virtuozzo

I must say that feature that you request(ed) seems unusual. At least I never heard of it. Ignore specific users so you (as logged in account) do not see their posts? Sure. Common. You making sure they don't see your posts? That's new in a way, I think. I probably never heard of it because it is not feasible to implement or guarantee. Or forgot about it due to this.
 
Why? Because anyone can look at user profiles. I don't have to follow anyone to see what they do. "Following" just seems to be a convenience feature. Let's assume they add a function so I, as "blocked" user, cannot look at your profile or I don't see your posts anymore: I simply log out and watch it. You take away the ability for users to watch other profiles if they are not logged in? Alt account. You blacklist your posts to be seen for a certain IP (range)? VPN, etc.
 
I think that illustrates how infeasible or hard it would be, even if it might be a useful feature for some. I illustrate all of this to basically come to the conclusion that once you post in such a public forum, anyone can see it and it is hard to prevent select users from seeing this - specific measures to do so can be avoided.
 
Basically, we'll have to live with other people watching us on the internet. In public sections at least. I've seen worse than just someone looking at posts, if it's just that.
 
To clarify, I completely understand that you might find it useful and I am not arguing "against" it as in "How could you suggest such a crap?!" Just saying how hard it would be to pull off. Perhaps it now is better to accept it than hope for some solution that may never come or fully work. If it's just someone watching what you post, that's that. Could see worse things personally. If there's more to it where specific forum rules might be infringed upon you can obviously consider reporting if there was, for example, prior beef involved, but you can never prevent people from seeing your posts and following you "either way" if they want to.
 
Unless you don't post any more or change your account to throw them off. That's always an evasive option at the loss of your established abstract community rep with the prior account.
 
Or perhaps in all my considerations, I simply oversaw a working and practical solution to this, then feel free to correct me, whoever knows of any. Or send it via PM to me or Dhara if it shouldn't be here in a public thread.
 

It makes for meaningful choices and storytelling. Which is exactly what makes the sandbox work and grow. Choices, actions, consequences. We all take part in exactly this. 
 
But it also because of these reasons that no sandbox should ever have arbitrary mechanical concepts that "pause" or "limit" it. 

Never underestimate the level of organisation and preparation people will invest in for nefarious purposes. In truth, because a sandbox is a behavioural ecosystem there's strong stimuli for people to overcompensate in this. For some that will mean morality, for others shortcuts - which tends to present choices which can conflict with morality - of others or self. 
 
Only the very few seek the mud in all that. But a large segment will simply forego moral choices ... remember the gratification pull  

@boots_1588
As mentioned in the forum rules, please do not necropost on old threads as you have done already several times.
(The forum rules has been updated to indicate what is considered an old thread)
Granted, this time you stay in the limits but keep this in mind for the next times.
 
Now to reply on the topic:
Fallout56 is a multiplayer game and NOT a MASSIVELY multiplayer game. Todd Howard confirmed that during the E3 2018 Bethesda Conference. So it can be compared to Minecraft, Ark, Conan Exiles... but clearly not to MMORPGs where the server infrastructure cost is exclusively handled by the Dev Studio or Publisher.
  The Subscription model is one of the few topics not open to discussion. We have already talked in great length about why we went for a subscription model and no, there is no solid argument countering the reasons why we chose this model.
  1) Dropping monthly subscription to have more players is not a valid argument if the server infrastructure cost grows proportionally to the player base size while incomes don't grow accordingly.
 
2) Saying subcription is an outdated model is not a valid argument as it relies on personal opinion not backed by solid reasons. Seeing less MMORPGs using monthly subscription is not a solid reason if there is no understanding about the "why". 
 
Here is how we view the situation at Novaquark: monthly subscription model has been on the decline due to nearly no clear innovation in the MMORPG industry during the last decade. As new MMORPGs had to offer something different than those already well settled in the market (World of Warcraft, EVE Online, etc), if they weren't going to offer something really new, they had to be different on another level: monetization model. That's how the Free to Play games wave began. Many marketing representatives said many times that "Free to Play" was the future and most people believed it. Inconvients of such model were put under the rug... for a time. The question "Is F2P good or bad?" is irrelevant. Free to Play is a good monetization model good for some kind of games. We just don't think MMORPGs is among those. When you aim to have a game lasting for decades, you need to have steady income for decades as well. Free to play game incomes are too fluctuant, especially because they rely on the success of cosmetics (which is a everlasting gamble for a company as no one knows for sure in advance if players will love the new cosmetics and how much income it will generate before they hit the shop) and lootboxes.
 
Ironically, there has been recently a huge witch hunt about lootboxes. While we totally understand the reasons, it's a bit surprising that this problem has been exposed only recently, as lootboxes are as old as the Free to Play model and represents nearly always a (very) large part of F2P or B2P game incomes. Surprisingly, with this kind of monetization now forbidden in a growing number of countries, discussions about monthly subscription model are a thing again for many studios and publishers. 
 
3) Saying people want to make a one time payment is not a valid argument either: nobody with some common sense can ask for a one time payment (at the price of an average game) and expect to have a service lasting forever.
 
@Sofernius

Quite unlikely.
From a financial point of view, that would mean taking more risks than necessary: as said above, it would mean going from a steady income model to a fluctuant income model. Cosmetics make a good complementary income to B2P and subscription models but again, making it the main income of a game is very risky, especially if the structural costs for a game are high.
 

Those two things are already planned
Beta Key giveaways and Trial period at official release.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

Hi Boots_1588 and welcome to official Dual Universe forum.
 
It has never been communicated that monthly subscription will be at 30$. 
We would be interested to know where you've heard such information.
The official plan is to have a monthly subscription fee roughly equivalent to classic MMO monthly subscription (like EVE Online and World of Warcraft).
The DAC (playtime token for a month, tradable in-game) will be slightly more expensive, but again, it is planned to be aligned with what already exist in the gaming industry in this regard.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

You must have missed this game called EVE Online then I guess

Torque only makes real physics sense in air/water environments. Not in space, there vectors are prime. Also, NQ isn't going to require players to become professional pilots or mathematicians just to fly and move around.... 

That's merely the one account. EVE's always been an ideal dynamic for professional schizofrenia  It's something I am very curious for in DU, how NQ will handle multiple accounts and identities. I think it's fair to say that in any sandbox there is meta. But one thing I have learned in EVE is that at some point the ability to go nuts with multiple accounts starts to negatively impact the value of experience and the meaningfullness of stories created. 
 
From what I've read and heard NQ is very aware of the importance of community and communications. DU isn't at a point yet though where this is a big factor. It could use more exposure, but that's a different topic. And perhaps it's even good to have less exposure during alpha.
 
As I said, NQ is in a good position to not reinvent wheels and stumble in the same pitfalls. Truth be told, I like the building concepts as currently outlined. It is a subtly different driver of behaviour than what's available in EVE, and I do think this will provide a lot of strength to DU. Particularly since CCP is moving away from these kinds of gameplay drivers. 
 
Here's a big advantage for DU, no matter what people have done or what stories they have made in EVE, DU does not have those yet.
 
Even to someone who's seen and done pretty much everything everywhere in 15+ years of EVE (from tanking Concord in M0o to CA, Burn Eden, BOB & ASCN, PA, Xetic, PH to Code and the rest) that is something very attractive. Maybe even particularly to someone from such a background. 

2 years sober now.

I've played/lived/worked EVE since well before beta, and ever after. I can understand how EVE is often used as a reference and comparison point for DU. For over 15 years since formal launch EVE has set the de facto standard in terms of environment, genre and gameplay. That said, while there are similarities the simple given facts that 1) NQ is in a position to learn from everything that has happened in the industry since that time, 2) can learn from mistakes made by CCP and 3) is able to set its own vision it follows that DU is not going to be EVE. I'm not even going into consequences of differences in venture development and funding.
 
Not simply because the technology base is different, even if this already provides a different set of behavioural pathways within the environment. And also because NQ appears to favour the subscription + gametimecode model whereas CCP has chosen to go F2P in a race towards retirement and other plans. 
 
I do think that people with experience in sandbox games, including EVE, will have advantages that others without such an experience will lack. That said, this is not something NQ is unable to compensate for. 
 
I don't think people will ever stop comparing DU to EVE, there simply isn't that much available which shares the elements of science fiction, economics, space environment and sandbox. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, I can see it being irritating at times. But it also is a way to test vision and not repeat mistakes and avoid pitfalls. 
 
DU sharing many baseline concepts with EVE will automatically lead to similar types of stories and behaviour. That's hardly a bad thing. It's what people do in and with the sandbox that makes it grow. And let's be honest, EVE no longer is what it could have become. Once upon a time EVE was not simply a game, it was a sandbox of emergent gameplay. It was something of a virtual Frankenstein creation in its evolution, up to a certain point, becoming alive. But at some point the decision was made to no longer follow that road, for understandable reasons regardless of whether those were good or bad. With the adoption of that one roadmap and the revision of niche based feature sets and the introduction of F2P EVE set a different course. It's becoming a more stricht mechanisms based kindergarten. It's moving away from emergent gameplay. And that quite logically diminishes the value of generated stories and human interaction. It'll allow CCP to create an EVE which can stand up to the inevitable competition and bank on EVE while packaging it up. But it will also leave room for players who seek experiences and (the creation of) stories of more than just mechanically defined stimuli and boundaries. Not a bad thing for DU. 
 
DU can become anything really. Vision will define how it can evolve. NQ has a lot of options to avoid mistakes and stumbling blocks. That's a big advantage in its own right. Add to that how NQ's team is diverse in focus, and you get a pretty open visor while facing challenges and decisions. They've also hired Hrafnkell Oskarsson recently, an amazingly civil and smart guy who also brings his own practical experience. All in all it gives them a potential to really create a meaningful sandbox which players can take just about anywhere. Sure, the argument can be made that DU is getting somewhere slowly, and yes overall general experience with half made games and kickstarters in the industry isn't that pretty, but at the same time development is consistant. It demonstrates awareness of requirements and of vision. That sets it apart from others who stumble and fail. 
 
People aren't going to stop comparing DU to others. It's only human. It's not going to stop DU becoming something in its own right. It's been a long time since people with the affinity for general type and genre have had the opportunity to create in meaningful ways. That cements its potential. 

If there's wreck salvaging, can we also booby-trap the wrecks... ?
 

But you get quite a bit in return for that  There's a causal relation between taxes and both economic and social development  
We often overlook that, primarily because taxes tend to be piled up constructs which become overly complicated turning things into a twisted game. 
 
In our out of game, there's a wide range of interesting correlations. I don't doubt there will be corporations which make use of taxation mechanisms. Ideology is nothing but another church after all, and ultimately there's bills. A corporation which focuses on defense or offense will end up with SRP mechanisms (ship replacement payout), money has to come from somewhere, and economies of scale are a factor. Contract payment, ransoms, ventures, tons of options. But it still comes down to governance of internal economics. 
 
DU is a petri dish of human behaviour, individual and organised. The more advanced the activity, the more complex the dependancies, the more important internal economics become. Whether we like it or not, hierarchy in organisation becomes a requirement. 
 
Social psychology dictates that this will be one of the lines of divide between types of corporations as players organisate them. 

I'm in favor of allowing earlier backers to take a supporter pack, even at full price if needed.
Currently, bronze and silver backers have no option to back the game again without splitting into two accounts. Also, several backers (including myself) have expressed the will to get the few exclusive rewards of the supporter packs (esp. the T-Shirt it seams) and/or further support NQ.  
Regards,
Shadow

It seems you're still trying to find some sort of non-sandbox mechanism to provide safety and security for a chosen type of gameplay under a flag of governance protecting said chosen type of gameplay. 
 
I am sorry, but I have tried to get the point across. It is not going to happen. That simply is not a debate. We do not get any choice in this. NovaQuark is not going to provide this for you - or anyone with any chosen type of gameplay. 
 
Here's your reality check: whether you like it or not in any sandbox game you have to deal with your own and other people's behaviour. Regardless of whether it is good, bad, happy or sad. The sandbox requires the full spectrum of human behaviour in order to provide opportunity for any type of human behaviour. 
 
There are going to be people who want to do good things. There are people who are going to want to bad things. Some will want to reap tears. Some will want to use you. Some will tempt you to use them. Others will build just because that makes them happy. Others will try to destroy just because that makes them happy.
The sandbox is just like real life in terms of emergent gameplay. It doesn't protect or constrain. It's the choices and actions of people inside the sandbox which determine matters. 
 
Look, in some sandbox games I've built organisations from the ground up. Systems of governance, economics, logistics, diplomacy, strategy & tactics training to kill, teamwork to help starting players. In others I've built up teams to prey on the innocent by means of metagaming. In another I've done pretty much everything one could imagine, from replicating democracy among pixels turning it into tyranny (or vice versa) and harvesting the tears from those who just wanted to be left alone. The sandbox doesn't judge, protect or secure. It just provides the arena. Anything goes in it, only the developer sets any rules. 
 
 
I will agree that "corporation" as the default type of organisation sets limits. But I have already explained why that makes sense. This however does not prevent you from running a corporation or group of corporations the way you want it, the way that works best for you and likeminded people. But yes, in a sandbox you are always in potential competition and interaction. 

It seems you're still trying to find some sort of non-sandbox mechanism to provide safety and security for a chosen type of gameplay under a flag of governance protecting said chosen type of gameplay. 
 
I am sorry, but I have tried to get the point across. It is not going to happen. That simply is not a debate. We do not get any choice in this. NovaQuark is not going to provide this for you - or anyone with any chosen type of gameplay. 
 
Here's your reality check: whether you like it or not in any sandbox game you have to deal with your own and other people's behaviour. Regardless of whether it is good, bad, happy or sad. The sandbox requires the full spectrum of human behaviour in order to provide opportunity for any type of human behaviour. 
 
There are going to be people who want to do good things. There are people who are going to want to bad things. Some will want to reap tears. Some will want to use you. Some will tempt you to use them. Others will build just because that makes them happy. Others will try to destroy just because that makes them happy.
The sandbox is just like real life in terms of emergent gameplay. It doesn't protect or constrain. It's the choices and actions of people inside the sandbox which determine matters. 
 
Look, in some sandbox games I've built organisations from the ground up. Systems of governance, economics, logistics, diplomacy, strategy & tactics training to kill, teamwork to help starting players. In others I've built up teams to prey on the innocent by means of metagaming. In another I've done pretty much everything one could imagine, from replicating democracy among pixels turning it into tyranny (or vice versa) and harvesting the tears from those who just wanted to be left alone. The sandbox doesn't judge, protect or secure. It just provides the arena. Anything goes in it, only the developer sets any rules. 
 
 
I will agree that "corporation" as the default type of organisation sets limits. But I have already explained why that makes sense. This however does not prevent you from running a corporation or group of corporations the way you want it, the way that works best for you and likeminded people. But yes, in a sandbox you are always in potential competition and interaction. 

That's just begging for a deus ex machina. "I think I can be safest and have my fun if devs pour what I need for that in concrete". 
 
Removing the behavioural and mechanical sandbox by arbitrary constructs might provide a specific player type with a desired outcome, but it'll still be a non-sandbox game that way. Funny thing, NQ present it as a sandbox. 
 
Which makes all of this a theoretical discussion on things which are never going to happen. Unless you - the player - strive to build and organise your ideas and convictions in to a reality among pixels for yourself and yours. Just like others will do different things in different forms with different methods. 
 
You want government? Get people together, go out there, plant your flag and stake your claim. Build and organise your group the way you want it. 

It's a sandbox. That makes it what you make from it. The moment you try to replicate artificial, arbitrary and subjective constraints on it as controlling mechanisms is the moment you effectively strip the potential for making it into what you might want to turn it into for yourself. 
 
In other words, while there will be baseline feature sets and mechanisms that enable the sandbox, some of which might support types of human behaviour and organisation in the sandbox, you don't want to go down the road as described in the topic start. There's important lessons to learn here from both successes and failures of other mmo's (and human social psychology in general). 
 
 
A. No. Sandbox. Make it what you want to be. Invest in it. Deal with it interacting with what others might want out of it. Nothing is worthwhile without a cost. Nothing has meaning without effort. Nothing has significance if it doesn't have to stand up to something else.
 
B. No. You're talking about arbitrary constraints. This is a very different thing from game features and mechanisms. You want to mix the two. While a cocktail can taste good to one or the other, it's a matter of subjective taste. Welcome to the human species, one shoe does not fit all. 
 
C. NovaQuark. That's it. I sincerely doubt they will dabble in player affairs however. They're smart cookies, and they recently hired someone into the position of exec producer who's got quite a bit of experience with the hard lessons of that other mmo in these matters. 
 
Reality check: it's a sandbox. Reading tips: organisational psychology, game theory. 
 
Honestly, don't try to wrap a subjective perspective or ideal in either lore or feature marketing. Use the sandbox. It provides the room and the means for you to make your perspective or ideal as real as possible. 

It's a sandbox. That makes it what you make from it. The moment you try to replicate artificial, arbitrary and subjective constraints on it as controlling mechanisms is the moment you effectively strip the potential for making it into what you might want to turn it into for yourself. 
 
In other words, while there will be baseline feature sets and mechanisms that enable the sandbox, some of which might support types of human behaviour and organisation in the sandbox, you don't want to go down the road as described in the topic start. There's important lessons to learn here from both successes and failures of other mmo's (and human social psychology in general). 
 
 
A. No. Sandbox. Make it what you want to be. Invest in it. Deal with it interacting with what others might want out of it. Nothing is worthwhile without a cost. Nothing has meaning without effort. Nothing has significance if it doesn't have to stand up to something else.
 
B. No. You're talking about arbitrary constraints. This is a very different thing from game features and mechanisms. You want to mix the two. While a cocktail can taste good to one or the other, it's a matter of subjective taste. Welcome to the human species, one shoe does not fit all. 
 
C. NovaQuark. That's it. I sincerely doubt they will dabble in player affairs however. They're smart cookies, and they recently hired someone into the position of exec producer who's got quite a bit of experience with the hard lessons of that other mmo in these matters. 
 
Reality check: it's a sandbox. Reading tips: organisational psychology, game theory. 
 
Honestly, don't try to wrap a subjective perspective or ideal in either lore or feature marketing. Use the sandbox. It provides the room and the means for you to make your perspective or ideal as real as possible. 

Both of these happen too slowly to be included in the game.
 
Yes, but where do they come from? a finite source.

Real Life Cities are primarily composed of residential buildings. In games, there is no need for residential structures beyond a few containers or prestige. 

To paraphrase a lot of unnecessary text and mild condescension;
 
"It's payment system is like Eve Online before the free to play thing.  You pay for the game or earn/steal/trade the equivalent of a pilot licence which can be traded for  game time."

Personally I find subscription games better over the long haul. First it cuts out many of those players that enjoy ruining a game for new players and stifling enjoyable play for others, what we often see on free to play servers. Also nothing spurs developers like a drop in revenue if the content gets stale. Lastly any other compromise method will lead to a pay to win scenario.  Just my opinion on this topic.

And that's why i just disagree with you. Your "ideas" only create fear of PvP and cater to risk averse tacticians. PvP should be seen as a driving factor and be the basis and incentive for ppl to get stuff done, not punish them because they tried

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.