Wardion2000

I see how my post may have been confusing. When I say elements I mean specifically "voxel elements" and "mesh elements" A staircase would be an example of a "voxel element" a cockpit would be an example of a "mesh element". The devblog (Link here) goes into greater detail.

I'd like to create a list of all the elements, voxels, and mesh ideas we would all like to build with in-game that have not been mentioned by the devs yet. A short list of what I'd like to see follows. Artificial gravity voxels with diminishing returns based on how close you are to a natural gravity well. Voxels with "traction" that the character avatar "sticks" to so we can build moving platforms we won't slide off of. Diminishing returns based on how far you are from a gravity well. Voxels that can only be constructed in certain conditions such as an airless, high, or zero-g environment. (Could make certain shipyards more or less valuable and/or capable.) Voxels that can have different properties if certain conditions are met. (apply power and you increase mass for instance.) "Floating" component voxels. Functionality identical to other types but for aesthetics only. (See my forum portrait for an example.) Anyone else with ideas? I think this thread could be quite expansive.

Hmm, I just thought of some more utility uses as well. The ability to create environmental effects. (like smoke) An interface for the remote control of drones. An HTML5 programmable interface just like DPU's. Anyone else with other thoughts and ideas?

I propose the devs make 1200 KLM diameter planets possible for the sole purpose of seeing Dominar eat his keyboard.

TranquilClaws how realistic do you want this conversation to be? I ask because your weapon examples follow some very well established though unrealistic tropes in Hollywood and science fiction. (Nothing wrong with this it does make their use exciting.) So I don't understand what flaws you want us to point out. At the speeds, you reach in space most of these weapon systems would only be useful in area-denial tactics for instance, and the others are classically misrepresented in the before mentioned tropes.

In reply to the original post. Possible yes. The game engine could conceivably do it. (no upper limit has yet been put in place for size.) But WHY? In real life, we want to build these things to solve energy, space, and calculation limitations that being on a planet has. These limits don't exist in-game so the only reasons "I" can think up are: A billboard, advertising your talents as a builder/designer. Some in-game mechanic introduced by the devs. (e.g. territory control) Because you can. (A perfectly valid reason in a sandbox.) So my question is, "why do you want to know SilverRangerOne?"

That is a perfectly logical response Captain. Unfortunately, not everyone is logical. Some people are just............. Stolen "wifu" (←what does this even mean?) not required.

Oooooo. It's so pretty!

T.M.I.= Too much information

T.M.I. man!

In the devblog about voxel tools and elements (Link here) they talk about the "smoothing tool". Such a tool would allow you to make the slopes you want.

Are you stating this as fact? If so sources please. If not, please rephrase as it can definitely be misinterpreted.

First, you are not quoting google. That is a direct quote from Wikipedia which is the first thing that pops up and should never be quoted as the factual accuracy of any post should always be in question. The Wikipedia front page even has a disclaimer (Link here) on why they cannot guarantee the validity of any post. A good example of this in action is this (Link) article from Wikipedia. It also contains a definition of constructive criticism. This article contradicts your article on the subject. "Constructive criticism" is two different words and therefore are defined by a dictionary. For instance by the Oxford dictionary Constructive is defined as: ADJECTIVE 1Serving a useful purpose; tending to build up: 'constructive criticism' Note how they even included "constructive criticism" as their example. And just for completeness: Criticism NOUN 1The expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes: 'he received a lot of criticism''he ignored the criticisms of his friends' Second, As I previously stated no one is obligated to give anyone one form of criticism over another. Third, I agree hard edges in a dispute aren't bad. My concern is that they have become INCREASINGLY harder. And let me be clear this is happening on both sides of the table. I have no idea if anyone has been offended. I don't know anyone here personally, so I could never make that judgement unless it broke down into name calling. All I know is that both sides are not debating with the same vernacular and things were looking hostile for a bit.

@CaptainTwerkmotor They don't appear to be ready for my money yet.

I'm going to try something different today. l would like to address some issues WITHOUT calling anyone out. I do this because I believe an effort must be made to curb the increasingly harder edge disputes that are popping up. To accomplish this I'd like to make a few points to everyone who has posted so far. First off some posters WOULD like food and drink integrated, for the sake of immersion or another aspect of gameplay. There is nothing wrong with this. Plenty of MMO's have included food mechanics and found a way to make them work. Other survival/construction games also exist that include food mechanics that work fine as well. Some may feel these mechanics will interfere with the direction of DU as a game. Others are quick to point out that we can have whatever direction we want in a sandbox game. However, a game rarely does everything we want it to. Or I should say "You can't please everybody." If such a mechanic is included it may be put in SPECIFICALLY as a hurdle or to slow our progress o other aspects of play. Remember this is a sandbox game. It can take all kinds.... Including farmers, if the devs so choose. Secondly. There are many kinds of criticism. Constructive criticism is specifically suggestions of improvement or alternative paths to achieve the same goal. It never invalidates the original idea. Practical criticism is pointing out when the original idea or aspects of it, does or does not work in an actual application. There are many other kinds of criticism but these are the most prominent you see on the boards, and no one is obligated to give you one form of criticism over the other. Third, this thread is in the idea box of the forum. Idea discussions SHOULD focus on how they might work. Not why we might not want them. That comes later, and usually on a separate thread. I'm pointing these out because people are bringing up some interesting thoughts here. Thoughts that if explored could lead to new and provocative ideas that can open up the game in ways we never imagined. So let's not burn any bridges, either idea wise or with each other.

That would be an awful lot of planning and coordination for ONE ship. I grow hesitant when a game mimics reality so much it becomes an actual job. As for a way to prevent respawning, I think the devs already had a notion on this. The quantum "Resurrection Nodes" are supposed to be buildable and destroyable war assets. Of course, this just means I need to turn the interior ship design into a bloody labyrinth/deathtrap.

I could see it happening. I think it's just as likely blueprints will cover design philosophy metas though. Someone brought up wanting to target specific components in another thread. I would counter by building extraneous parts in out of the way places to throw off targeting systems then. You might spend a lot of time reverse engineering something only for the blueprint to be obsolete a week later. Though I could see builders being hired to reverse engineer and improve on a design. Seen the movie Paycheck recently? Not the best movie I know, but a perfect example.

Can think of a better way for you to have been led here. Welcome!

Hello. Welcome to the forums.

Nothing definite on how damage will be resolved at all. Only theories and allusions from the tab targeting method.

True, but it might be a stretch fitting multi-boxing into a sandbox criteria.

Yes, this is one of those nice situations where it doesn't need to be one or the other. We have plenty to work with here.

Remember that they plan to include a system of territorial control as well. Territorial control isn't supposed to be something easy to pull off, so I can see ALL of the above being true by that fact alone. To bring cargo to areas with no territorial control it would require merchant ships and traders. (All newly explored space and planets for example.) Areas of space or land under territorial control could be thought to have the infrastructure needed for remote purchasing. Especially if it's only possible in areas that are interconnected in ownership. (like the territory tiles mentioned in the devblog.) They would have plenty of people already thus necessitating some sort of central trade. Remote trade transactions might also be limited to trade on the planetary surface or one system tile to another. For areas of unclaimed territory tiles, cue the player made terminals. I can see terminals stretching far beyond a simple vending machine. If I were to build an underground vault for instance heavily guarded, trapped and armored as well as being automated. I could create a sort of "Black Vault" for those who want to trade or store items in secret. Depending on LUA scripting capabilities each vault room could be given an access code known only to whoever is renting it. These codes can then be used as a secure method of transfer between two parties. (I can also see people getting their grubby little hands on the blueprints and planning a "Bank Job".)

Your Pacific Rim sig will never be more appropriate than it is now.