Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Borb_1

  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.
  16. Borb_1

    Death of a spaceship

    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.
  17. Borb_1

    Ship's ladder element

    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.
  18. Borb_1

    Ship's ladder element

    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.
  19. Borb_1

    Ship's ladder element

    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.
  20. Borb_1

    Third Person

    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...
  21. Borb_1

    Do you play EVE Online?

    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".
  22. Borb_1

    Do you play EVE Online?

    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.
  23. Borb_1

    Do you play EVE Online?

    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?
  24. Borb_1

    Do you play EVE Online?

    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.
  25. Borb_1

    For Those Who Like to Hunt "SHINIES"

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