Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Borb_1

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Possibly in time. But probably not immediately. The other issue is that with NQ as the effective central banker that can track everything, that's a critical developer function for a virtual world with a virtual economy - certainly to mature the economy first to a sufficiently robust place. I do like the suggestions of financial gameplay (some cool boardgames of various types here iirc), but big BUT!
  2. Fun but probably disastrous for the economy's internal growth. Exponential growth in the wrong direction is no fun either just a huge waste of effort by most and perhaps a lot of fun by a few. Bit like real world banking...
  3. JC provides more (high level) context here: https://medium.com/@jcbaillie/dual-universe-redefines-the-meaning-of-massively-multiplayer-with-over-30-000-a04c0e8b4106 He mentions it's not fully comparable to EVE's large battles (high interaction load) of ~6k but on the other hand 30k headless clients (although again not necessarily testing the full wilds of the internet) makes for "ecosystemic / network effect " scaling up on player interaction + persistence change. Namely, boardgames as a form of small group game are very effective mediums. Whereas networked computers imo have not really pushed (certainly graphically) what is achievable at much larger game number of players that is possible. DU is heading in that direction which is good. I'd disagree with the definition of metaverse but it certainly ticks the "flash" coinage needed to sell the idea so not going to get into flame wars over cross-purposes!! 🙂
  4. Quite "incredible" when it is also combined with the other technologies as well as one can see from the video: the realized spheroid planets of voxels, the constructs (is that the scene of the snow castle from inception?) Inner space suddenly looks very large. It would seem that this result is the result of good decisions and hard work made by NQ team. Good going and keep on going.
  5. Borb_1

    A civil or military status for cores.

    Yes, at present this seems the simplest and therefore most robust and most flexible direction of unfolding of gameplay by player behaviour in DU (that might happen). I agree. Note, emphasis: Building is probably a very rewarding activity at a very basic level of interaction for MOST potential players of DU. Thus building to start with and alone is sufficient FUN. Add to that then next designing and tweaking and interacting and sharing and memory forming and property and social (all without any combat or military interest) SAFELY and you have yourself a huge enterprise already - in game. Note, such agglomerations increase social osmosis / ambience which a lot of players enjoy as well as opposed to a 1984 style of anxiety from threat of constant attack. The fact of the matter is, the exploring, scanning, planning, mining, "secure the area", logistics, consuming time, grindy stuff and risk of loss is a very different type of gameplay appealing to large groups who are more "hardcore"/competitive minded than the above but nonetheless can supply the above players with the necessary "stuff" to do their gameplay - and compete with each other to do so. Given the gigantic size of the game world, seems there's space enough for everyone.
  6. Borb_1

    Standardizing construction

    Lethys has covered every pertinent point, perfectly. Also plenty of players will want replica/antique SC, SW or ST etc et al ships with their owns standards of design, don't forget. The odd name change and appearance tweak to suffice. Likewise scavenging appeals to me but there's zero indication at present it would even be a feature. So let's see what problems arise then players will find solutions as opposed to solutions looking for problems. As said orgs will probably have most need to mass produce to a standard that is effective in use and efficient in production. Public will want all sorts of crazy designs no doubt, which is a good thing: Personal expression and aesthetics will often have personal value beyond in-game economic value.
  7. Blown Away! I know that's an over-used expression but it applies. The whole collection of entries is in fact more impressive than the 3 winners. Ie the diversity and style variety and quality. Thanks a todos / tout le monde
  8. One of the previous limitations was "no automated actions without a nearby player" to limit server load, to also consider with respect to static automatic turrets. Someone will have to be on hand, perhaps fingering the console control GUI (sorry conscious ape-thinking AI, you'll have to rise the robots in another universe!)? So we'll have to see what PvP players actually do, is my guess (to each other to note!). Perhaps in Alpha 3 we can "would you like to learn more?"? But noted with respect to the sheer amount of "space" that PvP'ers will operate over. That will be very interesting.
  9. Yes, this hits the nail on the head with respect to INTEGRATED PvP gameplay +/With Civilization (aka building "the sims") Gameplay. If this is the underlying basis then it makes sense for some form of fortification/defences eg automated turrets and timers and whatnot. It's an excellent point to assert before then suggesting how to defend eg turrets. Perhaps the strongest case is for such provisions outside safe zones to be possible? So it goes back to what will be the right balance of safe zones to pvp fortified zones? That's an interesting question. I've tended to err on the side of parsimony: People who want to build want to build with 100% guarantees that their time and money investment is secure whenever they return to it and pvp'ers in general will concentrate on pvp and domination and competition. But a a halfway house, the idea that fortifications can create PvP cities for pvp'ers: It's a good call in that scenario though I doubt it will be the major scenario: Mostly a project of prestige or "power projection": Though such a project would be a flame to moths or more appropriately, a giant moth to many flames. Taxing for protection or security money is an interesting way to integrate cities and combat. Though as above, the problem is 2 different game plays ; what role cities to pvp'ers who would want to convert every profit into muscle power or hive fleet numbers and secondly even with protections it's almost as if such a project would attract even more interest by those who enjoy destroying! I mean to claim you sack a huge city and toppled it to the ground is probably one of the most rewarding stories possible in game to boast about... and thus paying taxes for this result is ultimately money down the drain proposition?
  10. As to the theme genre = sci-fi, No true sci-fi and all that? Hell there probably wouldn't even be human meat-sacks but some sort of AI transferrable over some new super fast wave form across robotic physical infrastructure! Let's not go down that road. 😉 The first assumption is that automated turrets are needed? For what? People who want "cities in space" probably don't want combat but building. Hence it's already counter-productive to include PvP in such areas. People who want combat probably will need to do so for economic reasons to make pvp integrated into the game for long-term (re-)cycling of gameplay. They'll be interested in actual human to human combat gameplay eg ships and base attacks of other pvp-economic groups who want to control the money and resources and networks in the game to supply the cities. Hence auto-defences seem like a non-starter. If players are involved in the above, they'll need to grow into behemoth groups in the first place and with enough players online to either attack or defend - and inevitably be stretched thus creating natural distribution of groups in dynamic equilibrium of contest. Anything else? It sounds like a lot of assumptions and complexity for a result that may not arise and may not even be noticed or even be fun. No defences which can be automated with players around to run them from control panels in the base? For sure! The question is? What permanent structure is ever going to be worth a pvp economic org's time? They'll put weapons and manpower up where it's at the sharp end - which presumably is a "movable feast"?? Just asking some "check questions?" Not necessarily asserting the above over other claims to the contrary... 🙂
  11. It's like you said, there's trade offs for joining a large group. But there's trade-offs for doing your own thing or small group too. Besides there may end up being diversity of groups where you're a part of a group but have very little overhead or interaction required for being so. The game world is HUGE. I'm sure there will be loads of people like you playing DU and finding a lot of broad and deep gameplay spaces to explore (assuming dev carries on successfully towards the feature releases). You'll get more DETAILED answers come further dev in a 1yr+.
  12. LOL ! OP, play how you like. If that is solo or small group then compete on THOSE terms or do what THOSE allow. Ask WHAT THOSE ARE for solo or small groups. Don't say they are the same as for large groups atst. It's like the mouse and the elephant, both may be grey in colour but they're very different sizes and live different lives. Grey (mouse, elephant); Size: Elephant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mouse It's funny reading sentences where mouse and elephant are in the same sentence and people asking and answering mix up the above 2! Caveat: Game is Alpha 1, so all the above may not even matter anyway until the game is more developed.
  13. Borb_1

    drugs, boosters

    LOL. Elite back in the day used the more accurate term "Narcotics" for drugs used as recreational pleasure chemicals. But I suspect this would be for simulating "Civilization Decay", whereas NQ bills DU as "Civlization Building" MMO? And indeed that is what narcotics leads to.😉
  14. Borb_1

    Concerns About PVP

    Right on Commander! To guess: 1. Sandbox DU gameplay = Civilian (player type "A") + Civilization-Building Gameplay eg mega-structures and infrastructures and services for entertainment + P+E 2. Simulation DU gameplay = Logistics (player type "B") + Economic Domination Gameplay eg market control of supply-demand and pricing manipulation 3. Competition DU Gameplay = Combat (player type "C") + PvP In effect, 2 and 3 = Industrial-Military Complex = Expand + Exploit + Exterminate In effect 1 = Civilization Building eg Cities et al = Expand and Experiment Imho, given A Population >>>> B + C, then NQ need Dual Universe game world to balance the expansion and experimentation gameplay (demand) without being negatively inhibited by the other half of the game world. Thus B + C need to supply A as their success metric. In EVE it's melded the civilization-soldier into one thing. That's the big difference it appears attempting to view ahead atm. Like I said, the industry grows more vigorously the more demand from civilization populations and the competition to supply them... I guess this needs to happen by hook (design) or by crook (emergence); which means either or both.
  15. With respect to the shipbuilding contest that is very exciting to anticipate both with respect to gameplay, design, voxel skill, sci-fi immersion etc, I would like to add that relevant information to the above in the presentation of the winners (and others showcased if so), would include:- 1. Materials Used 2. Time Taken To Build (or voxel stats if that is possible), perhaps even in game cost in currency too? 3. Inspiration of the design, problems faced and overcome 4. Flight Information: How successful it is at flying, what variables in the script might have been successfully optimized? Perhaps measured across some standard benchmarks? 5. Demonstration of said spaceship constructs IN ACTION, eg flying or hauling cargo (total capacity), number of crew involved, flights undertaken successfully eg from Planet A to B? 6. Other functions that are relevant to the spaceships eg elevators, anti-grav devices, atmospheric rockets vs space rockets and more. 7. Possible comparisons between ships 8. What criteria for the winners? Aesthetic, Functional, Original, Performance, Use Case etc It's nice to read this info but even better if in a video of it is all shown.