Shynras

Nope. 
 
First of all, is not going to happen for sure.
Then you'll need skills and materials to create even a basic ship at release, so you'll have time to understand the voxel mechanics and design one. 
People will share blueprints with friends and their organizations.
People will post blueprints and voxel mechanics on the forum, so that everyone will have a basic understanding for release.
I heard there'll be an open beta before release.
A lot of stuff will change through alpha/beta, designs will change constantly. Only in the last couple of months before release designs will be kinda good.
Many other reasons. 

Mo will just choose trade fees for every item or group of item, it's easy and it works. MO will take count of volume by himself. 

Why can't you use a thread about his topic, that is already open, instead of creating a new one?
Why do you have to use caps for the title? If you want visibility, get it by proposing interesting arguments.
Why are you judging devs and players, even insulting them to prove your point?
Why can't you find in the already existing threads the reasons P2P is the best way?

Personally i don't like that. Specifically:
 
- I don't like the idea of a virtual/instanced world where you can build safely. I wouldn't mind the abiity to build in the open world with some kind of hologram blocks, that you don't really waste resources on. So it would still be a safe way to build, more realistic, and more cool to see players building around a city instead of nothing. 
- Since this is supposed to be a game, not a modeling software, I'd like only first person view possible or third with limitations in range. I'd like to see scaffolding, serious planning and a lot of people needed to build 1 large ship. Being able to just create a huge hull in a couple of minute with "god mode" makes me sad. It doesn't feel you're playing a game. 

planets are 100km diameter right know, they want to make them bigger in the future. It's fine as it is, actually i'd like them to be smaller for a simple reason=social interactions. If the world is too large, people wouldn't meet. Like NMS.

As you may know:
 
 
In short, the economy start with 0 credits. NPCs at the start of the game will give us credits for raw materials, up to a certain point, where those NPCs will be removed. Then there'll be a limited amount of credits, that will make the economy. 
 
Doubts:
 
- After some time, some people may stop playing, abandoning a character with credits in it. 
- Some people may accumulate a huge amount of credits, without spending them. In that case the economy run with much less credits. If credits are more rare, prices for stuff are lower, and at a certain point, those rich guys may use all their credits buy all the stuff they can, at a lower price than usual. At that point there'll be again a large influx of credits in the economy, that will rise the prices up again, so those people will make profit out of this phenomenon. Sorry if I couldn't explain this better, but my english is limited.
-Adding again NPCs in the future (or even at the beginning), is something that comes from the devs. I feel is too much of an intrusion in a game made by players. It defines the economy too much.
 
The first problem regard the natural loss of credits over time: a guy that stops playing, another that changes account, or wathever. This may be fixed by adding again NPCs temporarily to resupply credits up to the original amount.
The second is a problem caused by the static amount of credits in game, and the one-off random resupply, decided by devs. 
The third pretty much explain itself. 
 
In other games we usually have NPCs, that create credits, what are called gold-sinks, to remove them. This usually mantains a stable economy, if done properly. It is artificially balanced. 
In a game like DU ofc this can't work, since there are not even NPCs that gives quests or something like that. The devs idea may be a solution, but a little basic and with problems imho. So what's the solution?
 
Create a rare resource that we can craft credits with. Example:
 
-Gold is a rare resource. You can craft, with a recipe, an X amount of credits with a single ingot. 
-Gold is a resource needed to craft a fundamental element, like the construct cores. It will always be important and have a value in game.
-The price to buy an ingot of gold from other players will never be less than X credits, but higher, simply because you can just craft yourself X credits from an ingot. Let's say an ingot is worth Y credits. Y > X always. 
-This kills inflation. When there's a ton of credits in the economy, the price of all resources go up naturally, gold included. This means that is not convenient for people to craft credits with the recipe, because they would get only X amount of credits, that is a lot less than Y, so a fewer people will "create" credits, letting the natural loss of credits reduce the inflation naturally.  Viceversa, if there's not enough currency in the system, Y is a lot closer to X, so people are more incentivized by using the recipe, and new crafted credits will flow into the economy. Wait, there's something wierd....If Y>X always, why would someone ever think about using the recipe to craft credits? Because of two reasons: Trade fees and wait time: If you sell stuff, you're probably using a market element, maybe in a city, maybe in a station, and you'll have to pay taxes on your trades to the owner. When the difference between X and Y is small enough, crafting credits is more convenient than selling gold.  "Wait time" instead is referred to you having to wait for a buyer, instead of having credits instantly by crafting them; consider that with high inflation there are more buyers (more money in circle, people are more incentivized on buying stuff despite mining/crafting by their own), so the wait time is smaller, so isn't a problem and you would sell gold instead of crafting credits, while with low inflation, you may have to wait quite a bit to find a buyer, because there is less currency in the economy than normal, so you're more incentivized to craft credits. Everything works perfectly and balance itself naturally. Sorry if it's a bit confused, I hope you understood.
-No need for NPCs, no need to balance the economy artificially, by force, adding or removing credits. 
-If someone accumulates a huge amount of credits over time, the economy is not going to be affected, so that people can't play with the economy, creating instability. Not that easily at least.
-People are not going to be chained to the arkship forever, where the NPCs are. You can craft credits anywhere supposed you have the gold.
-Incentivize mining, pirating, and stuff like that. Gold has a value just because you can make credits out of it, and every other resources will have a balanced price relative to the gold rarity, and their usefulness. 
-The fixed amount of credits in game depends on the amount of active players, that defines the amount of trades. With the system I propose, this gets automatically balanced. Because less/more players means less/more mining, other than less/more trades. So credits will always be proportional to the amount of trades, and the amount of players.
-Credits resupply/removal needs to be applied gradually, constantly over time, not by a one-time temporary reintroduction of NPCs. The economy is stable, you don't see large influx of credits over a certain period of time. Prices are more stable.
- And more
 
EDIT: If the natural loss of currency throught loss of accounts, isn't enough to balance the amount of credits crafted by gold, in other words, the inflation, forging back gold from credits is a solution. You'd loose something throught the crafting process (you would get only 80% gold back, or you'd consume energy to craft or a third material required by the recipe) to balance the continuous switch gold to credits to gold, that players could abuse to transport gold without worrying about mass.
 
 
What do you think? 

Imho that is not a good idea. Why? Because people will get extremely serious about making money out of the game, and if credits have a value irl, people will buy a lot less materials/ships/blueprints, and limit their experience, their fun (and would limit the economy, that is supposed to be a huge part of the game). DU is supposed to be fun, knowing that you're using credits that have a irl value, for everything you buy (that you could have saved by doing it by yourself), is not a good feeling for many. 

They said you'll be able to train 80% of your skills in a reasonable amount of time(so that new players can catch up), while the remaining 20% will take longer. I don't like the eve system neither, but this one should be quite faster, it shouldnt take 20 years to complete, maybe 2, but we don't know yet

As you may know:
 
 
In short, the economy start with 0 credits. NPCs at the start of the game will give us credits for raw materials, up to a certain point, where those NPCs will be removed. Then there'll be a limited amount of credits, that will make the economy. 
 
Doubts:
 
- After some time, some people may stop playing, abandoning a character with credits in it. 
- Some people may accumulate a huge amount of credits, without spending them. In that case the economy run with much less credits. If credits are more rare, prices for stuff are lower, and at a certain point, those rich guys may use all their credits buy all the stuff they can, at a lower price than usual. At that point there'll be again a large influx of credits in the economy, that will rise the prices up again, so those people will make profit out of this phenomenon. Sorry if I couldn't explain this better, but my english is limited.
-Adding again NPCs in the future (or even at the beginning), is something that comes from the devs. I feel is too much of an intrusion in a game made by players. It defines the economy too much.
 
The first problem regard the natural loss of credits over time: a guy that stops playing, another that changes account, or wathever. This may be fixed by adding again NPCs temporarily to resupply credits up to the original amount.
The second is a problem caused by the static amount of credits in game, and the one-off random resupply, decided by devs. 
The third pretty much explain itself. 
 
In other games we usually have NPCs, that create credits, what are called gold-sinks, to remove them. This usually mantains a stable economy, if done properly. It is artificially balanced. 
In a game like DU ofc this can't work, since there are not even NPCs that gives quests or something like that. The devs idea may be a solution, but a little basic and with problems imho. So what's the solution?
 
Create a rare resource that we can craft credits with. Example:
 
-Gold is a rare resource. You can craft, with a recipe, an X amount of credits with a single ingot. 
-Gold is a resource needed to craft a fundamental element, like the construct cores. It will always be important and have a value in game.
-The price to buy an ingot of gold from other players will never be less than X credits, but higher, simply because you can just craft yourself X credits from an ingot. Let's say an ingot is worth Y credits. Y > X always. 
-This kills inflation. When there's a ton of credits in the economy, the price of all resources go up naturally, gold included. This means that is not convenient for people to craft credits with the recipe, because they would get only X amount of credits, that is a lot less than Y, so a fewer people will "create" credits, letting the natural loss of credits reduce the inflation naturally.  Viceversa, if there's not enough currency in the system, Y is a lot closer to X, so people are more incentivized by using the recipe, and new crafted credits will flow into the economy. Wait, there's something wierd....If Y>X always, why would someone ever think about using the recipe to craft credits? Because of two reasons: Trade fees and wait time: If you sell stuff, you're probably using a market element, maybe in a city, maybe in a station, and you'll have to pay taxes on your trades to the owner. When the difference between X and Y is small enough, crafting credits is more convenient than selling gold.  "Wait time" instead is referred to you having to wait for a buyer, instead of having credits instantly by crafting them; consider that with high inflation there are more buyers (more money in circle, people are more incentivized on buying stuff despite mining/crafting by their own), so the wait time is smaller, so isn't a problem and you would sell gold instead of crafting credits, while with low inflation, you may have to wait quite a bit to find a buyer, because there is less currency in the economy than normal, so you're more incentivized to craft credits. Everything works perfectly and balance itself naturally. Sorry if it's a bit confused, I hope you understood.
-No need for NPCs, no need to balance the economy artificially, by force, adding or removing credits. 
-If someone accumulates a huge amount of credits over time, the economy is not going to be affected, so that people can't play with the economy, creating instability. Not that easily at least.
-People are not going to be chained to the arkship forever, where the NPCs are. You can craft credits anywhere supposed you have the gold.
-Incentivize mining, pirating, and stuff like that. Gold has a value just because you can make credits out of it, and every other resources will have a balanced price relative to the gold rarity, and their usefulness. 
-The fixed amount of credits in game depends on the amount of active players, that defines the amount of trades. With the system I propose, this gets automatically balanced. Because less/more players means less/more mining, other than less/more trades. So credits will always be proportional to the amount of trades, and the amount of players.
-Credits resupply/removal needs to be applied gradually, constantly over time, not by a one-time temporary reintroduction of NPCs. The economy is stable, you don't see large influx of credits over a certain period of time. Prices are more stable.
- And more
 
EDIT: If the natural loss of currency throught loss of accounts, isn't enough to balance the amount of credits crafted by gold, in other words, the inflation, forging back gold from credits is a solution. You'd loose something throught the crafting process (you would get only 80% gold back, or you'd consume energy to craft or a third material required by the recipe) to balance the continuous switch gold to credits to gold, that players could abuse to transport gold without worrying about mass.
 
 
What do you think? 

Imho that is not a good idea. Why? Because people will get extremely serious about making money out of the game, and if credits have a value irl, people will buy a lot less materials/ships/blueprints, and limit their experience, their fun (and would limit the economy, that is supposed to be a huge part of the game). DU is supposed to be fun, knowing that you're using credits that have a irl value, for everything you buy (that you could have saved by doing it by yourself), is not a good feeling for many. 

As you may know:
 
 
In short, the economy start with 0 credits. NPCs at the start of the game will give us credits for raw materials, up to a certain point, where those NPCs will be removed. Then there'll be a limited amount of credits, that will make the economy. 
 
Doubts:
 
- After some time, some people may stop playing, abandoning a character with credits in it. 
- Some people may accumulate a huge amount of credits, without spending them. In that case the economy run with much less credits. If credits are more rare, prices for stuff are lower, and at a certain point, those rich guys may use all their credits buy all the stuff they can, at a lower price than usual. At that point there'll be again a large influx of credits in the economy, that will rise the prices up again, so those people will make profit out of this phenomenon. Sorry if I couldn't explain this better, but my english is limited.
-Adding again NPCs in the future (or even at the beginning), is something that comes from the devs. I feel is too much of an intrusion in a game made by players. It defines the economy too much.
 
The first problem regard the natural loss of credits over time: a guy that stops playing, another that changes account, or wathever. This may be fixed by adding again NPCs temporarily to resupply credits up to the original amount.
The second is a problem caused by the static amount of credits in game, and the one-off random resupply, decided by devs. 
The third pretty much explain itself. 
 
In other games we usually have NPCs, that create credits, what are called gold-sinks, to remove them. This usually mantains a stable economy, if done properly. It is artificially balanced. 
In a game like DU ofc this can't work, since there are not even NPCs that gives quests or something like that. The devs idea may be a solution, but a little basic and with problems imho. So what's the solution?
 
Create a rare resource that we can craft credits with. Example:
 
-Gold is a rare resource. You can craft, with a recipe, an X amount of credits with a single ingot. 
-Gold is a resource needed to craft a fundamental element, like the construct cores. It will always be important and have a value in game.
-The price to buy an ingot of gold from other players will never be less than X credits, but higher, simply because you can just craft yourself X credits from an ingot. Let's say an ingot is worth Y credits. Y > X always. 
-This kills inflation. When there's a ton of credits in the economy, the price of all resources go up naturally, gold included. This means that is not convenient for people to craft credits with the recipe, because they would get only X amount of credits, that is a lot less than Y, so a fewer people will "create" credits, letting the natural loss of credits reduce the inflation naturally.  Viceversa, if there's not enough currency in the system, Y is a lot closer to X, so people are more incentivized by using the recipe, and new crafted credits will flow into the economy. Wait, there's something wierd....If Y>X always, why would someone ever think about using the recipe to craft credits? Because of two reasons: Trade fees and wait time: If you sell stuff, you're probably using a market element, maybe in a city, maybe in a station, and you'll have to pay taxes on your trades to the owner. When the difference between X and Y is small enough, crafting credits is more convenient than selling gold.  "Wait time" instead is referred to you having to wait for a buyer, instead of having credits instantly by crafting them; consider that with high inflation there are more buyers (more money in circle, people are more incentivized on buying stuff despite mining/crafting by their own), so the wait time is smaller, so isn't a problem and you would sell gold instead of crafting credits, while with low inflation, you may have to wait quite a bit to find a buyer, because there is less currency in the economy than normal, so you're more incentivized to craft credits. Everything works perfectly and balance itself naturally. Sorry if it's a bit confused, I hope you understood.
-No need for NPCs, no need to balance the economy artificially, by force, adding or removing credits. 
-If someone accumulates a huge amount of credits over time, the economy is not going to be affected, so that people can't play with the economy, creating instability. Not that easily at least.
-People are not going to be chained to the arkship forever, where the NPCs are. You can craft credits anywhere supposed you have the gold.
-Incentivize mining, pirating, and stuff like that. Gold has a value just because you can make credits out of it, and every other resources will have a balanced price relative to the gold rarity, and their usefulness. 
-The fixed amount of credits in game depends on the amount of active players, that defines the amount of trades. With the system I propose, this gets automatically balanced. Because less/more players means less/more mining, other than less/more trades. So credits will always be proportional to the amount of trades, and the amount of players.
-Credits resupply/removal needs to be applied gradually, constantly over time, not by a one-time temporary reintroduction of NPCs. The economy is stable, you don't see large influx of credits over a certain period of time. Prices are more stable.
- And more
 
EDIT: If the natural loss of currency throught loss of accounts, isn't enough to balance the amount of credits crafted by gold, in other words, the inflation, forging back gold from credits is a solution. You'd loose something throught the crafting process (you would get only 80% gold back, or you'd consume energy to craft or a third material required by the recipe) to balance the continuous switch gold to credits to gold, that players could abuse to transport gold without worrying about mass.
 
 
What do you think? 

As you may know:
 
 
In short, the economy start with 0 credits. NPCs at the start of the game will give us credits for raw materials, up to a certain point, where those NPCs will be removed. Then there'll be a limited amount of credits, that will make the economy. 
 
Doubts:
 
- After some time, some people may stop playing, abandoning a character with credits in it. 
- Some people may accumulate a huge amount of credits, without spending them. In that case the economy run with much less credits. If credits are more rare, prices for stuff are lower, and at a certain point, those rich guys may use all their credits buy all the stuff they can, at a lower price than usual. At that point there'll be again a large influx of credits in the economy, that will rise the prices up again, so those people will make profit out of this phenomenon. Sorry if I couldn't explain this better, but my english is limited.
-Adding again NPCs in the future (or even at the beginning), is something that comes from the devs. I feel is too much of an intrusion in a game made by players. It defines the economy too much.
 
The first problem regard the natural loss of credits over time: a guy that stops playing, another that changes account, or wathever. This may be fixed by adding again NPCs temporarily to resupply credits up to the original amount.
The second is a problem caused by the static amount of credits in game, and the one-off random resupply, decided by devs. 
The third pretty much explain itself. 
 
In other games we usually have NPCs, that create credits, what are called gold-sinks, to remove them. This usually mantains a stable economy, if done properly. It is artificially balanced. 
In a game like DU ofc this can't work, since there are not even NPCs that gives quests or something like that. The devs idea may be a solution, but a little basic and with problems imho. So what's the solution?
 
Create a rare resource that we can craft credits with. Example:
 
-Gold is a rare resource. You can craft, with a recipe, an X amount of credits with a single ingot. 
-Gold is a resource needed to craft a fundamental element, like the construct cores. It will always be important and have a value in game.
-The price to buy an ingot of gold from other players will never be less than X credits, but higher, simply because you can just craft yourself X credits from an ingot. Let's say an ingot is worth Y credits. Y > X always. 
-This kills inflation. When there's a ton of credits in the economy, the price of all resources go up naturally, gold included. This means that is not convenient for people to craft credits with the recipe, because they would get only X amount of credits, that is a lot less than Y, so a fewer people will "create" credits, letting the natural loss of credits reduce the inflation naturally.  Viceversa, if there's not enough currency in the system, Y is a lot closer to X, so people are more incentivized by using the recipe, and new crafted credits will flow into the economy. Wait, there's something wierd....If Y>X always, why would someone ever think about using the recipe to craft credits? Because of two reasons: Trade fees and wait time: If you sell stuff, you're probably using a market element, maybe in a city, maybe in a station, and you'll have to pay taxes on your trades to the owner. When the difference between X and Y is small enough, crafting credits is more convenient than selling gold.  "Wait time" instead is referred to you having to wait for a buyer, instead of having credits instantly by crafting them; consider that with high inflation there are more buyers (more money in circle, people are more incentivized on buying stuff despite mining/crafting by their own), so the wait time is smaller, so isn't a problem and you would sell gold instead of crafting credits, while with low inflation, you may have to wait quite a bit to find a buyer, because there is less currency in the economy than normal, so you're more incentivized to craft credits. Everything works perfectly and balance itself naturally. Sorry if it's a bit confused, I hope you understood.
-No need for NPCs, no need to balance the economy artificially, by force, adding or removing credits. 
-If someone accumulates a huge amount of credits over time, the economy is not going to be affected, so that people can't play with the economy, creating instability. Not that easily at least.
-People are not going to be chained to the arkship forever, where the NPCs are. You can craft credits anywhere supposed you have the gold.
-Incentivize mining, pirating, and stuff like that. Gold has a value just because you can make credits out of it, and every other resources will have a balanced price relative to the gold rarity, and their usefulness. 
-The fixed amount of credits in game depends on the amount of active players, that defines the amount of trades. With the system I propose, this gets automatically balanced. Because less/more players means less/more mining, other than less/more trades. So credits will always be proportional to the amount of trades, and the amount of players.
-Credits resupply/removal needs to be applied gradually, constantly over time, not by a one-time temporary reintroduction of NPCs. The economy is stable, you don't see large influx of credits over a certain period of time. Prices are more stable.
- And more
 
EDIT: If the natural loss of currency throught loss of accounts, isn't enough to balance the amount of credits crafted by gold, in other words, the inflation, forging back gold from credits is a solution. You'd loose something throught the crafting process (you would get only 80% gold back, or you'd consume energy to craft or a third material required by the recipe) to balance the continuous switch gold to credits to gold, that players could abuse to transport gold without worrying about mass.
 
 
What do you think? 

Paper and pencil.

Before asking if hacking informations will be a thing, you should ask if informations storing will. 

There's already no man sky for the carebears.

To jump, you need a stargate. If you can jump to a seed, then stargates are useless, and there's no reason to build them. So they'll probably be build, and then carried by a probe. Or maybe it'll carry a factory unit scripted to automatically craft a stargate from a blueprint? who knows...

Just a few things i want to say :
- A probe is a basic stargate itself, otherwise you couldnt jump on it when it arrives. You'd need to build defenses and various other optional or additional stuff ofc.
- A probe isn't (or at least i hope so) a single element. But a drone we build, script, and equip with a specific element, the stargate element.
- A probe has to carry a stargate, it's should be quite heavy. Theoretically, a ship built to go fast, would never be slower than a probe.
- A probe speed depends on the amount of thruster you put on it, and this ofc will require more fuel and resources in general.
 
Ofc if a probe is just a single mesh, that we dont have to build, all I said isnt true. I hope not.

Those are energy pipes, I'm sure there's going to be more, for different uses, like mining.

As a solo player you would probably farm stuff, build a small to medium ship (depending how much do you play), and build an house if you want, in a hided spot (since you're likely never going to own land on your own). Pvp should be rarely 1 vs 1.Then it's up to you in what's your plan. Another option is to keep traveling away from the people, it could be an interesting trip, and you'd probably never see another player.

I just hope that those skills are not going to be limited by time, like EVE Online is, the game would feel "limited" to me in a certain way. I don't want to be forced to choose a path and stick with it, while switching would be so much punishing. Depending on my mood of the day, i could build, farm, fight, trade, explore or swim, it's just not fun to be forced to fight every day, or mine every day because all your skills are on a specific tree. That's even one of the main reason people don't like starting a new account in EVE Online. Skills make the game extremely slow, grindy, and limited to new players. 

Hopefully there'll be torpedoes that can be build with voxels.

I think there's some kind of customization planned for release (armor and avatar), but I doubt there will be robots, or even different races. Maybe in an update after release though. Then regarding having robots as npc, I doubt you'll ever see something like that. First of all any form on automation (someone/something that is not a player doing something on its own) is like a bot, and could be bad. Then, if you can build a robot from voxels, there's no need for npc, because everyone would just use the easiest ones to create/script. 

1) Mining will be part of the game, so yes.
2) We don't know that for sure, but so far my impression is no welding, but like minecraft.
3) Yes
4) Planets are going to be more distant than the ones you saw on that video. They're close actually just to show them. The station was moved closer too. Planet size is not going to be realistic, but smaller, to increase social interaction and space travels. 
5) Third person view is planned.
6) Constructs will have mass. We don't know much about differences between planets, other than aesthetical, but I bet that there will be some kind of challenge.
7) They still have to add a lot of the so called "elements" (interactive blocks), at the moment the main game features are in place, they're creating the gameplay now. This means that we will probably see blocks to connect or land a ship, in the future.
8) I'm 99% sure it's planned.
9) There are way more tools in the voxel editor, you didn't see them all in the video, you can find more information in the relative devblog, or in the forum.
10) Constructs will have collision, as you saw in the video. We don't know yet if collision damage will be a thing, since it depends on the amount of load this will cause on the client and server. Opening holes into an enemy construct is something the devs want to add (to board it), but they're not sure how, because a full damage system is, again, something that could be too much for the game to handle, considering that they're planning huge battles with thousands of players.
11) We don't know that so far. However we know that "repairing" is something important enough that will require a player on a multicrew construct, to take care of. 

There are likely going to be channels in game. Social interactions are vital for a game like DU. But maybe you'll need to have an element in your ship or a device in your inventory, who knows. 

Everything depends on how the "autiomation" will be balanced. I personally do not expect a single guy driving a huge ship by his own, with scripts all over it. There will probably be automated turrets in game without even the need for scripts, and those will be way less powerful than the ones that requires a player to aim manually. or they should find another way to balance it, but for sure, a player driven ship will be way stronger than a 1 man army, or the game wouldn't work.