Borb_1

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... ?

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+.

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.

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.?

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.

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.

Could you explain first of all:- What does NQ currently say about Ship Damage and Ship Destruction and how they currently describe it as working? The last I heard was that the ship would take on damage universally, and once that was zero the entire ship and players inside would all be destroyed together. ATST, damage could be targeted directly towards functional elements to disrepair them from working before total damage of the "hull/core" reached zero thus triggering total destruction. Points to consider in the above:- 1. Salvage destroyed materials? Is this possible and how? Is it good for the economy? To what degree/proportion? 2. Will "holes be made in the voxels from damage thus allowing other players to potentially board spaceships for example? So to come back to the OP's suggestion: Can components be broken off ships or is that already resolved under the idea of "Hull Integrity" metre thus "bits never become detached from the ship"? It behaves as a whole or else is damaged via either 1) Functional Element Component Individually or spread across these 2) Hull Integrity damage.

Please don't run me over ! I am not attacking your idea (or your gameplay preference), but understanding where it exists within relation to all the other ideas. I understand RP'ers have been pining for "SITTING (Gameplay Action Animation) in Chairs" in many MMORPGs for decades for example and DU will attract RP'ers; with how sandboxy it is, especially for content-creators, and such props are helpful to that sort of 'theatre of the mind' gameplay. I hope this alleviates your concerns that I am somehow too obtuse to follow what you've communicated? But I understand the emotion to defend your preference - and again would wish you to know I am not attacking you or your idea, but contributing to it's value (hopefully). But I am very impressed with how simple and smooth the elevator elements already seemed to solve the problem of inner-ship navigation by avatars between vertical levels. It works, it's simple and it does not require any tedious extra consideration - and is visually arresting and suitably SCI-FI (YMMV). If it is little extra work for decoration only then all good. But agree that if it has a functional use then it seems a stronger idea eg when the ship elevator element breaks or power-outs or something and good ol' fashioned ladders are fall-backs. This seems a stronger contribution of your idea, then in that case, imo. I do see you are attempting to solve a different problem primarily however. No worries.

Are you replying to my feedback? You said: I asked a question that suggested the current elevator things in the alpha seemed to work fine, but it was a question to which you were invited to provide a further response? That seems to be "the point" doesn't it? Glad you found my response to this funny "for old times' sake". But like I said I did not see the utility. Are decorative elements necessary? Your comparison to magic, it reminds me of a famous quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke , "Profiles of The Future", " Also if there's an opening for a ladder, you won't get stuck in an upper room with no doors if you crash, lol (yes. Really happened). Oh? So they do have a functional use in case of malfunction or something? I'm surprised you did not mention that in the first place, then perhaps ladders a necessary and useful feature? I thought it might have simply been "can we have toilets in our ships?" type of decoration so held a contrary opinion to you (not a contradictory opinion). If it does not break the NDA then this seems the most pertinent reason. Sounds exciting.

Seems to work just fine in the alpha footage? Simple just press whatever up or down and you boost in that direction? The arrows are better than graphical elements. Imagine if we had a boost of air that could push us up and down in rl you'd not then put a ladder in front of you for "old times sake"?! It's like beds make little sense either, if you can put avatars in pods.

Alright that's a fair argument but let's clear up the positions here for clarity: 1. Complex landing = More crew roles 2. Complex landing = more immersive (less complex landing therefore is less immersive) 3. 3rdPP = Easier to land therefore 1stPP makes landing harder 4. By implication: DU is "hard earned piloting SKILLS earned over 00's / 000's of hours vs 20-30's" (is this skill training or player skill?!) 5. picture taking: Should be restricted to other players Those are the arguments being made, there's about 5 of them. In isolation the statement more crew roles is well made. But adding it to more complex landing. That component needs examining. A) Complex landing is seen in Star Citizen (a space sim which demands as such). It looks BORING. It looks FRUSTRATING. It adds very little immersion beyond perhaps the 1st time or 2. In fact it also reminds me of the CHORE of getting in and out of ships and cockpits which also has realism/immersion but ends up being GRINDY. Multiply by many players many times and it's imo a BAD gameplay design idea. About Crew Roles, this still holds but I don't think this is a realistic way to manage it. B ) Take a positive alternative: The old Elite game had a tricky skill system of aligning your ship reticle with the rectangle to get into space stations and you'd blow up if you got it wrong. It perversely could be the most risky time of a mission. It was relief to do it successfully but after say x20 there was an upgrade to auto-docking sequence with 3rd person view video recording while the Blue Danude played in the background and you could relax happily as you docked and kicked-back sipping your refreshment. C) For sure but the space sim crowd is incredibly niche. Most players just want grindy stuff like landing to be auto- and even 3rdPP view to enjoy the experience of piloting as opposed to millimetres of frustration. D) I don't know how the skill-training system will work for Piloting as a skill, presumably though as a part of that maybe that is necessary and a good idea. Doubt it will be so exaggerated hours as you suggest though. Maybe it will also be ship piloting landing skill for different sizes the more you train it? No bearings on this yet. E) This is not a good idea. Players like taking pics, like looking at the visual gratification of their ship designs in action and for combat, it just adds frustration whereas 3rdPP adds utility and fun. I think your positive ideas are: I) Crew Roles via Skill Training - How? Not player skill system though. II) 3rdPP is easier to land but the subsequent is that is appropriate not inappropriate. But they are independent of your consequents. Peeling back to the original subject: Landing should be simple given it's frequency and it's link between ship gameplay and non-ship gameplay. Edit: NQ just tweeted this picture of a ship hangar: See those ships just floating about, people just want to PARK their ship amongst others in a busy place and bustle about doing things instead of feeling like a bull in a china shop. Maybe there's at least 5 ships parked in there in view on the solo, coop size scale? I've seen videos of SC where it looks like trying to stuff a cow down a rabbit hole or even worse squeezing a ship into the back of the ship and it looks more like trying to get gameplay to work than just working invisibly so that actual gameplay chosen by players can carry on...

No direct links off hand. But I've seen these types of discussion innumerable times in all their tedium for over a decade. Many people who first tried UO back in the day were repulsed when they stepped out and were shot by archers using arrow-slits in the building to create a killing-ground for newbies (lol). Personally I've always viewed PvP as as critical integration necessary in MMOs, but as I said above, there needs to be balance. Often Open World PvP creates too powerful an agency that is then used to imbalance the game design and thus destroy the game's potential growth. But often because there's little incentive for other gameplay because other gameplay is comparatively dull. Fortunately the voxel stuff is looking quite fun and appealing. Remember people WILL be possessive of their creations and the time and effort invested with little interest in being bested in combat, a tense feeling of the oxygen being strangled out of them if they're aversive to confrontation, in the first place, let alone seeing their puppy butchered in front of their eyes... Personally, it does not bother me: I simply relish the emergent interaction, the harsh mistakes that make the game feel more "real and alive" and therefore worth pursuing further. In a way I see it more as: Civilization Space and Warfront Space connected economically and politically. It does not have to include 100% combat connection. It is important to get that message out to potential players that they can CHOOSE their gameplay but still directly or indirectly add to the interactions of the single shard game world and even choose differently later on or chop and change even. I think you're right with respect to Combat Frequency being a key factor and how expensive in time and materials and labour to win back losses, we don't know such parameters that will influence the intensity and frequency on player groups. Perhaps the huge game world and costs will create an emergent balance without need for "hard rules"? Perhaps. I'll be interested in the PvP almost exclusively. Not interested in building or economy. I enjoy the combat danger TEAM gameplay but combined with the rationale for combat, the attempt to change the balance of power geo-spatial strategic et al. Hence the players that do want to build and need those materials and then enjoy swanning around "megalopolis 1", a big strong base of such players is a very good result for hitting "base 1".

I think you make a lot of interesting points above. But with respect to so-called "pve and pvp", remember a couple of things:- 1. DU Single Shard is F king E normous. There's MORE than enough space for both Safe Zones (what I'd prefer to refer to as Dense Civilization Hot Spots), namely: Highly developed and time-invested and then creating content for players to interact with as end-users eg even ambience of a sci-fi cityscape (blade runner with neon Kanji, Kana, Hiragana, Katakana etc) or some sort of Egyptian Star Gate-like theme or whatever. Amenities might be various screens and markets, faux retail stores, parks and urban planning, racing courses, you could even have an army village training compound for ad hoc avatar shooting battles and so on... each world is enormous. People might well enjoy cruising around. 2. The so-called PvE is not Mob AI Combat, but Voxel Editing. In turn the materials needed for this need to be supplied. Thus you have a big link to the types of players who enjoy domination, logistics, economics and the like fuelling and feeding each other. Eg even "safe passage ferrying avatars" between safe zones while the player is off-line and can log back in in 8hrs or something in a new place if they book passage etc... As to PvP it seems to me that structures will merely be functional: Why create a city that is destroyed easily? It's a waste of materials and time. An underground Dr. No complex is more defensible or a large fleet and some space stations creating a network of control across space and deployment to control material supplies. With respect to hex claims, it seems that the option for settlers/wildcats/rimworld types can have that middle option - just striking out taking their chances too.

Yes, but there's all the difference in the world between "should" and "could". That's how it should be. But when players are hearing about DU, in MMO sites, there's a huge amount of negative attraction aka repulsion word of mouth from PvP especially if you make something that takes "hours" and players can destroy it too easily, like a Tsunami rolling into town. Not only the "reports" of what is DU? That the journalists invariably write; laced with hype-excitement-disappointment 'spice mix' to gee readers up into giddy heights of reaction, but also there will be players who end up playing and wanting to do "landmark" things only and invite RP'ers and other such "sharing & caring" types to the party so they can frolick to their heart's content without fear of being bullied by hyper-aggressive types. These people want the sandbox, the pure creation in a world with a community of ready-made amenities to soak-up. Take photos and the like. And I suspect the voxel gameplay is very very interactive and engaging and rewarding all by itself. It is possible that this plus mmo persistence and multiplayer is possibly very fun and popular within the above conditions. NQ have talked about finding "tokens" in the past, and creating more new safe zones. It suggests to me that if there's a large number of players who want this then this could happen. Outside of safe zones as you say but more and bigger safe zones seem likely if numbers are positive. It's a bit like with how some MMOs come out with Sub and say no Pw2. Then they introduce a cash shop. Just cosmetics. Then they add time exclusives or time buffs then full on p2W, just buy this stupid space whale for 12,000$. In the end, I don't see the safe zones as a problem if they attract a lot more players willing to pay an honest sub and avoid the bs above with respect to salami-slicing the game into monetary units or bits of bytes or seconds or virtual object price tag sales-room/hotline. Ugh. I would like the game world to be player behaviour not another commercial commodity speculation and pricing retail virtual wallmart. Most of the gigantic space in DU will be outside these zones still, even if there's more or larger of them. The other angle here is of course that DU is impressive with respect to such a huge game that potentially DOES SUCCEED at offering gameplay to some very very different types of people or types of game that incompatible people usually seek in different games as opposed to one shared game (the single shard). That's one thing that is not incompatible with a lot of what is said by EVE players here. They co-exist. I know there's a always a desire to see one's preferred vision of the game and a political fight ensues to support that cause. But the bigger the population to feed with supply the more ferocious the EVE-like gameplay will end up being I would guess?

You don't need to abstract to the quality of atmosphere/experience a player has (though that can be the most revealing description tbh). DU: 1. Voxel Editing 2. Player-Driven Gameplay (actions + decisions + open context) The former I would guess will be a larger population of interested players who's interest is Creativity, Instant manipulation-stimulus feedback, cooperation, social cooperation, consumer-driven behaviour eg end-user to other's created content while doing a bit of their own. The latter are more like what you're describing in EVE. A smaller proportional population likely but much much more motivated and competitive and driven and long-term mastery of the more abstract systems. So this is already a huge difference to EVE. How can NQ provide for the former atst as balance with the latter? It's obvious: Safe Zones either pre-installed or else player groups can create these if they're large enough then advertise these areas for players to come to live in safety thus creating the demand while the Eve-like players provide the supply. In effect we want to be like farmers, nurturing the Population 1 types. Meanwhile the rest of space is sounding more like the other side of nature, ferocious: red in tooth and claw. Thus the balance is kept.

The ore is already shiny, if you look at the 1-hour alpha walkthrough. No doubt different colours and glosses will be added.

I'm sure I stated this somewhere else, but in a video NQ stated their Proc-Gen (to create full voxel planets of variable size, biome, type and ore distribution and frequency - it can do all these), well they are able to create these rapidly, however along with the 3D generation (I think some of this is subsequently edited in by the devs directly) all these are subject to ITERATION and IMPROVEMENT techniques POST-RELEASE. So maybe we'll see some caves or more 3dness innately in planet generation but no time soon and no promise to what degree.

LOLZ. OP is a big joker! Good old Tora-San... ? I've looked into SpatialOS, by the looks of it, I think NQ's tech is a stronger solution for this type of MMO. I can certainly think of implementations that SpatialOS would excel at. That all said, both technologies are still YET to be fully tested against their fullest claims... so we shall see.

Beds are actually creations to create insulation using air from the ground (below) so heat is retained in the mattress and does not leach into the ground (wooden legs are usually poor conductors or even tiny little wheels supporting the large empty casing with struts to support the body. This conserves heat in the mattress/duvet around the human body. If you have a mattress or floor futon directly on the ground (unless there's further insulation (tatami mat or such like) you may notice condensation of water on the reverse side underneath the mattress where the heat meets the cold to compare? So although the idea above is a "nice to have", it's also very granular in detail and probably too much effort for the size of the feature and the addition to gameplay at this point in time until post-release. Secondly as above if there's a sense of RP-immersion then a bed is an antiquated device for the universe of DU. Some sort of pod/capsule is a better idea to represent logging off safely or your body put into cold storage or whatever insulation is the way of the future (cell regeneration technology) while being transferred in a ship. Messing around with food and drink or sleep buffs sounds like a pain in the ass too. In fact if you EXTEND THIS IDEA, then these PODS might end up making a lucrative ferry service: While people are logged off in a pod device (whatever shape or size that may be: Probably a modified container), then people could request being ferried across distances by OTHER PLAYERS so when they log back in, they've somewhere else they want to be and they did not have to do any of the boring or expensive travel themselves ?? If they wake up on board, they might find a suite of leisure games to play and socialize with other fellow passengers, thus creating a nice ferry business for some player or org or other?

Meh, my old windup radio is still going strong. They don't make 'em like they used to.

There's already a 3PP for ships. See the latest long-play alpha demo in NQ's official youtube channel towards the end. As for 3PP for the avatar. No. The devs already answered that: It's not efficient to add that in, it makes little difference and 1PP is more immersive most of the time (obviously that's subjective): It simply cuts down on work required and makes a better interface with 1PP. If there is the option it's outside dev scope for a release candidate. They may review post-release oc. I presume it will come to a head (nice pun) with combat too and any aiming reticle too. Overall I think they've made a very wise decision here. I have tended to prefer a 3PP in MMOs, but seeing so many "jogging avatars" it adds very little and ends up looking a complete mess very often too. As you say there might be some reasons with respect to perspective eg blind spots or cinematic views but they're sufficiently important, "nice to have's only". The screen is a big interface for the UI and for the voxel stuff and simply a window for the player; removing a floating avatar getting in the way of all that is a stronger approach.

Well let's look at our options and try to pull it all together. In many MMORPG Themepark games, there's a MANDATORY requirement for AI Programming of NPCs which constitute the MAJOR content and gameplay features which usually are:- * Content = Quests via a fake world of NPCs that perform life-like routines via AI * Features = Combat via PCs in groups against NPCs in groups and or solo again via more complicated AI In DU which we won't declare what sort of game it is but investigate IT'S features and content first then that will define via inside-out: * DU Content = Voxel Sandbox editing gameplay. Do we need AI? No, the dynamic interaction is purely Environmental there's no fake life to this. * DU Features = Construct Interactions: Need Parameter values in the LUA scripts for constructs eg spaceship or passcode door and UI features too HTML/LUA iirc. * DU Features = Combat Interactions: Need other players so again no fake life for this, other players perform better anyway (In fact a lot of Open World PvP MMOs design for this very reason). So being specific there's zero need for the normal use of "AI" in MMOs. But what about DU's case outside of this? So the "opportunity" is different for DU: Is it needed? No. It's outside the scope for the release of the game which has enough locked in features already that cost time and money and are complicated enough. Is there "opportunity" for "nice to have" reasons? Yes, I think so. 1. Players are given Pet Robots if they pledge. I would hope we can tinker and hack apart their scripts in LUA to change their AI behaviour? I'd like "Pet Club" ie fight club for pets or race club around a maze or similar games players could put their pets to and experiment with? 2. At release some sort of marketing gimmick could be a glimpse of a "far off solar system" that has a robotic AI civilization. The devs never have to even release it but could just reveal it as "look what is possible for players to either make or discover"! It would be interesting if the devs can programme Ant-like behaviour in the robot race and see how well they set up colonies and expand and even fight each other like robot ants in wars... do-able. Like I said though, these are edge-cases of nice-to-have and far from essential. But as you say, Sci-Fi + AI + Opportunity might go together.

What's that you say, there, young greenhorn? I'm gettin' hard o hearing in my old age: You youngsters all move and speak too fast if you ask me... ? The amount of time I've been waiting for a riveting alternative world MMO, I certainly feel ancient by now. I am so impressed with what NQ have so far done with DU at this stage. Finger-x.

Some sort of sarcastic satire? I believe this author is a writer of sci-fi fiction, as well. 1. It SHOULD be cherry-picked at this stage ie selective and low frequency. 2. LOL this must be the satire bit: Here from Tuesday 23rd April 2013 on star citizen from it's lead Chris Roberts: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-22-chris-roberts-how-incredible-community-transforms-development It's interesting to see how this differs from 2019. But even better it also shows lessons for Crowdfunding and managing expectations responsibly as one of the comments reveals: The fact is, the majority of people don't even know Dual Universe exists. Of the ones that view the videos, they often don't even know what it is after viewing footage or reading brief descriptions. A few very interested people do know what DU is: They either PRE-PURCHASED (high risk) or else are waiting for:- More Info and Gameplay Displayed More stability guarantees and server uptime to be worth playing More positive word of mouth or their buddies playing it and reporting All the rest, are waiting for HYPE and MARKETING when the game is ready to release. This is better for that audience. They need to get into the game and start doing fun things with lots of others and preferably avoid any anti-social issues too (given it's an MMO) but experience very positive social interactions and hopefully. 3. As to this the alpha released about 1 month ago a trailer and there has been something like 80,000 raised since then in pre-purchases. For an alpha that's quite good. I expect with the demise of Star Citizen's MMO aspirations, in due time (hence the relevance of the quote here) we may see people that wanted a Space MMO taking more of an interest in DU - but they'll need to take the steep graphics drop quality with the fact the game is immensely stable, and incredibly open game space to enjoy. As to the prescient comment quote: It's already happening: So there's every good reason to keep an NDA: Let the game sell itself by demonstrating what it actually is, and the players good word of mouth. DU interests me, but there is no way I will PRE-PURCHASE until there's an actual game that is stable and fun. I hear from backers it is fun but that it is not stable which doubtless impacts on the fun. Again looking at the above video, it's decent commentary by everyone involved, but they've been TALKING and little PLAYING that game for YEARS now while ostensibly "playing" it. A lot of videos of nothing saturating the appreciation to fund more development instead of a solid BETA that blows everyone away with the impression it makes - the people who buy based on marketing and hype and then receive a game that delivers ABOVE those OTT expectations. Another approach is to keep an NDA, and churn out lots of non-game info constantly. That's not a good method either. No, I think NQ's approach of the odd high quality content over periodic cycles of development targets is best. It actually means something and actually shows something and unlike the 24-hr news cycle is not constantly begging in your face.

It's worth stating DU is attempting at present to deliver a game on 2 levels: The sandbox MMO for the people who want huge worlds and space to design things and comingle with other people and invent their own pasttimes. IMO, this will inevitably result in large areas where this is the game, where McDonalds and Quasi-Ancient Chinese Architecture rub shoulders... The other level, is for a very different audience: The logistics, the economy, the organization, the pvp competition race that EVE players are probably looking for. For this reason I would not be surprised, for illustration, if the original solar system in DU exists for the former entirely and then subsequent solar systems open up for the latter...