Cornflakes

*cough cough*

Take any adroid device, install droidpad, profit
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You go into an english speaking forum and complain that people ask you to speak english?
 
you'd be yelling at people as well if they were speaking german in a french forum.
 
If you go somewhere you adapt to the local customs not the locale to your customs.

I'd prefer if theres no explicit ID system but instead something thats built on LUA communication.
 
Like a few standard communication tags with assorted data sectors (like xml or json tags).
For example vessel name and affiliation.
 
Security features atop that could be handled by player made LUA code.
 
i'd also make it hard to impossible to intercept such communications.
Transport layer security should be hard to circumvent

i'd personally limit the range of any repair tools to very short ranges, like a few meters.
 
combined with some system that remembers the undamaged state of a given construct (or just plain blueprint access) it would strongly encourage shipyards (with repair arms) and small repair vehicles that crawl surfaces.
 
neither variant would make it "too cheap" or particularily useful in combat.
 
and would make repair yards and fleet tenders an asset to be protected.
with all the repair equipment and production capacity at hand.

I'd prefer if theres no explicit ID system but instead something thats built on LUA communication.
 
Like a few standard communication tags with assorted data sectors (like xml or json tags).
For example vessel name and affiliation.
 
Security features atop that could be handled by player made LUA code.
 
i'd also make it hard to impossible to intercept such communications.
Transport layer security should be hard to circumvent

Isn't this type of identification part of the core unit?

are you gonna keep making polls until you get desired result, agreeing with your opinion ?

Here i outlined some basic ways to define actual detection.
 
 
 
 
i like the idea of just needing the object ID to identify a located target in the computer system, but it also seems slightly limited in what the player can do with software to locate/identify/track targets.
 
maybe replace it with a more generic "point/vector" primitive to which characteristics can be added by the player?
 
the primitive would contain an origin, a direction and optionally a distance.
so its denoting "somewhere in that direction" or "exactly there".
 
those primitives can be handed over to other systems (like turrets) and the game engine handles all necessary coordinate transformations.
(cause thats a pain)
 
the primitives would be reusable for other purposes other than detection as well, for example for general navigation and communication of directions.
(hell, the direction vector could directly be utilised for target designation by the player "the first ship that intersects with my pointing vector", a raycast)
 
 
so, now to actual gameplay and not programming details.
 
a passive sensor cant determine the distance to an object on its own. it either needs a reference emission strength (it receives x watts/m² object radiates y watts so the distance has to be r away x=y/r²) or a second passive measurement which has to be some distance away to cross the vectors and to determine the distance that way.
active sensors provide their own reference emissions and thus can pinpoint targets on their own, but they are very visible over great distances (the square of their detecion range assuming identical ships)
 
again the vector math should be done by the game engine
   
the vector headings shouldnt be perfectly precise but have some imprecision in their heading.
so one sensor might have an angular resolution of 0.5° which gives good enough data at short ranges but isnt suitable for long range fire
and another sensor might have an angular resolution of 0.025° which is suited for much longer range pinpointing but the sensor also has balance defined drawbacks.
this would enable confusion plays with multiple ships flying close to each other. appearing like a bigger target or a different target than whats searched for.
 
 
player programming skill should come from choosing which vectors to analyse more closely and which vectors to "cross" to determine pinpoint coordinates.
the rate at which vectors can be compared could be game mechanics limited ( x comparisons/second per DPU) so that good programmers would have an edge in terms of target detection by smart choice of the vectors to analyse and cross for coordinates.
 
so one could run target identification by brute force and a large amount of DPUs or by smart checking and using the resources they have optimally.
with a way to have DPUs communicate even across constructs (linky) would encourage having specialised sensor and processing ships, which weave their com nets through the fleet and supply the less sensor focused ships with targetting data.
 
so for large battles dedicated C4 ships would be highly useful to keep all the targetting data organised, precise and distributed to the combat ships.
 
 
 
this also opens the gates for player made countermeasures.
 
have an emitter randomly switch on and off to confuse the distance assesments of active sensors.
 
throw out flares to confuse passive sensors.
 
randomly toggle emitters distributed over the surface of you ship to obfuscate your position and velocity vector.
 
 
 
 
edit: 
after posting i noticed a small gap in my explanations:
 
sensors on their own dont provide pinpoint coordinates, the player has to process data in DPU's to get pinpoint data.
the sensors directly only provide directions and emission strengths

Why do you think you can just put your constructs back into your inventory?
 
Its highly unlikely that you'll be able to just suck your stuff back into your inventory.
 
Especially with bigger constructs.

I'm going to use very short and simple sentances to underscore this point.
 
Regardless of the options in play - ALL OF US need to be aware of a fundamental key, immutable fact:
 
The success of the game determines the value of the DAC.
 
Let me say that again slowly in a different way.
 
NovaQuark provides Platform as a Service (PaaS).
 
They do not do content.
 
They do not make the community.
 
That is for us and us alone.
 
If the game tanks, DAC's are effectively worthless.
 
If the community is shit, divided and un-inclusive, and the emergent gameplay doesn't occur, the game tanks.
 
EACH AND EVERYONE ONE OF US HERE WILL DETERMINE THE SUCCESS OF THE GAME.
 
IT IS ON US TO MAKE OR BREAK THE BUSINESS MODEL.
 
Regardless of the option you may vote for above - remember this immutable fact.
 
The technology may be NovaQuark's, but the experience we make as a community is ours and ours alone. That is the real value DAC's reflect and what should be of highest concern to each and every one of you.
 
*end rant* 

It doesnt do as much good as it sounds for them to be a loot-able item.

I'm going to go against this
 
Unlike in eve, there are no NPC stations to sit them in. theyll exist somwhere in game at all times available to be taken.
 
Everyone makes this sound like it'll destroy the game if you can't steal DAC's from people. I'm not convinced stealing DAC's is useful for the game as a whole. Its simply an interesting mechanic for them, but its not really fair in either direction. DAC's themselves arent particularly fair and making them lootable is just another injustice.
 
Either way is percieved as something not fair. If people with money can buy DACs not fair. If people can't steal DACs somehow also not fair.
I respect NQ's decision to make them non lootable.
 
Why would anyone ever move a DAC, even if its a physical item just use a tag mark it as yours and you are the only one with the right to pick it up, leave it in the Novark field area, and leave. Realized there is technically one safe area.
 
I'm not about strong arming NQ to make decisions or using perceived leverage against them I hope they stick to making choices they believe are logical and not bending because the community clammors for something that is opinion.
 
Great games have been wrecked in both directions, communities asking for questionable mechanics, and devlopers turning their back to community opinion.

Austria here, so maybe I start an organization followed by germans....oh wait

Why do you think you can just put your constructs back into your inventory?
 
Its highly unlikely that you'll be able to just suck your stuff back into your inventory.
 
Especially with bigger constructs.

Build a big spaceship, label it a city.
Done.
:shrug:

you know that building games tend to attract carebears because they want to build shiny stuff? V:
 
if you forcefully limit them to small spaces you'll lose large parts of the possible playerbase.
 
and giving people time to actually /react/ on attacks doesnt make them safe from everything....

Where to start - I guess IMO - no free kills (you're gonna have to work for it )
 
If we're going to talk about this, we can't limit ourselves to the idea that it's all pure PvP only. DU's setting (whether or not it's reflected IN GAME) literally will have millions of people in it.
 
So Lone Wolf's aside (having been one myself in games - it's the risk you take against reward in PvP)... Let's look at some basic realistic principles - NPC's are a good starting point. In ANY RL environment, you have consequences to an action.
 
If you show up to blat some player's city (or even an org's city) when they are "AFK", reality would point out that PEOPLE LIVE THERE. And they won't just be passive about things. The NPC populace would react - some would fight back, some will run (causing attackers and defenders logistical headaches) etc. Other orgs and NPC's would also move to take advantage - you'll get White Knights joining the defence. You might get other Orgs or NPC's attacking your bases while you're blatting the AFKer.
 
Sieges and attacks on settlements (as opposed to pure raiding - in and out) should take MONTHS. Really. Unless you want to nuke the place from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure after all). They should not be lightly entered in to. They should be expensive endeavors. They need to be planned, you need intel and stuff.
 
IT SHOULD BE HARD, and it SHOULD be rewarding if you succeed.

sooooo... its their fault for having a life besides the game?
(or for making a corp with only RL friends, or similar craziness....)
 
sounds like fair game design

I agree, there cannot be game mechanics that punish people for not being online. Nor should it be possible to destroy someone's things without them having the opportunity to do anything about it.
 
But to remove the ability to damage someone's things when they're not online not only ruins the sandbox, but presents potentially game breaking exploit opportunities.

sooooo... its their fault for having a life besides the game?
(or for making a corp with only RL friends, or similar craziness....)
 
sounds like fair game design

Just because you have to select targets to engage them doesnt mean that all your weapons have a full 4pi firing angle.
It just means that you dont have to manually point your mouse at the right spot to hit.
Decoupling controlling weapons and controlling your ship as a whole.
Making the game about positioning yourself smartly instead of the mechanical action of pointing your weapon at the right pixel.
 
Weapons will likely still have limited arcs in which they can engage.

Don't understand this kind of complaint.
 
Ok. Let's imagine, NQ remove DACs. Game released. We play few months. Players already can find black market offers (with fakes as well) for "Want to buy/sell 1 month subscribe for in-game cash/money". And you already get a similar situation. Next few months. There come some websites with offers to sell/buy in-game money.
 
So NQ creates a bit more expensive, but the safer system only. With it or without, your "trouble" won't disappear.
 
Thanks,
Archonious

God, I think this thread gave me cancer. How entitled do you have to be to expect to play for free.

Your position hilights the tension between making the game as open-world as possible and the commercial realities of attracting new players to the game. As the saying goes, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression", and if the first impression of new players is a cratered hellscape encircled by legions of griefers, that does not bode well for anyone long-term.
 
It will be interesting to see what mechanisms the developers come up with to address this issue and provide a smooth path for new players, as well as environments that fit the risk/reward tastes of various player demographics. I am sure there will be lots of instructive "emergent behavior" in the alpha.

i'd like to point out that proper warp drives (aka alcubierre drives) dont impart any force on your ship.
viewed locally you dont accelerate at all.
you just take space and move it around, while you are incidentally on that "space plane" (harr harr) you are moving around.
there is no classical force or acceleration there.
 
(also an inertia /generator/ would be rather counter productive to add to a ship you want to accelerate :V an inertia dampener would be smarter)