Aurenian

I think no matter how far out people go, more powerful factions will be waging war to keep the in game market focused on the starting worlds, where they have the most influence.

Honestly I'm over gatewars after EVE. It's the main reason I'm arguing for anything else. That and I think that the amount of back doors in such a system will make trying to hold a front line redundant.

I think how viable the gate toll business model is will depend on how easy it is to build a gate between two already charted worlds. If it's just a matter of resources and time then most big organisations will have their own gate network everywhere. The freight business is another matter though. Regardless of how interconnected the systems become, people are going to want ships to carry things.

I don't see why you think a gate network will give you the borders you seek. It won't be like EVE with 1-3 gates per system leading to the immediately adjacent systems. The gates will be built by players. That means they'll go wherever an organisation wants to put one, not set down by the will of the devs. I fully expect multiple gates leading between systems. Some public ones, but a crap ton of private ones built as back doors and secret paths. And not just to adjacent systems but also to far flung areas. The newest colony in 5 years time is just as likely to be connected to the first system via multiple gates as the one next door. The only choke points that exist will be frontier systems that only have one or two gates. But that will change quickly because as soon as there is one public gate every other organisation will send their own gate building ships through and there will be portals to twenty other systems in a matter of hours. There is going to be too many gates to watch, let alone guard. And that's without talking about the possibility of gates carried by large ships. The only way to realistically fortify your space is to have central military bases with gates going to every system you want to protect, and strong point defences on your holdings that are able to hold off an enemy fleet until you can get there. Or station forces at every holding. It works out basically the same as a universe with Teleportation or FTL speed. Except we spend a crap ton of resources and time building redundant gates. The only way you can reduce ganking is through good point defences and sensor networks. Pirates and griefers are going to slip through the net no matter what system of interstellar transport you use. Especially since you don't need to travel between star systems to hide. You can just build a mobile ship base and keep moving throughout the system to avoid detection. The best defence is to have a ton of automatic turrets waiting for them. Or hide yourself. If they implemented forcefields that would also go a ways to reducing potential troll damage. That way they couldn't just hit and run with something heavy, they'd have to reduce the shields first. Probably while taking fire from the automatic defences.

Also to be clear. When I'm talking about exploration taking time, the main sink will be the jump drive(s) recharging. During which you'll be figuring out how far to jump next, and in what direction. When you've traveled to a place you'll be able to figure out (or place) some markers that you know to jump from there X distance in X direction. If they have a co-ords system it will be even easier. But you'll still have to plug it in yourself.

Personally I think that all FTL should be done via instantaneous teleportation. But have the methods defined by logistics and security. ----------------------------------- Method 1) Jump Envelope. The warp generator creates a bubble a certain distance around itself and teleports everything inside to a location a preset distance away along a straight line. You plug in the distance for each jump and it takes you there. The jump requires an enormous amount of power which registers as a spike on any sensor in the star system. The generator then has to recharge before it can jump again. It does not work in gravity wells. The size of the Jump envelope is dictated by the number and placement of warp generators on the ship. One is enough for a small corvette sized ship (Serenity, Millennium falcon). Anything outside the field is left behind. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Method 2) Jump envelope + beacon You can set up a beacon that anybody can align and jump to with a standard jump envelope. The beacon requires warp generators to build and consumes them in its operation. While burning the beacon is visible on sensors within a few light years. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Border Countermeasure: using a warp generator plus some other components you can create a teleport area denial node (TAD). This creates a minor distortion in local space which prevents the use of jump envelopes within a several thousand kilometer bubble (exact distance subject to balancing). TADs require constant power to operate and are detectable within the same system (although they don't light up nearly as much as jump signatures) ------------------------------------- Method 3) Jump Gates Using several warp generators mounted to a physical gate and an ungodly supply of energy you create a stable portal between two locations. You need a gate at each end. An active gate is a huge continuous sensor spike in the system it is operating in. The size of a gate is dictated by the width of the arch and the number of warp generators used. One warp generator is enough for a person sized portal. For ships you need many, many, more. A gate is the only way to teleport within a gravity well and is unaffected by TADs. It is also the only continuous portal, with no recharge time due to its immense power input. ------------------------ Logistics Warp generators require huge quantities of exotic materials to make. A single warp generator is a big investment for a small operation. Enough to build a capital class gate along with the associated power infrastructure is a gigantic undertaking. A single generator gets you mobile between planets, but it takes a lot of trial and error and more importantly, time. Multiple generators allows you to either bring a bigger ship or jump more often depending on use. Putting together a gate permanently connects two locations with instantaneous travel from the orbit or surface of one planet to another. It's the most expensive option, but the most beneficial for trade and troop movements. Lighting a beacon allows you to jump somewhere reliably without the use of a gate, but is extremely costly. (still doesn't work in a TAD) Security You secure your borders with TADs by creating a large 'dead zone' around the places you want to keep secure. Between that and monitoring stations to detect and triangulate jump signatures you can keep your space locked down pretty tight. Would be attackers would need to jump far out of system and slowboat in from an unexpected angle, or find a way to drop a section of the zone through espionage. Either way it puts them on the back foot. (credit goes to schlock mercenary for the teraport area denial system http://www.schlockmercenary.com/)

I'm tempted to do this to get away from people. Just build a conglomeration of thrusters, life support and cargo that I can launch into the great unknown with a metric crap ton of raw materials on board. I'd have my spawn point on there and just work on stuff over the weeks in transit. Build up a whole heap of colony modules with a cargo flyer to carry them as well as some miners and light flyers. Then when I finally get to the far off destination just carefully land everything and turn the transit ship into an orbital station or spare parts. Eventually the larger universe would catch up. So I'd have colony ship mkII ready to go as soon as I sell my planet co-ords to the highest bidder

Maybe that's a reason to do it as a block only organisation leaders can place. That way they can regulate who has access through permissions. Also if it's a fixed block then you have the option to walk closer or further away depending on how much you want to listen.

From what I saw of it the main skills in eve were learning how to fly, manage people, and work as a team. The training trees got in the way of actually playing the game.

If there's an option to mute all player chat then the mics could just be a block anyone can place.

Here's a completely non core, absolutely cosmetic, late game patch idea. Have an indestructable microphone element which is only placeable by the developers and which has its permissions regulated by someone nominated by them. It only gets placed in bars and other meeting places which are popular spots for players to mingle. It's basically a sound block that plays your desk mic sound within that space, with less volume the further you are from the block. If you are in there the mic block will just be part of the background noise. If you want to hear the person speaking clearly then you just go up closer. If you have the permission of the proprietor you can use their mic block. If you are a good entertainer they might arrange a contract with you to pay you in game money for your services. A variant of this might be a mic block that any organisation leader can place in order to do briefings in-universe. In which case the aforementioned bar owner could just add people to an 'entertainer' sub branch of their organisation to give them access to the mic.

Yeah I don't mean build the same item 1000 times until your smithing skill unlocks. I'm talking about real ship building and experimentation which makes you, the player, more skilled. The whole point of building things for fun.

Sure. If they go with the eve style lock on combat then there won't be a lot of player skill involved in targeting. Having arbitrary skill trees for it isn't going to make that better though. It just means that every fire control officer will have the same skill set trained and lock time will come down to human reaction time (and lag). I think things like lock times and sensor distance is better handled with technology and tactics. Make a ship with good sensors, Have scouts and drones on the perimeter to hunt for the enemy. If you get the drop on someone and start firing before they can open the weapons menu then you'll have a bigger advantage than systems lock III

I'll probably build a ship to call home and just dock wherever I like the local security forces.

Sounds good to me. I'll keep her pointed at the enemy, you light em up!

Even in an established world I think there will still be new ways to do things. Ok say someone has figured out the best thrust-weight ratio for a fighter engine. If the crafting system is built correctly the best alloys and parts will require rarer resources, which will by necessity jack up the price for that engine. A player organisation could work out how to build an engine that is almost as good, but uses less of a hard to get resource. That way their product can undercut the market leader among the more budget conscious clients. Others could make an engine built purely for straight line speed, or one that is more fuel efficient. And behind all that the resource market could change what engines are 'best' for your money just based on how expensive it becomes to craft certain alloys. Also changing faction fleet tactics will alter demand in different areas and force innovation in ship design to keep up.

My point is that if they make the various systems in the game more complex than a standard MMO, then specializations will emerge naturally in the player base. Thus rendering a standard skill system obsolete. Take your sniper example. If the game's idea of ranged combat is just 'point the shooty end at the enemy' then everyone could be a sniper. But if they make shooting a bit more complex by giving different guns and ammo properties that affect accuracy at different ranges then suddenly it gets a bit harder. Throw in some environmental effects as well, like wind, smoke etc and hitting that person 3k away requires some serious practice. A player that has spent the hours to be able to do that every time has become a sniper. Say they decide they've mastered that so they'll go into ship building. They open up the build menu and are confronted by a list of a couple of hundred machine parts ranging from light bulbs and power cells to transmat coils and plasma condensors. They'll have no clue how to build an engine let alone an orbital spacecraft. They'll have to study up on what goes with what to make each device their ship needs. They'll have to learn through experimentation and reverse engineering the optimal configurations for everything. They'll have to learn how to cut down on unnecessary weight and somehow make something that looks cool if they want it to sell. A player that does that will become an engineer, with a specialization in small orbital ships. If they want to build freighters they'll need to do a whole lot more research and experimentation. If they want to build large warships they'll need to do even more. And this is assuming they have access to the resource collection, refining, and manufacturing infrastructure they need. Otherwise they'll have to learn how to do that passably well or pay for the services of someone who can. Done correctly player specialization is about learning how to play the game well. Not learning which skill to train next.

But you can't be everything at once. Because while you're busy trying to be an empire of one, an organisation of thousands is stripping asteroid belts wholesale and turning them into warships and battle tanks to come and mess up your pitiful little tent city on the frontier. The point of an MMO is to play with a crap ton of other people. Progress in something like EVE is not measured in skill points but in how many people know your name. leveling is superfluous if the systems built into the gameplay are sufficiently complex.

I get what you mean. The problem I have is that a system like you describe actually involves walling off content in order to create a false sense of specialisation. If the gun controls are being made smoother for one player, then they are being made artificially clunkier for everyone else. Why should one player designated as a 'builder' have access to the full range of tools just because they set 'building' to train to max for the first few hours of the game? To my mind that is unintuitive. And it obfuscates the fact that true player skill isn't based on numbers on a character sheet. The best builders in Space Engineers and Minecraft use the same blocks as everyone else. The best pilots in EVE don't win because of training hours, it's because they know how to fly their ship and work as a team. The other problem I have with that sort of system is that once you commit to one path it gets increasingly costly to change specialisation. Either training time (ala EVE) or through grinding up a particular path. If you're part of an organisation that needs to change tack in a hurry, you've suddenly got a lot of people with a very unfun training regimen ahead of them that gets in the way of actually playing the game. That's why I'm for putting all the tools in the hands of the players from the get go and letting things play out as they may.

To me, any system which places artificial walls in front of player progression should be avoided. So tech trees based on timed unlocks, or grinding meaningless activities are out. There seems to be this underlying idea that letting players have access to the whole tech tree at launch is a bad thing for some reason. But I think Knowing which pieces we need to build a rocket is not the same as successfully launching a mission to space. In a building game like this the true progression is the infrastructure you build to support your projects. It's the difference between mining every block by hand in Minecraft and creating a gigantic ship in Space Engineers that eats asteroids whole and 3D prints space stations. In a Massively Multiplayer game creating and/or gaining access to the infrastructure you need for space travel and exploration will be a huge undertaking in its own right just because of competition with other players and factions. Forcing everyone to go through the tree punching stage isn't going to improve the experience in my opinion. I think a better way to simulate technological progression is to increase the complexity of the crafting system at the fundamental level. Instead of building ships out of engines, cockpits, and reactors, plus voxels, build ships out of machine parts combined in different ways. Players will experiment to find the ways the parts work for the constructions they want, and specialisations and knowledge will arise naturally. I've explained it in more detail here: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/833-component-elements-building-with-smaller-parts/

This is why I'm posting about it now. Throw your ideas out while they're still at an early stage. Maybe they'll change direction if you make your points well.

From the info we have so far it looks like we'll have a set of skill trees that determine tech level and a set of basic pre determined elements to combine into ships and stations. Maybe there will be ways to get higher tech elements of the same type through research? I remember someone saying something about levels of weapons in an interview but there isn't much to go on yet. Personally I'm in favour of making the crafting system more sophisticated so that specialisations arise naturally among the player base instead of through arbitrary skill allocation. This strikes me as the sort of game where progression through player skill would be a better fit. To that end I propose that the pre built functional elements be smaller components with set properties instead of full parts. So for instance instead of just throwing on a single engine block that takes up a large amount of space you would build an engine out of smaller parts stuck together that function as an engine. To build a basic engine that works you'd only need a handful of parts. Say an ignition block, propulsion unit, stabilizer, vector cone and control unit. But you could add more parts to increase it's performance in different ways, with the better ones made of rarer elements. Each component would add weight and energy/fuel requirements. Some might also need a certain amount of space around them to function correctly(eg heat sinks) or have interference with other more sensitive parts. After you'd built the guts of the engine you would then use standard voxel tools to give it a casing and incorporate it into the ship. And this would be the case with every part that creates function. A cockpit would be a pilots seat(with control surface), computer, life support monitor, oxygen tank, heating element, hinged canopy etc. Extra parts could be holographic projector, rangefinder etc. Some common parts would be found in multiple devices (like power cells) whereas others would be specialised to certain devices (matter transmitter coils). Each part would have multiple connection points so that they can be configured in various ways. The game would have a master list of devices and when the minimum number of parts are connected together via their ports for a particular device it would treat them as that thing when powered up. Or alternately you might include a way for the player to tell the computer which device they are building (perhaps by including a control chip in every device) Technologies that the devs want to be harder to master (like FTL) could have a significantly larger number of more sensitive parts. And they could not include a standard template if they wanted to make it take real research. The end result of this is that as well as ships and stations players could also become experts at creating ship parts and the complexity of the interactions would create genuine expertise in the player base. When your organisation's engineer tells you the reactor can't take it anymore it's because she designed it. When the ship takes damage, you would replace the destroyed components in a device to get it functioning again. At launch the developers would have a no frills version of each device blueprinted up for each player to start off with so they don't have to become an expert just to begin building. The players who are interested in that side of things would experiment with all kinds of configurations. Later on people would buy device plans off the market if they want to build their own ship without starting from scratch. You could create the coolest looking hyperdrive on the market. Or the cheapest. or the most powerful. And you could create your brand for advertising. The other benefit of this system is that you don't need weapon tiers or constant injections of tech from the devs. Make up a list of weapon and defence types that are interesting, with their own strengths and weaknesses. Break them into bits that make sense, with lower tech weapons like projectiles requiring less exotic materials for their components. Then let the players experiment with what you give them. I guarantee you a Blastcorp Annihilator Cannon is way cooler than a tech three plasma cannon. Just my thoughts.

Basically the crux of my problem with having a more traditional skill path in a game like this is that its a relic of older games that don't simulate things to the degree that Dual Universe will. It seems like they want to lock technologies behind the skill trees so that everyone can't do everything at once. But I think the nature of the infrastructure needed for advanced technology and space flight will be enough of a barrier in of itself. In Space Engineers for example you technically have the ability to build a jump capable spaceship as soon as you spawn. Except that you're on a planet, with very little refined minerals to hand. And you need a significant mining operation. And a lot of rare elements that take ages to refine. And the rarest elements for the best engines can only be found in space. So you have a long path ahead of you before you can even dream or making that first jump. And that's without contending with potentially thousands of other players and their organisations. As for skill specialisations. I don't think that handing out skill based stat bonuses is the way to go. You don't become the best fleet admiral in the verse because you have a leadership bonus +5. You get there through experience leading fleets of other players into battle. You don't need an arbitrary number to tell you because you are doing it yourself. Likewise tech specialists, artists, and engineers will arise naturally if the crafting system is deep enough to allow for it. For combat specialisation I think in a sci fi game your special abilities are better defined by your equipment. How well you fight (and the gods of ping) will be the real measure of how good you are in a fight. Honestly this is what I think you need on your character sheet for a game like this: Page 1 Bio (name, appearance, backstory etc Page 2 Assets (money, controlled organisation ships/stations etc) Page 3 Status (organisations, granted tiles etc) Page 4 Contracts (buy/sell orders, jobs, alliances etc) When we hand build everything, negotiate with other real people, and fight with our own reflexes, that's all we need. I'm interested to see what the devs say on the matter when they blog about progression in more depth.

Personally I'm against having a skill tree at all. I think it gets in the way of emergent game play. I'll talk more in depth about it when I get back from work. The OP was mostly to see if there was any more info out there about character progression.

I'm curious as to the role of skills in this game. 1)How do you get them? 2)What do they do? 3)Is game play locked behind certain skills? All I know is the references to training one skill at a time, and unlocking technology somehow.