Warden

I realize you mostly refer to food / water consumption but I'm mainly replying to the statement "This won't be a survival game" with my point here being "It could contain survival gameplay elements if the devs feel like it" And I wouldn't mind at least "natural" survival mechanics where an area may be too toxic, hot, cold, etc without the right gear. That sounds reasonable to me, food and water aside completely. Adds some tactical element too if you want to put some storage, house or base in some not so nice region.

I can ironically only really see player restaurants etc work if, next to good customizable interior design and gadgets like local music (jukebox etc) food is required.If I didn't have to eat I wouldn't go there and unless you were a roleplayer that simulates food consumption on paper, building one would be rather useless or a simple filler for some location. In turn the most immersive experience I can imagine is actually using an ingame restaurant to eat and to perhaps discuss business deals at the same time; like in reality. But time will tell. I'm generally for survival mechanics including hazards a such as extreme cold, heat, toxic areas, radiation, etc.

Hey, I'd say food count also counts towards survival (and economy). The higher the better! But I didn't mean to change topic or anything. This is actually an interesting thought. I mean as you produce ammo I wonder how it may work. This is both sandbox and an MMO. Do we see people dig up whole planets for precious materials? Or can we see some middle-ground solution where we perhaps have resource clusters that perhaps allow some harvester to be placed near or on them so they produce a longer lasting steady input of materials? I can see factories pop up all over mineral rich worlds for war production alone ... or alternatively if there is no harvesting via machines (would be pretty outdated tho in that age) many holes and cages dug by people. In turn, certain ammo factories or hubs could become potential targets in conflicts.

I still wonder why people want all of this (which is fine) like ammo count, limited or 'weighted' fuel for spaceships in turn and a lot more ... ... but still refuse to have basic food mechancis in the game where you perhaps have to eat once a day for like a few seconds or perhaps a bit more often per every few hours of gameplay I'm in favor of this by the way for both characters and vehicles - ideally there will be melee alternatives later on.

You could also consider joining an existing one. Unless you for some reason want to be in charge and defining one from the ground up. That's perfectly fine but I like to mention that alternative from time to time, as trying to not just start but run (and grow) an organization can be a tough thing unless you have a few friends willing to support you at one point. It can also cost money depending on how far you want to go (websites, etc). The more professional or solid you want to appear, the more effort and monetary input you have to calculate. But that's another topic. I hope the future of the game will shine bright on us. Time will tell.

Be careful what you wish for (Let's actually try to do this if we can - a pollution mechanic sounds funny if I think about it) Hello Cybo, by the way.

I'm personally for a survival mechanic that's not useless and not a chore either. If people want fuel for ships they should be able to live with food for bodies, too. You can design a consumption rate that is minor so you only have to eat once a day (not ingame) or in other words once every 24 hours your char is online so to speak, meaning that it could extend as far as 3 days if you play 8 hours per day. If you play less, it extends further. Perhaps that would almost be too useless again but I'm just saying you don't have to eat every real hour. Some consider it a chore, I consider it a logistical aspect you have to consider as you move about just like fuel (if there will be a fuel mechanic). In addition it can allow a new economy - anything evolving around food and delivery. Your far away outposts better be stocked not just with ammo or the like but with a bit of food, too. In turn you have gameplay that evolves around growing food in some classic (fields) or sci-fi (labs, tubes) way of course. That can be fun for some, and if you don't have to eat that often but still once in a while, I think that would be middle grounds for all. I'm not sure what the current dev stance is on this, I think someone threw a quote around where they were against this. I personally think it should be considered now or later anyway to see how it will fit into a potentially complex and immersive gameplay experience.

We posted at the same time, saw it too late. But I do wonder out of curiosity: What if you just had to eat a bit once a day? An actual day, for example.

Later on in a certain blocky sandbox game, we exclusively built underwater organization bases. Mostly research labs. Too bad crappy imageshack swallowed all pictures or else I would've shown a design draft. It's fun. And with actual, more in-depth water physics, it'll be even more fun.

It doesn't really hurt to have a basic survival element in the game by having to eat / drink. Heck, combine this if you want. Just use food items that both satisfy hunger and thirst. And you can set it that you don't have to eat every 5 minutes. It would touch on the whole logistical aspect a bit. Perhaps make it so that you have to eat once an hour or every 2 hours? Some consider it a nuisance, I see potential in this simple mechanic that adds a whole economy and somewhat forces you to bring a bit of food if you go out and explore. Perhaps make it different. Instead of having food items that give buffs, make it so that you have some kind of hunger bar or system. You're fine until it hits some minus value. Then you could have minor debuffs at best but you don't die. E: Right.

Trust me, I'd say most players don't even have the guts or time for a task as simple and yet as vital as patrol duty. Or at least the average roleplayer. People often look for the action but these (at times menial) tasks have to be covered too. In Half-Life 2 roleplay, when I still went to school (or it was on a weekend, so it wouldn't matter) I once did roundabout 8 full hours of checkpoint duty. In fact I wasn't even on patrol where you move around a bit and see new things. I set up an automated checkpoint (with controls to regulate doors and cameras) in an abandoned subway station or the entrance to it to be precise. No trains ever came. The idea was to simply check or rather block citizens wandering down there as access routes lead to the sewers that were forbidden. Sounds boring as hell to some? Depends. I actually deterred quite a lot of people there who would've ventured down there otherwise and the cameras helped me cover a somewhat bigger area. Of course we could've simply blocked off the area. But the point is: There it wasn't even necessary due to automation or just blocking the area. In more resource based sandbox games, patrol or overwatch may be vital for your survival or to prevent excessive damage to property. While I received "RP training" to handle formations patrols and more menial tasks, I honestly can think of better activities at time and I'd say the average player doesn't want to stand on a watchtower most of the time they play, if they even have enough time to play during the week. So honestly, anything that helps us as players "outsource" those tasks on a fair level (through turrets, cameras, NPCs, etc) is a good thing. Again, doesn't have to be "overpowered" but reasonable. Shouldn't be underpowered either though if they do decide to add those things.

Thanks, well, that kinda answers the topic. I look forward to this site.

Less of a gameplay, more of a forum idea. We currently have both player and organization introductions in one category. I suggest that we (well, mods / admins that is) create a new category for player organizations, alliances, etc. This may be more useful sooner or later in my book and may eventually make finding them easier. It also looks a bit better. Of course the sooner this would be considered and implemented, the less work you have later on as you move threads over. If we assume people are for this idea, how could one execute it as we have threads in the category already? Perhaps users are allowed to move their own threads between categories. If that's not yet possible (I didn't try so far) or not intended then mods could move threads upon request. There aren't that many organizations yet so that should also not be too much of a hassle.

I personally would not mind being able to have NPCs as additional manpower for security or combat purposes. I most notably think of security. Being able to get a few per player or perhaps per organization sounds nice. Why? Smaller groups could rely on moderate protection or at least as deterrent to "offline invaders". Doesn't mean you can park an army in your base as you log off, but a few strategically placed NPCs or those you can further tweak and edit (patrol routes, basic things to do when hostiles are detected, etc) sound like a good addition. Of course you can tie some cost down to usage and more. Before anyone comes with the player argument: I'd say unless you were rather large and had players all over the world that had enough time, no one could easily afford to man some base 24/7. In addition if creatures or other NPCs become a potential problem and not just players, then that may make additional sense to have some NPC help. Example: Not just random players could attack your base but depending on where it is located, indigenous wildlife may attack it or NPC bandits and whatnot. If that was random and could happen any time, then having some kind of defense system in place as you're gone may be nice. It would also make it harder for random raiders to just go on a pillaging tour when no one is there. Obviously, one would have to limit this a bit but balancing is possible. It is questionable at what level we see this however, or if. Chances are this may be a rather late addition - or one after release.

With the scope they seem to aim for here, they may as well add physics to the game. Is it more work including fine-tuning? Yup. Is not having it somewhat a bummer? Yup. Honestly, the floating minecraft blocks are outdated and we should not see that in a game like this. Obviously, I mean on the planet or somewhere where gravity is. In space things would "float".

If you can dig around, then any artificial (or converted natural, like a cave that becomes a base) underground area made into some player camp or base shouldn't be a problem. We did this heavily in Minecraft. Apart from like 1 exception, we mostly had underground bases there. Our bases were later most often in the ocean right in the water and / or beneath the ocean and the surface. It would be somewhat interesting to have physics mechanics on blocks or pieces of land ("round blocks" so to speak) like in that certain zombie sandbox survival game. There things like caves or tunnels could collapse if there is too much pressure from above. Well, just like in reality, so you have to add support beams or a proper design so nothing collapses. And you don't want to be buried in your own underground cave or tunnel system. Or base / city for that matter.

In the back of my head I have bits of memory floating around of the old community manager Juno (that was kinda kicked out after taking a pro-community stance) saying that financial aspects also had to do with it somehow. Of course there was general mismanagement and perhaps lack of interest. But these guys got offices or one anyway (remember the first pics that were almost like "straight out of mom's basement" where the two were sitting in front of PCs with socks?) and hired more people. Even some ex-bioware guy. Then they cut down eventually again. I can't imagine money wasn't a topic at one point I suppose, but it may as well been a sacrifice for RoK.

AMEN P2P aka subscription fees guarantee a stable income and allow the devs to plan more easily opposed to perhaps random dynamic income from shops or whatever while serving as a minor anti-toxic barrier (those purely out to cause chaos on a general level have it easy if access is free). As for those saving money due to getting software or stuff elsewhere for free: You save a notable amount of money if you get something like that on occasion, so chances are you can afford one subscription fee for an MMO. Again, I know some really have to watch the money they spend but I could afford an MMO when I still went to school with pocket money. If you have a PC, internet and can get new games on occasion, then you surely have the few bucks per month to spend on a game like this I'd assume. E: If we leave a trial aside for a moment I also realize that free to play may encourage more players to check out the game - but if it's really good even a fee won't keep those who're interested away. In short: I don't want to save money short-term only to possibly have the game crash. I'd rather invest a bit into it and be able to play it longer so to speak. But that's just me. Others will prefer other models. I personally hope they settle for something that keeps them afloat, and I assume subscription fees may be the most stable income.

In the end there's still the option to band together and bash up the people who engage you (for apparently no real reason). If someone attacks you, don't quit. Rebuild, get stronger, fight back or get help. This can in turn become one of the best experiences you can have. While losses can also be the most devastating and fun ruining ones, it's not the end. We were engaged randomly (only tried to do our own business) by random people and we fought back. We had luck (or enough skill) and kicked their butts in retaliation. The best feeling. Some of them even quit (karma I guess). Of course it won't always be easy or feasible but if the universe will be so big here - move to another location or find help somewhere.

I'm some kind of fan of "risk" and thus PVP mechanics that could be forced onto others depending on where they go or who they run into. But at the same time I can understand these concerns as someone who is rather interested in creation rather than (mindless) destruction. I also played Minecraft on a server community that added things via plugins: An economy, politics, player factions. I've seen myself how ... destructive players can be. We had our headquarters near the main city (only safe place, where all new players that enter the server also spawn or where people go to trade safely). It was right down the coast a bit, perhaps a minute on foot. So you had to expect traffic and of course PVP was allowed there. But yet the senseless aggression and the attempts to hurt us or destroy our property were mind boggling. It's part of the game but it doesn't mean you have to mindlessly do it all the time to everyone in my book. Luckily we were superior and / or more lucky somehow and they never managed to really hurt us while we eventually beat all their asses. Each group that attacked us for no apparent reason got some of their own medicine afterwards. Others didn't have such luck. And the only reason PVP was even remotely interesting or similar there was because of the faction plugin and how it worked. Depending on faction size you could claim "chunks" and thus certain areas. Anywhere where there wasn't a safe zone (set by admins, in this case just the city). You could even claim the territory (if you manage to get on it) of other factions if their power is less than their claimed territory. Each member gives 10 power units. If a member dies somehow (no matter how), they lose a few power units. If you're no part of a faction you cannot modify any block in their, the only thing you could do without attacking them individually was fire artillery at their blocks. So the result is simple: Fight enemies, make them die, they lose power, try to claim their areas ... if they're too reinforced, use artillery to make some hole first. Despite doomforts with water shields (that blocked artillery) fighting was somewhat dynamic and you had a chance to fight back. Though in theory offline base raiding was still possible if you used artillery on unprotected areas or bases. But you were primarily forced to fight people to lower their power. I hope some fitting compromise or option will be possible here, too.

I agree. The money has to come from somewhere, the bills must be paid. That takes priority, otherwise, game success (long-term) could be threatened. Does anyone remember StarForge? Similar idea to a modern sci-fi sandbox game. They failed because they ran out of money. So much motivation and ideas (including fanbase): gone. I don't want the same to happen here because they run out of money. Meanwhile in another specific game, people throw millions at them - because they deem it worth it to them. So I think if this game here can deliver, we should also consider a reasonable monthly fee "worth it" - if no other model can guarantee prolonged stability and success. Besides I'd blatantly argue that most who can spend their free time in front of a computer or similar and in the internet while being able to buy relatively new games on occasion can also somehow afford a reasonable monthly fee for an MMO they consider good enough. I sure as hell could afford an MMO it when I was unemployed for a time and on welfare. In some sense I could even afford one when I was still going to school, basically paid with pocket money.

Not that I'm an expert nor "guru" on these models and what is good and bad and blahblahblah. But I would not mind paying a monthly small fee. Perhaps it doesn't have to be your average monthly MMO fee and a bit less but I would not mind. Then again more people would play this if it was more ... accessible in financial terms by having less or no initial cost, or perhaps only an initial cost but no sub fees or similar. So I roughly wonder in general and specifically over time here: Free to play (with initial fee)? Can that work, will it sustain the company over a long time, what options are there to generate income? Pay to play? A more stable income but somewhat ... "outdated" for some In addition you can ask whether some kind of "shop" makes sense to generate income. Of course the biggest controversy is created by anything going into the "Pay 2 Win" direction where people can spend cash and obtain hard ingame advantages. The softest variant of items or ingame stuff sold with hard currency would be mostly cosmetic items or minor boosts for XP for example. That seems okay. Imo some cosmetic shop or cosmetic additions you can buy should be considered as it may help with income. Let's face it (again I'm no expert but that's how I see it): We as end users or consumers ideally favor free to play but I think this comes at a price somewhere. All the free access isn't good if it can't sustain the company and thus the game, and in my book it's not good either if the cuts resulted in this are too heavy. I'd rather pay a small reasonable fee per month to play than ... not be able to play eventually. If the game is really good then I think a small fee is warranted and okay. Some kind of item shop or so (cosmetic items and stuff) as additional income or counterbalance to a f2p model would also be okay if basically enough people buy items from there to keep the game and company afloat. So basically I see no real possibility for F2P yet (no offense there isn't some major studio behind this here too that could 'afford' it). I think F2P with item shop (ideally mostly cosmetic, no P2W) or P2P are more reasonable and to be expected.

Actually, that sounds quite awesome in its own way. Then again I'm more used to how games were "back in the days" compared to today. For example in RPGs you often had to walk anywhere or at least go to some sort of travel point (think of Morrowind and Striders / the Mage's Guild Teleporters ... or scrolls). In addition, quests you got from NPCs or by other measures (written letters etc) often did not just give you a magic map marker but contained the location or things you do within the text itself. So you had to look around or think. I didn't play EQ btw, my earliest MMO(RPG) was Star Wars Galaxies. But I heard many things about it. Of course nowadays I'm more inclined to use "modern features" such as map markers or fast travel to location points (like in Fallout) and while I can see some benefit for NPCs to some extend, I think the idea to have players come together at local (if the universe is too big, there'd be more than one or few hubs) trade hubs at specific times for a specific length sounds kinda cool. Some players may call that "outdated" or whatever but these mechanics (or rather lack of mechanics, thus forcing players to do this instead) encourage social interaction and possibly a somewhat more immersive experience as you have to actively barter with living thinking people - you can't code that any better into some cheap trade interface or NPC. Then again at the same time that means you're more dependent on other players. But hey, if you play online you have to expect some kind of interaction anyway. Buuuut we probably won't see this kind of stuff you named out of necessity as some mechanics and features may cover trading. Then again ... even if, you could still do that stuff if you wanted. Just open local trade hubs that are kind of like "neutral grounds" or open and public and invite all the people operating / living in the area to come and trade at specific days or times. Profit...and fun.

Having some kind of NBC arsenal (in a sci-fi variant) would be nice, especially "exotic" bio weapons or chemicals as long as you are also able to somehow repair the damage over time or with special tools. Deadly gas cloud or area infected with some organism? Radiation? Put on some suit that withstands that and get to clean-up.

I believe NPCs can generally add to the world and be helpful. What roles they could fill and how "active" they appear compared to players is another topic, but I'd seriously consider humanoid NPCs in some form, if you have the time. Might feel a lot emptier otherwise (I don't know how the "one big shard" thing will work yet).