Warden

Sometimes things or aspects do not have to be specifically mentioned; they could be implied indirectly however. Perhaps they were never meant to be expressed or implied, but through wording or different perceptions, others could think of these things regardless. For those I found it useful to mention that specific part.

That is one sudden highjack and turn of events.

Regardless of betting on asymmetrical warfare, I would not underestimate a vastly superior entity in numbers, as that at one point usually also brings a vastly superior fire power and other means to fight you to the table. My point being: You can of course try to apply these tactics. But I don't think it helps if you at any time have at least a few dozen, if not hundreds of players actively or indirectly looking for you and your next foothold and in turn always try to disrupt your operations. In the end, action-reaction or natural selection will determine the outcome of such conflicts - you either withstand or perish.

Easiest way to balance both the future date and easy reference to our real tjme without too much calculation: Use our real time and date; add xxx years, ideally an even number to the current year however. Example: 3017 instead 2017. This could also serve as galactic standard time while you can experiment with (or apply) planetary timezones.

A major immediate orbital strike that is often immediate isn't OP in comparison? I'd rather have bio weapons you can also fight.

I'm not sure about others, but from the perspective of the consumer I consider 15$ to be manageable, should the game be 'great' in essence and result in many hours of playtime per month. I realize some have to watch their financial output. But I could even manage to save up the average MMORPG fee as pupil last decade through pocket money. I am really not sure if that argument, whether openly said or indirectly expressed, should be a valid thing to risk long-term stability. The 'keeps potential players away' one, too. While abstactly true, in times of reviews and let's plays anyone truly interested can relatively easily determine whether spending 15 / whether taking the plunge is worth it.

You mention Black Mesa, aka places from games. While that would surely be "cool", I like to think it is often problematic - depending on the game or plot, you often just see snippets of some area. Black Mesa is large and quite covered in the core game and two major addons (or let's say one major and one moderate addon) but even larger if you look at what's hinted at - major areas outside or at least installations and buildings dottet all over, a giant underground area (a lot is blocked or closed) and more. Meaning that if you really tried to build a copy you'd have to fill in many many blanks. One can of course question how logical the design may seem afterwards. Then again I think it's a giant project in itself. Having some kind of reference is helpful. I personally favor games where you can actually design areas or bases. "Prison architect" or "Rimworld" are good examples and somewhat tile-based, meaning that you can actually use those to design "blueprints" for bases or structures to some extend.

Pretty much the best approach to "emergent gameplay" is to let the players police as much as possible. This approach is not good or useful for all games - but for this type, I personally think it is. Of course someone could come up horrible scenarios and hypothetical situations, but on average, to quote a certain someone, "It just works." I like to think "safe spaces" will eventually be established and policed by players - plenty of different gameplay preferences and already existing projects already hint strongly at this. If you are unhappy, you could also complain or stay away from the game - or you can plunge right into it and support players who try to create said orderly or policed areas, aka do something about it rather than wait. When in doubt, do something about it. My advice anyway.

Without having the lore in my blood right now, figuratively spoken, I wonder why they went so far or long when habitable planets are relatively close. Then again not sure what range a star like that can cover without looking it up right now. Probably plot reasons or range reasons, possibly making close areas unsafe or not viable for other reasons.

I don't think it's so much what is shown (even a quick edit or original image from elsewhere), but at what frequency it is pumped into the system. In that sense I would agree. You could argue in favor of it, but I personally am not fond of the whole "visibility at any cost" approach that surely exists (I saw a lot of this already in Star Citizen and believe me, Star Citizen is worse in terms of "visibility competition" due to the sheer size of players and orgs there - compared to it we're yet at "Blissful Island"). Can't help it but subconsciously assign negative attributes or traits to that approach. But then again we'd have to argue about where the tipping point to "spam" or some inappropriate level or approach is, in fact. That is likely open for debate, just as the idea of a certain rule about this would be open for debate. Are we thinking about a hard limit per day or else mod action could be a response? What level would be reasonable? What alternatives are present? What about technical measures, perhaps a script or similar can dynamically compensate a higher input my trying to mind "diversity" in what is shown? A "smart solution" so to speak? Unless that is already in place somehow.

You are right. Unless the same group with the same concept exists more than once, basically like a copy or divided. Then a merge would be beneficial for all involved, mostly. Example: Three groups portraying the Galactic Empire from Star Wars with little to no difference. May as well make one larger group out of it.

Raptor rapture. Rapture raptor?

That's one of the potential downsides (next to a few possible advantages) of using an existing theme or faction concept or copy basically - having more than one would just seem weirder unless they were playing individual branches or units of said faction rather than trying to cover the whole one. In fact, since you are basically the same, do indeed consider merging (to those it concerns, of course).

I have the impression (don't get me wrong or correct me if I'm wrong) that an abstract fear may be a driving factor for you at this time - despite a lot of gameplay or technical terms not set in stone yet and for some time. If you have your doubts, continue to monitor the game as more is developed and decide later on, I guess. Griefing is relative, I guess, given the single shard. I'd rather speak about "potential PVP encounters" or similar - again, you can lower the risks or avoid problems. Or find shelter with the right people or in the right places. I'd say this certain potential or abstract risk is what drives people here - creating something with some challenges, something that will possibly last for quite a time physically or in the minds of people - rather than having a building simulator with no obstacles whatsoever. To give an abstract counter-example anyway.

This will be a relatively open game, it seems. Meaning that once you venture out to certain places, there is always an abstract risk - like being run over as you try to cross the street somewhere. Chance is low, but can happen. I think players should actually be aware of the potential risk - whether it is hostile flora, fauna or players attacking, plan for this occasion. And also realize that you are not always at risk for being attacked. People will settle down somewhere, perhaps create actual pacified zones or generally not always shoot at each other as they meet somewhere. My point being: If you want your "bubble", create it somewhere. You should not be bothered that much - if you do, you move elsewhere or come back later.

People seem to make a big fuss about or out of drama. While it may often not be pretty for the involved parties, I think some may overblow it. After all to a conflict, all involved parties can do their part to end or prolong one. Social problems or other occur all the time - how (fast) you deal with them is often still up to you, however, even if you are not the initiating party.

I specifically meant this:

Clearly must have been abducted and forced to say this - would never wear an XBOX shirt. Keep in mind: Raptors are extinct, however. Vultures are not

I think it is safe to say that, especially in sudden random encounters (if not in general),VOIP will be useful or rather the most useful tool compared to text. Text input is more clear and you can go back and read it. Vocal comms could be distorted or perceived as such (you did not catch something the first time). But vocal comms are faster on average. You don't have use your hands to type while your attention can remain on a situation rather than the keyboard. In fighting it gets worse if you solely rely on text without any vocal comms. Whatever your preference is, local VOIP will usually favor or encourage player interaction or even resolve certain situations - as some have stated. The benefits outweigh the possible come in my book.

I think infinite is misleading. No game environment is "infinite", at least not these 3D sandbox worlds. I like to compare with Minecraft. Roughly a few Earth sizes large, you eventually hit a generation or processing limit and enter the "twilight zone" before it just fails. Instead I would think of a potentially very large virtual world space that we need, assuming single-shard idea. And with this I don't necessarily see a broad devaluation of space or territory. There can be plenty of reasons, still. A good location, a city or settlement, certain resources, etc. You could find or make some of this elsewhere, but some would ask: why, if you can try to take it?

You can assume that any monthly fees would matter once the game was in mid to late Beta about to be released, or upon release. You may not like it, but there is a reason MMORPGs usually have some kind of payment system compared to "buy once, play forever" games - it's the servers and of course the staff that costs money. Renting large servers or server networks is expensive. There are bills to pay each month. I consider it reasonable to add a reoccurring fee therefore or some other way of payment model so that they can keep up the service or infrastructure we depend on.

As SS13 player myself, but at the same time as roleplayer, I must say that the whole court / judge idea from SS13 seems rather absurd to me. Of course they finally changed some of the names and tasks finally so it seems more fitting. While one could perfectly explain or justify that sort of SS13 justice system, it always seemed absurd to me to have a whole amateur court system on a privately run space station that is managed by a not so nice Corporation. And then next to theory, there is practice. Just to name an oddity: We recently arrested an unknown person who was not on the station roster at all, and he also had a modified or sabotaged ID. So with this big red flag or question mark aboard this privately run station that also has vital areas (vault, command, AI, technology, science wing, etc) we naturally arrest and keep him at brig for interrogation and further processing. In comes some "Internal Affairs" member (those who know older versions know these were basically renamed lawyers and starts heavily arguing pro unknown person. It just seemed bewildering to me, with or without the renaming (Lawyer / IA). At least on a privately run station. I would just assume security could deal with most people and when in doubt, the command staff of the station up to the Captain. Adding all these other ranks just seems like fluff to me - in the end the Captain still mostly runs the station while security enforces the regulations and laws. But arguing with SS13 examples is a bit besides the point as in DU a lot more could be possible and after all, we also have nations or quasi governments here - not just privately run entities that are at war with each other. I personally think that it does not always have to be "not open for abuse" - abuse is relative. Say you later have some ruthless state or empire or even some group or just a bunch of pirates. Would it be fair if they tried to arrest or imprison someone else because they didn't meet ridiculous criteria, broke ridiculous laws or simply were at the wrong place at the wrong time? No. But it could, at the same time, be part of the risk and fun. Basically, "abuse of authority" as part of the world, setting, game, player-driven lore, etc. A bit like random unexpected PVP. I think I know what you mean bottom line, however. There should be some kind of limit to this so it is not overdone nor giving players the ability to imprison almost anyone for an indefinite amount of time. Then again the whole topic is somewhat sensitive and tricky - I would not be surprised if the whole mechanic or idea is just avoided altogether by the devs - at least for a long time. Unless they intended it to become a gameplay feature.

--- Immediate alert: subject has awakened ---- +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Prep covert retrieval team and perform memory wipe --- re-integrate into workforce +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

Fun. Reputation. Awards. And other reasons.