour. Things like engines, radiators, gates, weapons. With shields, all those parts are virtually as durable as anything else. Complete mitigation of damage for the winning side is also important though.
I went for "simply no shields" as that's the good point to start balancing from. Your idea may work, but IMO protection should just reduce % of damage potential, preferably for both incoming and outgoing shoots. Thus armour design and proper positioning is still important, and shield is something you use when you really need extra protection, not all the time.
Of course large vs smaller is always going to larger.
The question is: what if one large ship worth 100kk with 20 crew members fight twenty small, single crewed ships worth 5kk each?
Not so obvious any more.
Small ones have advantage in positioning, agility and acceleration. Large one has much thicker armour, and higher repair ability. Small ships have too small caliber to kill large ship, but they can disable some external equipment. While large ship have it's main armament too clumsy to hit small targets, and secondary armament is out-shoot by small crafts, due to being more stationary.
 
Or situation where two large ships meet fleet with one large and 20 small ships. IMO mixed fleet should win, by first disabling enemy with small ships, then entering with large ship for some deep-penetration.
 
Just like tanks IRL - they are much more powerful than infantry. But for a reason they never fight alone, without infantry support.
And battle-cruisers required cover of destroyers for protection from torpedo-boats.

I've read and watched some NQ statements about CvC combat. And it seems that there will be localised damage (both voxels and elements). Maybe I watched something outdated? What's the most recent article?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efu_129hI9o around 9:45 to 13:00
https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/841-ask-us-anything-event/&tab=comments#comment-8072
 
NQ also stated that you can aim at specific point at the ship (which is selected randomly, if the target is too far for you to select anything specific). Then damage is deal within certain sphere from that point. I bet damage will be applied from outside-in, thus it need ray-casting to check what is outside.
And that system need to check if locked target is "valid" which probably means there is clear line of sight, is within weapon reach, ect. So it needs to use ray-casting too.
 
Also don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating for FPS style aiming - it's still done via lock&fire (so AI assisted aiming). Thus it's not affected by lag or interpolation, and not reflex based.
I'm only suggesting (or wildly speculating) how hit chances could be calculated via ray-casting, rather than some arbitrary % numbers.
Only twitch skill I mentioned was evasive manoeuvring in CvC, not aiming. And it only prevents usage of oversized guns against small targets. And it's more of tactical skill to know when and which direction to turn.
 
Unlike FTD and other games, DU have one huge advantage: voxels are small. 64 times smaller compared to FTD. Thus we don't need any elaborate penetration calculations, going through voxels without destroying them, partially damaging voxels, ect. We can have just 0/1 system where voxels are either alive or dead. If projectile (ray) damage potential is higher than voxel resistance, remove it. Then damage potential is reduced accordingly, and proceed to the next voxel. Repeat until damage potential is lower than voxel resistance.
Weapons with high AP would be simply those with high damage potential per shoot, while low AP would just spray small bullets.
My main concern regarding shields is that they protect weak-spots in armour. Things like engines, radiators, gates, weapons. With shields, all those parts are virtually as durable as anything else. Complete mitigation of damage for the winning side is also important though.
I went for "simply no shields" as that's the good point to start balancing from. Your idea may work, but IMO protection should just reduce % of damage potential, preferably for both incoming and outgoing shoots. Thus armour design and proper positioning is still important, and shield is something you use when you really need extra protection, not all the time.
Of course large vs smaller is always going to larger.
The question is: what if one large ship worth 100kk with 20 crew members fight twenty small, single crewed ships worth 5kk each?
Not so obvious any more.
Small ones have advantage in positioning, agility and acceleration. Large one has much thicker armour, and higher repair ability. Small ships have too small caliber to kill large ship, but they can disable some external equipment. While large ship have it's main armament too clumsy to hit small targets, and secondary armament is out-shoot by small crafts, due to being more stationary.
 
Or situation where two large ships meet fleet with one large and 20 small ships. IMO mixed fleet should win, by first disabling enemy with small ships, then entering with large ship for some deep-penetration.
 
Just like tanks IRL - they are much more powerful than infantry. But for a reason they never fight alone, without infantry support.
And battle-cruisers required cover of destroyers for protection from torpedo-boats.

On the subject of underground bastions:
 
People are talking like taking the bunker directly by force is the only option. I don't know if any of you have read 'the art of war' by sun tzu, but in that he talks about weak points and strong points and how it is best to simply avoid the enemy if you don't have the resources to be able to defeat them. The ultimate goal in war is to defeat your enemy with as little fighting as possible. You shouldn't even engage in war in the first place if the odds are against you.
 
Other than direct means of engaging in battle,  you can use many ways to take out a base:
Traitors/ spies disabling certain functions/ misdirecting the command/ sowing political dissent Severing the base's means of acquiring provisions from the outside; cutting off resource supply or trade routes. Not all of the enemy's operations can be underground. There will be mining operations on the surface as well as civilian traffic. Employ a "the boy who cried wolf strategy"; feigning an attack on the enemy and suddenly disengaging to waste their ammunition/ supplies, forcing them to establish a pattern where they ignore certain aspects of the characteristics of assault in your feigning behaviours, only meeting such assaults with little or no force. Then you take them by surprise by beginning an attack characteristic of a decoy then following up with full force (i.e. stick a strike team on your 'dummy ballistics' trojan horse style). They either waste all their ammo or take chances. The downside is you too have to take chances on your full attack. Nevertheless this strategy is bound to cause dissent/paranoia in the enemy's command as to decision making. As previously mentioned trojan horse style. Infiltrate enemy supply/ reinforcement trains with a strike team and then mobilise them when inside. Bargaining. Take something they hold dear or offer them something they desire in return for the base. Don't attack it at all. If given the opportunity, just go around it and kill something else. Wait for an opportunity elsewhere to damage your enemy. Cut the head off the snake so his fangs are rendered useless Use a combination of all of the above These are just general tactics you could use. In a real situation the enemy is unique and has their own strengths and weakness/ disposition you can use to your advantage. There are also strategies the enemy can employ to counter you, but I won't go into that. The point is, in war, the smarter, more flexible guy wins
 
"Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing" - Sun Tzu
 
The thing is NQ want us to compete with one another in innovative ways. They want us to take control on how we choose to fight only giving small nudges when the going gets stale. Before claiming certain strategies in game are exploits; wait to see how they play out first. If they become meta, NQ will take appropriate action.

I'm going passive aggressive way when someone repeat the same thing over and over, without any new argument.
It's wiki, not anything official. And even if it describes current state of the game, it works against the principle of "things outside safe-zone shouldn't be totally safe".
As Lethys said, outdated article. Arkification is no longer a thing. And even there they stated that other options "are not totally safe".
 
 
How is "remove that discussion because I think it's intended feature" open-minded? Way closer to censorship.
 
You stated your opinion once, on the first page. And got simple answer that I disagree with it, and why I disagree. Then you brought inaccurate data - everyone makes mistakes. Repeating it doesn't bring anything to the discussion.
 

Why is there any need for a separate bounty hunting system? This whole premise should be covered under a player contracting system. 
 
If you want to place a bounty on someone, you create an Open contract with a target, price, and request specified. With a Smart Contract system, the bounty will automatically complete once conditions are met.

Could you elaborate more on "more/less protected area"?
AFAIK now TCU prevent unauthorised players from:
-digging
-creating new constructs
-claiming the tile
How would you increase or decrease those? Reduce digging speed in external tiles rather than completely blocking it? Inability to trigger inner FFU before conquering external tiles? Increasing amount of damage you need to deal to trigger FFU?
 
To be honest, I don't like either of those option. Main function of both TU and FFU is protect against random griefers and cowardly night attacks, and preventing attackers from bypassing all surface defences by digging tunnel.
 
Also "town" as opposed to "base" is something created by more or less independent people and organisations. So for your system to work they'd need to give control over TCU to single organisation, rather than just coexisting as neighbours with their own personal claims.
 
People will gather anyway. You need people to trade, you need storage to keep resources for trade, you need people to defend storage. Safe zone is limited to only single planet and its moons - everywhere else towns are the way to go.

The first one is way better.
Perhaps L could be also 2 long? Looks more natural.

@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.

It depends on how they plan to make max speed limit. It could be tied to square root of (thrusts divided by mass), so kind of pseudo-space-drag system. Then reaching top speed will depend on how much you want to spend on propulsion and fuel (sacrificing cargo capacity and range).
Thus dedicated pirate ship would be super-fast, quite armed, but not really armoured. And mass cargo transport would be slow and bulky. And courier ship for most valuable cargo fast and armoured, but without any weapons.
 
I though about inverting cost based on distance, but it would make whole universe feel small. I'd rather see players do several jumps to go across galaxy. Maybe something like this:
 
1. IMO distance should't affect building price. Regarding ship size - what fits can fly. You pay for perimeter length (each module increasing it by 5m, modlue price is constant). So the bigger the more expensive, but also more economical.
2. There should be some "most economical distance" (as seen in the graph). To avoid both short range jumps and travelling whole galaxy in one jump. That together with inability to make gates too close to planets keep piracy viable. Thus they wouldn't need to be so prohibitively expensive.
And again it's cost per module, thus you get best results by sending huge, cigar-like ships that fit just right into the gate.
 
PS. I've been using lone tree as my avatar for years, and that's just one nice version of Yggdrasil I found.

@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.

Also hard-limits like "max 100 players per org" are laughably easy too go around. We'd just have BOO1. BOO2. BOO3... BOO47, ect.

I think nobody ever said they gonna be safe in any way. They are construct, which can be captured or destroyed by anyone who can beat you in battle. PvP battle, with live players on both sides. Not some 6am PvE raid.
 
Making them dynamic.... I think that'd make them too easy to protect, as you could just take them with your main fleet, or anchor at your main base.
 
Making them connect with multiple gates. IMO that would make expanding network too plain and cheap. I'd rather have to create transfer hubs with multiple gates, and less important hubs with just one.

1. Build a ship with resources to build the gate.
2. Get on together with friend, direct it towards your destination and set it to constantly accelerate in straight line
3. All of you switch characters to those who stayed in the known world, rest remain inactive while the ship fly using it's momentum
4. In the middle of flight one of you wakes up and change from acceleration to deceleration
5. After few days/weeks/months ship arrive, you wake up all those characters, build gate and open connection.
 
At least that's how I imagine those "probes". Expensive and hard to make, but NOT time wasting.

How can system get exploited? How can it be improved to prevent exploits?
 
That's my usual way of thinking. Especially when I encounter interesting and complex system, like DU.
 
So I have some possible exploits in mind, that probably were discussed, or there is game mechanic I'm not aware of that takes care of them already.
 
I marked possible solutions with colours, based on my subjective opinions:
Green means it would help to fix the problem
Yellow means it wouldn't hurt, but doesn't really change much regarding that exploit. Or is really complicated to implement.
Red breaks more than it fix.
 
1. Building base deep underground with extremely hard to breach defences. Can't use battleships, because it's too deep. Infantry assault is like Soviet unarmed infantry charging German MG lines at Stalingrad. Digging is prohibited by TU.
 
Possible solutions:
A. Forcing some of valuable devices to be placed close to the surface. Obviously all farming, but that doesn't help much. TU seems like the best candidate. Forcing TU shallow enough that battleship cannons can dig seems like best solution for now.
B. Require special gear and resources to survive at large depths. Just like D. it would only fix the problem if those resources can't be stored for longer than length of typical battle. And would hurt hidden bases without TU, that aren't really problematic.
C. Harder to dig deep? It's only initial cost. And also increase durability of underground base, so it can be closer to surface.
D. Solar panels/wind wanes as only renewable energy? That would work only if energy storage were inefficient (energy vaporising over time). Also sieges would be long boring waiting.
E. Some assault system, where TU protection goes down after attackers with there enough time? Same problem as D. and B. - waiting. If digging protection shuts down during assault (as suggested by @gladiator5501) then all surface bases defences become too easy to avoid by tunnelling.
F. Exponentially increased maintenance cost? Damage over time to anything that is deep underground? Would work, but may be taxing on server. And hurts hidden bases.
G. Provided by @ShioriStein: Gas weapons. But that would require liquid physics, which we probably won't get anytime soon. Same apply to flooding such base with water.
H. By @Hades: Make TU protect only close to the surface, leaving depths impossible to protect from digging. Would allow night-mining of enemy resources, without any viable counter.
I. Make TU buble shape, rather than column. A bit far from currently implemented system - but that's probably how it gonna work in space. Would limit the amount of stone you need to blow up to get to nearest TCU. Would lead to nice staged battles, as you'd fight for small parts of enemy base (i.e. only for storage section) It would also make it independent from hex-grid, thus more natural.
J. By  @ShioriStein@Kurock@Felonu: Make digging with explosives/weapons quick and cheap. That makes surface bases completely obsolete (just like E.), but at least fix the underground bases problem.
K. By @Felonu@ostris:Limit dispenser-storage (item link) range. Would at least force underground bases to have entrance for cargo vehicles.
L. Drill. Primitive tool that can't be blocked by TCU (but can be by FFU or safe zone). Dig slowly (1/8 m3/s), Is loud (sensors can pin-point it form hundreds of meters), and you need to carry rocks in uncompressed form out of the tunnel.
 
2. Automated AFK mining. What if I build and program my hovercraft to go in pattern, jump on, block/macro dig button and leave it for night to dig whole ore vein?
 
Possible solutions:
A. Provided by  @Atmosph3rik: Resources should be in non-solid, odd-shaped veins, so strip mining is extremely inefficient. Sounds like efficient solution without side effects.
B. Limit players inventory capacity. But it's easy to set macro to once per 10 minutes turn around, use dispenser to clear inv, then go back to mining. And it would hurt long mining trips on foot (I don't mind, as IMO you should use some kind of vehicle with you most of the time).
C. Limiting how much character can mine per day. I.e. make mining generate heat, which cools several times slower when not mining. The longer you mine, the slower it goes. I.e. after 2h you mine 2x slower, after 10h you mine 10x slower. That would hurt legit no-life miners, which I wouldn't mind, but some players probably would.
 
3. Provided by @Omfgreenhair: New player's bases boxed with basic materials in safe-zone by troll (who may demand payment for removing the structure)
 
Possible solutions:
A. TU makes it impossible due to size of protected area. But it's not really within reach of new player
B. Static constructs have weaker version of TU (few meters around the construct) built in, making griefer work more time consuming. Especially considered that you need to dig under base as well, to fully block someone.
C. Limit players to single static constructs within ASA per account. That shouldn't harm anyone sane, and would help against ASA clutter. This way troll could troll just one player.
D. Limit usage of very basic resources in constructs (rock, dirt, snow). But that would hinder creativity too much.
E. Provided by @Kurock: Allow players to re-park ships that someone parked too close to your construct, even if it means some clipping. Should fix the problem with dynamic constructs used for boxing.
 
Know the solution? Share.
Think of some other exploit? Share too.

I think the main reason this specific exploit won't be likely to be an issue is that valuable materials will be underground probably in odd shaped veins surrounded by dirt or rock.
 
So you would have to write a program that could first use the scanner to identify a vein of the material that you want.  And then it would have to be able to visually tell the difference between the surrounding dirt and resources.
 
It might be possible.  But it definitely wouldn't be possible with predefined patterns.  Your macro would need to be pretty intelligent.
 

Happy new year !!!
 
New year, New poster
 

 
By Alethion

You shouldn't overthink what information you put into the ship class. Its just an basic classification.
As long as we don't know what ship sizes are actually practical, it's pointless to say, for example, "ships longer than 250 meters are battleships" (see below).
In the From The Depths forum, someone has postet the following list:
PCF Fast Attack Craft (ship): <40 m length, 8-10 m beam
PBR Patrol Boat (ship): 40-60 m length, 10-12 m beam
DDC Corvette: 60-110 m length, 10-16 m beam
DL Frigate: 110-140 m length, 12-18 m beam
DD Destroyer: 140-160 m length, 16-20 m beam
CL Light cruiser: 160-170 m length, 16-20 m beam
CA Heavy cruiser: 170-200 m length, 18-24 m beam
BC Battlecruiser: 200-250 m length, 24-30 m beam
BB Battleship: >250 m length, >30 m beam
 
Note, that the difference between cruisers and heavy cruisers is the main armaments calibre (see IJN Mogami). In WW2 terms: if the main armament is bigger or equal than 200 mm its a heavy cruiser.
Carriers would be divided into 3 categories: Light, (normal), and super, depending on its size and therefore the number of planes.
 
What should be added to the class is if the ship is atmospheric, space or both capable, because that is VERY important to know.

I don't think the idea is to have predefined classes that players *have* to chose from - or is it? I wouldn't like that very much
 
As I understand it "the idea" is to have a thread (about ship classes) that will serve as general chit-chat, right? Quote: "I think there should be a thread" - okays, nice idea, do it, I think the thread should go into the General Discussions forum tho 
 
Anyhow, since we are here now, I think the classes will be...
Hovercraft (can't cloud) Plane (can't space) Shuttle (can't... errr... outperform other classes) Spaceship (can't atmosphere) ´

Well to be exact, mass conservation is not a rule of physics. Nuclear reactions are based on the fact that some mass is lost in the process (it is converted into energy : that's how nuclear plants works). Energy is the only thing which is conservative.
 
But i agree with you. I am against the idea of being able to delete "material" things. It would distord the economy. Even dirt can contribute to the economy because it may cost you (you will have to manage it) or be an income (some people may want to buy it !). Of course, as it has been stated before, i don't think it will have a big effect on the beginning of the game (there will be plenty of land to put it on : the world will seem infinite) but later on as some people may do not want you to trash dirt on their land, it will cost you (either by owning land where you would store dirt or paying people to accept it on their land for exemple).
 
To broaden the topic, i think this possibility need to be linked with waste management. In a game, generally, when something is useless to you (which is what waste is), you can delete it and the problem is solved. But as DU aims to reproduce a civilization development and i think civilizations are human organizations managing all the problems humanity have to face in order to survive and/or achieve goals (waste is one of these problems : just think about nuclear waste), deleting shouldn't be possible for material components ; we can already recycle constructions with a 100% efficiency (if i'm not mistaken) which is already a very convenient feature not accessible in reality.

Also hard-limits like "max 100 players per org" are laughably easy too go around. We'd just have BOO1. BOO2. BOO3... BOO47, ect.

1. Impenetrable underground bunkers
The problem is - building underground is not hard, doesn't require skill or even smart idea. And unless there is some mechanic that prevents it - its hyper-effective, making you almost invulnerable.
No. But I don't want any bases that are completely invulnerable. The same reason I don't want safe-zones spread all around.
Don't try to guess my motivations. It seems you miss them all the time. Focus on topic.
Can you thing of ANY way to defeat well-prepared underground bunker, without having 10 times more soldiers? If yes, please share.
Geothermal, large batteries or fuel tanks, secret tunnel to bring supplies. I don't think "starving" base would be even an viable solution.
Problem is - if small org can easily defend against large org, how could you ever have a chance to capture large org base? Even if you're in just as large org? And devs are clearly against safe-zones.
Limiting PvP to ships and space station seems seriously limiting.
Every game has limits - rules. Otherwise there could be no competition.
Game balance. I hope.
2. Auto-mining
Yes, that should fix the problem with rare ores - because there the challenge is to find the ore, rather than time required to mine it.
But for it to apply to common veins, those also would have to have very uneven structure, so strip mining is very inefficient. They are announced to span kilometres long/wide. So placing them in very narrow but long veins fix the issue.
I'll add it to OP
Err... what's the difference? If I have access via Lua to engines, and construct coordinates, I can make it move in any way I want - simple or not.
I.e. I can make bus that goes from ark to the edge of safe zone and back, collect money for tickets and let passengers play pong on the way. Lua is very powerful.
It prevents auto-mining, because you are limited to mining 3h/day. And only self-regen, because if you allow external source, then limitation just get removed.
Why isn't it and effective? What kind of exploit?
Could you elaborate? Statements like those gives us nothing. 
Everything is mined by hand. AFAIK there is no other tool for mining than your magic hand that eats matter. The system I suggested applies to that magic hand.
 
BTW the fact that I think mining is boring AF doesn't mean that I'm advocating for auto-mining (in this particular thread). So don't insist such things.
Maybe NQ will make mining interesting in some way. One can dream.
Yes, based on what they showed us and my knowledge of Lua.
No. I'm assuming that player finds large vein manually, then set afk mining bot. There is no problem with making it work underground.
Common material is enough to flood the market, making newbies unable to earn their first quanta.
3. Boxing new player's bases in safe zone
@Omfgreenhair good one! I'll add it to OP.
 
Possible solutions:
a. TU makes it impossible due to size of protected area. But it's not really within reach of new player
b. Static constructs have weaker version of TU (few meters around the construct) built in, making griefer work more time consuming. Especially considered that you need to dig under base as well, to fully block someone.
c. Limit players to single static constructs within ASA per account. That shouldn't harm anyone sane, and would help against ASA clutter. This way troll could troll just one player.
d. Limit usage of very basic resources in static constructs (rock, dirt, snow). But that would hinder creativity too much.