Wardion2000

DEATH TO THE IMPERIALIST PIGDOGS!
Blast their Ships! Burn their planets!
 

 
let's see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women!
 
(Seriously dude, lay off the spam.)

Ooooo pretty.
 

Hi everyone!
 
We are aware there has been a very hot debate this week about the DACs being unlootable/not possible to steal from their owner. We apologize for the late reply (the Kickstarter campaign is something getting most of our time at the moment) and we thank you for your patience. We always try to find a compromise, an acceptable solution for different categories of players, without favorizing a specific one (because a sandbox game needs as much PvP players than non-PvP players). There has been a few misunderstandings and this thread is here to dissipate them. As we know many of you are passionate about the topic, there will be a few rules, to keep the thread clean and clear, easy to read:
 
- No Meme. - Explain only in one post your point of view (and edit it if you want to add something). Of course this doesn't count for replying on further Novaquark posts in the thread. - No flaming, no provocation toward any other participant of the topic. If some these rules are broken, your post might be edited or removed without warning.      
Apparently there has been some confusion/misunderstanding about what has been said on the Kickstarter page in the comments (it seems the misunderstanding comes from here). To the question: "Are DACs physical items?" the answer has been "No, the DACs are digital items". However, that was said in the sense "It's not a physical item in the real world". There have been so many occurrences about the opposite question regarding the "Arkship Passenger ID Card" being considered as a digital reward (while it was a physical reward, an item you get in the real world) that we apparently misunderstood the real sense of the question in the Kickstarter for the DACs.
 
So, to clarify: DACs are digital items in the sense there won't be any under physical form in the real world (like a prepaid card or something similar). However, they will be "physical" in the virtual world of Dual Universe in the sense that you will be able to move them from one inventory to another. It would make no sense if they weren't movable as it won't be possible to put them on the market.    
This is one of the question that is still in discussion on the game design level: markets outside safezones, destructible or not? Possibly yes, but in that case, the way to handle unlootable DACs wasn't very appealing to the team (an item travelling through space to go back to its owner in case of the market destruction is a bit immersion breaking). However, there are several huge implications (and concerns) of having being markets destructible (and that's probably why it's not possible in EvE).    
CaptainTwerkMotor sees the fact of "DAC being unlootable" as something making the DAC a "Pay-to-Win" weapon. We're not sure to understand how he came to this conclusion so we would like to hear his reasoning behind this. We hope he will answer to this question below in the thread.     You have a point in saying that some emergent gameplay would be missing. And you have also a point saying it could be acceptable to have DACs lootable if there was a 100% safe way to use them and/or transport them. So why something similar to the EVE redemption system hasn't been chosen right away?   The main reason was: game development time. Developing a solid secondary inventory system outside the game, tied to the account instead of a character, interconnected with the game and a payment portal at the same time, and all the ramifications that come with it... is something far from being trivial. It will take a significant amount of time to develop, to test and to be 100% sure the system is bug free. For the official release, the DAC system at the moment is supposed to be pretty simple: A player buy a DAC on the payment portal, he choose the character on which he want to drop the DAC and a moment later, the player can find the DAC in the character inventory.    As some of us in the Novaquark team are EvE Players, we witnessed the chaos that followed the introduction of the PLEXs in EVE. With our minimalistic system (at least for now), if the DACs were lootable, we expected to experience such chaos. So we opted for the DACs unlootable (unless there was a game breaking loophole). It seemed to us a quick and easy solution, quite similar to the EVE redemption system regarding the effects: as it was possible in EVE to transport PLEX in a secure way (keeping PLEX in the redemption system and dropping them only in safe, non-PvP areas like NPC space stations), we honestly didn't think it was such a big deal to have unlootable DACs. However, seeing it is for a large part of the community, we will aim to something similar to the Redemption system, as it still seem to us an acceptable compromise for every player profiles (even if it represents extra work). We can't promise it will be implemented at official release but we will do our best: CCP had a much larger team when they implemented the redemption system, and on our side, we have already a huge roadmap ahead for a team of our size. Moreover, it will be less painful (both for the community and the dev team) to start with unlootable DACs becoming lootable in the future, than the contrary.    
There's something that needs to be very clear here: again, we didn't change anything immediately on a whim, just because some people had issues. We did it regarding our roadmap, and we honestly thought it wouldn't be a big issue for the community as it seemed to us there wouldn't be a big difference between unlootable DACs and an EvE-like redemption system. We still think the reaction has been disproportionate on the topic, but as a redemption system is still a good compromise for both PvP players and Non-PvP players, we are totally ok to go with that. It will just take more time to do it (and push back a bit some other features on the roadmap).   Loud voices without a well-reasoned opinion/feedback will never work. Loud voices won't influence the dev team decisions (we thought it was pretty clear with the Divine Reapers case on the forum)  Well-reasoned feedback (like the discussion here) can. That and game development time constraints.   Regarding Scamming: As long as it won't be a scam using a bug exploit, and have some way to be avoided by being a minimum careful and responsible, this will be up to the player (who supposed to be an adult) to not trust completely a person he just met. For all other cases, the Novaquark Team reserves the right to intervene: sandbox doesn't mean "letting the game turn into chaos". On a side note: Dual Universe is not meant for children. It has never been designed for them.    Regarding Griefing: Ambushing a player is part of the gameplay. Harassing some players repeatedly for any reason (be it vengeance, to make them leave the game, etc) is another thing. In this second case the Novaquark Team reserves the right to intervene: again, sandbox doesn't mean "letting the game turn into chaos".    
You have a point here. And that's why there's a need to have 100% safe way to handle DACs, by making them unlootable or having a system as similar as possible as the EVE redemption system.    
You made two good points here.
And the dev team takes this factors into account.
 
 
Credits will be immaterial and not lootable. Regarding character death, the current game design (it might change) is the following: When a character dies, it will loose all he has in his inventory. A part will be destroyed. The other part will be lootable.   Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

How about a huge hovervehicle? I mean, the upkeep would enormous, but with enough people and solid administration, it would be possible

We also welcome Space Wizards and Sharks, but only Sharks with lasers, it's a pretty strict requirement actually. Don't blame me, blame the Union. 
 

Raptor Devs? - Confirmed

Very true.  I will never underestimate the nerd rage.  Still, It doesn't have the OUTRIGHT vulnerabilities that building large stations and titans did in EVE.

I will build Giant Space Kraken.....  No seriously! 
 

 

 

 
RAAAAWWWRRR!!!!

While I agree that those who would want to maintain power wouldn't want someone outside of their power bloc building ANYTHING like this.  How would you stop them?  It's not like in EVE where everything is built as an all or nothing approach.  A Ringworld or other Dyson construct could be built in sections with interlocking components.  These components can then be BROUGHT to the final construction site all at once.  Ah, how I love sandbox construction.

No, don't do that.  I don't think your viewpoint lacks merit.  Merely IF it is an actual issue.  Giving voice to a possible concern is fine.  I just balk at the idea that something WILL happen unless it is changed or that it is alright to broad stroke an entire group of people and say we don't want change so we can hold some kind of advantage over others.
 
 
I too am under this impression.  However, I don't believe this game will fail over an entirely IMAGINED set of circumstances.  Complex coding and building is a STATED design goal. (Link here)  Novaquarks goals are VERY ambitious. Perhaps too ambitious, but they are clearly stated.  And Novaquark seems to think they can attract a large enough player base with these game aspects.  I agree.  
 
You keep equating that having the complex aspect of coding will somehow ruin the success of the game by driving away the player base or that it makes everything else secondary.  I believe that that in-game coding is a selling point and will ATTRACT more players not drive them away.  I also believe that people will focus on whatever aspect of play they enjoy most.  If that is coding then yes, everything else will be secondary.  If it isn't, then coding will be secondary.  

Howdy.  Looking forward to reading your posts.

No, don't do that.  I don't think your viewpoint lacks merit.  Merely IF it is an actual issue.  Giving voice to a possible concern is fine.  I just balk at the idea that something WILL happen unless it is changed or that it is alright to broad stroke an entire group of people and say we don't want change so we can hold some kind of advantage over others.
 
 
I too am under this impression.  However, I don't believe this game will fail over an entirely IMAGINED set of circumstances.  Complex coding and building is a STATED design goal. (Link here)  Novaquarks goals are VERY ambitious. Perhaps too ambitious, but they are clearly stated.  And Novaquark seems to think they can attract a large enough player base with these game aspects.  I agree.  
 
You keep equating that having the complex aspect of coding will somehow ruin the success of the game by driving away the player base or that it makes everything else secondary.  I believe that that in-game coding is a selling point and will ATTRACT more players not drive them away.  I also believe that people will focus on whatever aspect of play they enjoy most.  If that is coding then yes, everything else will be secondary.  If it isn't, then coding will be secondary.  

Don't worry dear, we will launch your probes in secret. We shalt work from the shadows, like knaves.

@Yamamushi


If we make such a ship, I'll have a teamspeak server playing this song 24/7 in the main lobby for the crew on board

@Cornflakes


Project : Loveboat is happening. A challenge to get from one star to another in normal space. Building a giant ass ship with its own ecosystem and hopefully a hydrogen gathering port on the front of the ship.

Oh you can't bring that up without the song!
 

No, don't do that.  I don't think your viewpoint lacks merit.  Merely IF it is an actual issue.  Giving voice to a possible concern is fine.  I just balk at the idea that something WILL happen unless it is changed or that it is alright to broad stroke an entire group of people and say we don't want change so we can hold some kind of advantage over others.
 
 
I too am under this impression.  However, I don't believe this game will fail over an entirely IMAGINED set of circumstances.  Complex coding and building is a STATED design goal. (Link here)  Novaquarks goals are VERY ambitious. Perhaps too ambitious, but they are clearly stated.  And Novaquark seems to think they can attract a large enough player base with these game aspects.  I agree.  
 
You keep equating that having the complex aspect of coding will somehow ruin the success of the game by driving away the player base or that it makes everything else secondary.  I believe that that in-game coding is a selling point and will ATTRACT more players not drive them away.  I also believe that people will focus on whatever aspect of play they enjoy most.  If that is coding then yes, everything else will be secondary.  If it isn't, then coding will be secondary.  

I don't want to insult you or belittle you Piddle.  Not really my thing.  I will endeavor not to.  
 
However, you say "you don't care what other people's opinions are".  Okay, that's fine.  I don't know what you're doing posting on a COMMUNITY forum then.  But that's fine. 
 
Your opinion matches many others that have been posted here.  This too is fine.
 
Your opinion is not gospel, though.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.  It might BE, it might NOT.  This is in spite of whatever "involvement" you have in the gaming industry, not excluding it.
 
A subscription model for games CAN work if people believe it is worth paying for.  The developers of DU believe they are making a game that can fulfill the criteria.  If you believe there is evidence otherwise and wish to bring up an opinion here to be perused by others.  That too is fine.
 
But unless you are the bloody Kwisatz Haderach and have visions of the Golden Path the devs should take for a successful game future it is only YOUR opinion.  Please keep it as such instead of stating it as if it were fact.

I don't want to insult you or belittle you Piddle.  Not really my thing.  I will endeavor not to.  
 
However, you say "you don't care what other people's opinions are".  Okay, that's fine.  I don't know what you're doing posting on a COMMUNITY forum then.  But that's fine. 
 
Your opinion matches many others that have been posted here.  This too is fine.
 
Your opinion is not gospel, though.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.  It might BE, it might NOT.  This is in spite of whatever "involvement" you have in the gaming industry, not excluding it.
 
A subscription model for games CAN work if people believe it is worth paying for.  The developers of DU believe they are making a game that can fulfill the criteria.  If you believe there is evidence otherwise and wish to bring up an opinion here to be perused by others.  That too is fine.
 
But unless you are the bloody Kwisatz Haderach and have visions of the Golden Path the devs should take for a successful game future it is only YOUR opinion.  Please keep it as such instead of stating it as if it were fact.

War. Unmitigated, unrelenting, war. Unless the whole planet is Arkified and we can't do anything like that. Then, it will be...





Mining, unmitigated, unrelenting, mining.

Got it.

This topic has no reason to exist. It's like saying "Coccaine vs Sugar." 


Sure, both are made with the same method, both trigger a sense of pleasure and seem addictive, but one of them is on crack.


#BadPunSpree

comparing no mans sky and dual universe because both are science fiction mmo is like comparing cars with planes because both are fuel powered means of transportation.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

I always find these discussions interesting because the reality always falls short of the idea.  While technically everything posted so far is correct, logically it is also wrong.   And before everybody blows up on me.  Let me explain.  
 
Antimatter is a tricky subject because it tends to be used as a catchall term.  There are many different kinds of antimatter and they all behave differently.  
First off what kind of antimatter are we talking about?  Positrons and antiprotons?  You can trap them with something called a 'Penning trap' and no cooling is needed because sub-atomic particles can't be condensed anyway.  There is no such thing as 'liquid' electricity for instance.  But these very reasons also mean I could never contain a lot of free antimatter sub-atomic particles.
 
Superconductors make the transfer of energy more efficient, not the storage.  Storage is easy.  If sub-atomic particles have little to no place to go they just won't go anywhere.
 
Antihydrogen?  Since they are neutrally charged you need a 'Loffe trap'.  It's basically a magnetic 'bowl' with antihydrogen rolling towards the center.  I could cool this and condense it into liquid.  Largely pointless by that point, it just saves space and in a vacuum, only the total mass and inertia of an object counts towards movement, not its volume. (I reserve judgement for its use in atmosphere.)
 
Neutrinos?  Have no charge (and almost no mass) at all so no anti-particles.  Or theoretically, are both particles AND anti-particles.  Wrap your head around that one.
 
Though the energy output of 1 kilogram of antimatter is equal to roughly 43 MEGATONS of TNT, (just short of the largest nuke ever set off) it is achieved through annihilation meaning that most of the energy given off is photonic in nature and isn't as usable.  Positrons give off mostly gamma rays when annihilated for instance.  Dangerous to be sure but not directly useful for propulsion.  Antiproton annihilation happens unequally producing mesons that further degrade into gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos.  Once again dangerous as hell but less useful for direct propulsion.
 
When scientists talk about its applications for space propulsion they are talking about two different methods.  The first, setting off an antimatter reaction in certain isotopes (high-grade uranium for instance) makes a nuclear reaction more efficient and by extension more powerful.  For this application, you don't need a lot of antimatter to do it. So gathering what little antimatter is captured by a planet's magnetic field (called Van Allen radiation belts) now becomes feasible and one no longer has to spend a million billion (not an exaggeration) dollars to produce a single gram of antimatter artificially.  But this is not the type of reaction you use for power or propulsion.  THIS IS A BOMB!
 
The second is the annihilation of protons and antiprotons.  Most of the energy once again is photonic (gamma rays) but some (a relatively small amount) of the particles that come about due to the unequal annihilation will be in the form of mesons.  Some of these particles (another relatively small amount) hold a charge that can be deflected magnetically and can provide propulsion.  However as mentioned above I can never contain any large quantity of antiprotons so this method is slow and inefficient.  It is relatively easy to gather what you need as you fly through space however and therefore, ideal for lightweight long-range space missions where time is less of a factor.
 
 
P.S.  I am so sorry I went into teacher mode.