Shynras

From the december newsletter:

I'm fine with multiple safezones, this is still a mmo, not a survival game; There's need for some protection, and the eve concept works well. However, keep in mind that for this to work, safezones should give players a limited experience, like stations do in eve (you cannot mine, fight, do missions, or produce any value beside trading), but I'm kinda confident you guys know that and you will do a good job

No, it would just reduce a lot the pvp activity for no reason, and consequently the economy, player activity, and so on, ruining the game. Partial or full loot only works when the stuff you lose isn't worth more than a few hours of playing, and skills are probably going to require a lot more time to train. If you lose your cargo and your ship, it's enough of a punishment, there's no need to lose skills.

Safezones are called safezones for a reason, let the devs solve this kind of problems. There'll likely be some kind of landing gear that can anchor your construct to the ground.

Players get updated to you less frequently by the servers (if they're far enough), but the servers still get updated at the right rate by each client. This means that the server has the right positions of each players, while each player has a different positions configuration relative to their own position. This means that you could see a guy falling through a contruct, even if that's not really happening, but only if he is far from you and on the same construct (so there's need for a huge construct or in a few other cases for that to happen). Still not really a problem, most of the time you wouldn't even notice.

Too much informations kills the hype, expecially for a game that is still 2 years away, and they know that.

what is w?

Disclaimer: everything I'll write here, will be based on the information we have now. Since I (we) don't know specifics on this matter, I may be wrong, and NQ could have a solution. Anyway i think is a good argument to discuss, so here it is: As far as we know (I may have missed something, feel free to correct me), and as far i can imagine: - We can create a blueprint from any construct we own - We can sell our blueprints (probably you're not able to sell a blueprint that you bought from someone else, unless there's a specific option where the original creator lets you do that). - A construct created from a blueprint is not decomposable ( you can't remove blocks from it), but you can add stuff to it. This feature serves to prevents or to slow down reverse engineering. - A construct created from a blueprint will probably mantain its inability to be deconstructed My concerns : A construct can be destroyed by weapons. We know how weapon works, they target and destroy a specific area of a construct, so we can actually partially damage them. A construct created from a blueprint is not invulnerable in combat of course, so it would get damage itself anyway. So why do we have a a lock from a blueprint that don't let us deconstruct a ship, when we can shoot it anyway, and look inside to reverse engineer it? Yes, if you shoot at it, you don't get back the materials, but do we really care about some resources when we get back priceless informations? I personally think that: - This gameplay mechanic will actually benefit more large group/organizations that have enough resources to waste some for informations, while small groups and solo player can't. - A blueprint lock is already annoying enough, it must be worth adding it. If you can destroy small bits of a ship, and look inside anyway, then it's an inefficient, useless and frustrating feature. Why its annoying? When someone wants to modify a ship, most of the time he wants to replace stuff, not to add more on it. -Most people will not even buy a ship they can't modify, this actually reduces a lot constructs trading. In summary, the blueprint protection doesn't add anything good (because you can still reverse engineer), but add a lot of limits. And limits are not good in a sandbox. At least there should be an option for the original creator to sell an "open source construct" that people can modify and deconstruct freely. Keep in mind that most people are not good at building stuff from zero, but everyone wants and knows how to personalize a constructs to meet their needs. I don't usually play and specialize on a single aspect when I play games, but i'm quite good at building, scripting and in creating complex and competitive stuff, so i'm giving here my objective opinion, i'm not saying this because I want to steal other people ideas, i just think it's a useless features that doesn't bring any good to the game. If I want to make a ship hard to reverse engineer, I'd make it hard to read. I'd create unnecessary complex scripts hard to understand. I'd sell it only to trusted people and add a self destruct feature to it, in case it get stolen. I don't need a blueprint protection for sure, it doesn't serves any purpose, that construct will still be reverse engineered.

Twerk I'm not arguing about that, but I think is OT so I'll create another thread. This thread is still about salvaging and scavenging (actually i meant salvaging when i wrote this, but i guess i played too much mad max lately, and i confused the words xD)

Devs said that you can't deconstruct a ship created by a blueprint, only add stuff to it. It could work like Twerkmotor said, but then why add a blueprint protection in first place? Someone could just hack his own ship core unit (or ask a friend to do so) to remove the protection and deconstruct it, so I think there's something more that prevents this.

As you may know, constructs created from blueprints can't be deconstructed to prevent reverse engineering (you could actually shoot to it to remove small bits and do it anyway though). This affects scavenging since, after destroying a construct, you'll likely not be able to "mine it". So, the question is, what's the solution to make scavenging a thing? And to make it fun and interesting? IDEA 1 - Losing a construct in battle, removes the blueprint protection: PRO: pirates could make a living by selling informations. It adds a reason to pvp, instead of the same "resources" thing. People would be more careful with their most complex designs, you'd likely not sell it to the general public if you care about the design to be secret. CONS: probably someone could abuse this, there should be a way to rpevent it though. IDEA 2 - There's an element (big and with high energy consumption) capable to deconstruct the ship, not piece by piece, but with the entire wreck at once. PRO: You'd likely not carry that element on a ship, so you'd need to carry wrecks on your base. This means that you'd need to grab and land wrecks on your construct to transport them (so you're likely not able to salvage with a small fighter, and i think is good), and ships with the specific role to transport wrecks could be viable. After a huge battle, huge ships capable of carrying wrecks will enter the field, trying to get as many as they can, while their escort will fight with other groups trying to do the same thing. CONTRO: I can't see any. Do you have other ideas?

The game will be easy to play, hard to master. You'll be fine.

maybe it's just the actual hitbox of the element, that is not ready

We know that will be possible to transport constructs (not sure if for release or in an expansion), but the question is, will it be a viable (useful) activity? I'll list some "features" that I'd like to be in the game, and how I'd make them possible. 1 - Is it worth to transport a construct with a hovercraft, from point A to point B, over a planet? Why would you do that? -Inside the planet atmosphere, a construct should consume a lot of power to fly. The hovercraft could save a good amount of fuel. -With an hovercraft you're harder to be seen, it could be safer. Maybe it's harder for scanners to detect you. -There'll be 2 sets of thrusters, for atmosphere and for space flight. So at least the space ones, would need to be carried by something else to move on a planet. 2 - Will we need to transport a construct geared with "space thruster" outside the planet atmosphere with another construct geared for atmosphere flight? -Probably we will. It all depends on "It is more or less convenient to do that or to carry 2 sets of thrusters, for both flights? 3 - Will be useful to carry a construct on your ship and transport it to another planet? Isn't just better to flight the construct you want to move directly? Is the amount of fuel consumed and risk worth it? - This is hard to answer, my guess is that probably isn't worth to transport a single large construct, but it may be for a small one. In case you need to transport multiple construct, then it would obviously be worth, at least to save time. - Regarding the motivations, you'd transport it to sell it on another planet with more trades, or for fighting purposes. 4 - Will be worth to have a system inside your base capable to move and store constructs? Like with sliders, rotors, .... when available. - First of all, why would you need to store it? Because you need space. The thing is that 1 tile is probably going to be enough to just land them randomly, and in case we're talking about a huge organizations owning hundreds of constructs, well, it is probably going to have quite some tiles linked together to sovle the problem. Wouldn't be cool to make it convenient to a certain degree? How? Right know the only thing that comes to my mind, is to let the player decide the size of the protection bubble (with a min/max limit). In that case, if you decide to store ships and constructs, you would consume less space, so the protection bubble would be smaller, so you'd consume less energy (if energy consumption for protection bubbles are a thing).

There'll probably be some kind of warning for the attacker or a way to disable the selfdestricting element.

A camera block, and the journalist job has been created (a guy with a neutral small ship on the battlefield, able to provide streaming). To make it work though, a camera block should be expensive/energy consuming or unconvenient by any means to carry on a ship made to fight, or everyone would carry one. And there should be a block capable of giving a guy streaming with a camera block an advantage over normal streaming with 3d party softwares, like a block "tv" that can stream in game, so that people that are playing can watch it without the need of a browser.

This is not really ot, but keep in mind that tiles are hexagonal, so maybe, "bubbles" are actually prisms.

I think Devs just said there'll not be any automated mining. Mining ships will probably be in the game (maybe in an expansion), like it is in eve online, but with proper balancing, so no ridicolous amount of stuff mined that would break the economy and ruin the landscape. @Zorac this game is not for everyone. If it will not be complex enough to give replayability for months or years, the P2P model will not work and the game will inevitably die.

Pretty sure there'll be a way, otherwise deepspace exploration (or travel to another system) would be impossible, since you'd be unable to log off or you'd lose your ship that would keep moving at a slow pace for hours.

NQ said 24-48h, I don't know if they decided that yet. I think 24 is enough too, but you know, everyone has his own real life issues, i guess that an option to upgrade it to 48 would be nice, with a cost. (so that large organizations have a fair amount of time to prepare for battle, and people who need 48h can get it, again, with a cost) @borzol that works too.

How it's probably going to work: -You declare war, and you'll have to wait 48h for the protection bubble to go off, so you'll have a time window to attack (2-3hours). -In those 48h the defender has time to build defenses or to call friends/mercenaries to help him. -The attackers will have to reach the Territorial Unit (that they'll search by scanning the tile), and hack it. Doing so requries time, so they'll have eventually to fight vs any defenders, including automated turrets. If they hack the TCU, the land is theirs. -You'll probably be able to upgrade your tcu so that enemies take more time to hack it (because if you're attacking a 3 people group, a few minutes minutes to hack it may be fine, but for a large organization, 5 minutes to lose all their stuff could be frustrating (you'd have to channel multiple people on a single tcu). The battle would be larger, longer and more chaotic, 5 minutes is nothing. -In case of multiple tiles, since you can attack from the sky with ships, it doesn't really make sense to force you to conquer the perimetral ones first. It would be quite hard though, since you'd be surrounded by enemies.

First thing to do: attach a titanic thruster to a small ship and experience ftl travel.

Alpha should be in the first half of 2017 (not before march). That said, some problems may occurr, so that it could change. I think they'll do it in time

Ships can turn even if they have thrusters pointing in one direction because there are small thruster for that, that you dont see. Jc showed them already in the video where he builds a small ship You dont buy a ship from a market unit, as they already explained. The market unit will create a bubble, called trade zone i think, where you'll park your ship and sell it. The ship would froze until someone comes and buy it, but it will be always physically ingame. Maybe you'll just be able to fly it inside the trade bubble for a small fee, so that you can try it before buying.

Any solar system in Eve is an instance.