Warden

'The last of the staff opinion pieces on the lootable v. 'unlootable' has been published on Outpost Zebra. The writer is a bit notorious for long and descriptive pieces, but I hope you will bear with us as he tries to consider the stance of both sides, the interests of the game and his own opinion on the discussion. You may spot some common arguments in the article and if any sentence sounds eerily like your own...jinx. 
 
You can read the article here: To loot or not to loot? That is the question. 
 
Oz Team.'

Bearsoul here - from many (many) worlds - lol.
 
I'm 60 years old, played nearly every game (online and off), and always enjoy having some quiet time building or jumping into a massive PvP scrimmage (in which I tend to lose miserably at - lol).
 
Some may know me from EverQuest, EverQuest II, WoW, Landmark and others -- or as Damien in Battletech, DAoC ... tons more as well.  
Drop me a line of our former lives crossed paths - or just drop me a line anyway - lol.
 
Looking forward to making this a long-term game again - honestly been starving for one I can sink my teeth into again (although I'll likely need dentures soon - rofl).

I ran a pretty large guild in DAoC (I know, ancient) and I once role-played my own disappearance. 
 
The guild was looking for me while I was hunkered down in a challenging dungeon that would take a lot of people to clear.  What's more, I asked others in the community to help me pull this off by standing in areas around the world (4 or 5 locations) and offering hints.  Now, I was also encumbered and could barely move (the escort out part would be against respawns all the way) - unarmed with only a server-first massive sword in my inventory.  When the participants arrived, I was shocked to see, not just my entire guild, but members from all over the community come to "my rescue".  I gave that cool sword away to one of the community members that really rallied everyone on the server.
 
I used to do "wave training" too.  Try to kill a massively impossible NPC by throwing wave-after-wave of optimized "squads" at it that were far below the creature level.  RPG-ing some training exercises was inspiring for everyone.  (we killed it by the way - took a while and several tries - haha).
 
Why these two crazy, ancient stories?  Because I wanted to make the point that RPG-ing is always fun.  To have that fun, you must work within the limits of the game framework, however.  You will have more challenges if you're trying to play a different game within the game.  But 'using' the game to roleplay is crazy fun (not to mention inspiring, instructional and sometimes emotional).
 
Know your environment - keep safety relevant and urgent at all times - devise your plan - execute your plan without hesitation - embrace all the things that suck - own it and do it until you get it right.  Do this hard stuff and the rewards will come 10-fold.
 
If you want to run an escort mission (for example) without being griefed, then devise a way to protect that mission.  Make it a part of your storyline and solicit some griefers to come try their hand at your security escort (don't tell anyone in the group though).  Build it up - involve the players across the universe - make it fun on a grand scale.
 
And if you fail ... well do it over with a new approach.  Risk something and receive more. 
 
 
 
We're all role-players after all.  Heck, I told my wife I was rich, stable and liked her mother ... lol
 

Greetings and welcome.
 
Regarding the above, I think that conflict cannot be avoided though.
 
If a goal is "become the largest (insert state or nation category in here, empire, kingdom, whatever)" while also not trying to cause issues or be at war with others, you'll eventually might find the two goals clash.
 
I think you can't have it all and anyone joining now starts at a somewhat different situation. Major organizations that have been around a while already have a big abstract or real advantage and you could eventually be at odds with one of those if you want to be bigger or better.
 
Eh, just trying to shed further light on that from my view, either way good times lie ahead.
 
Good luck with your organization.

Hi guys,
 
It's been a while since you had news from our latest NovaWrimo contest. We apologize for the delay. We wanted to make sure that our deliberation process was completed the way we intended, while as you know, there are so many things to attend to in the meantime...
 
So, thanks for your kindness and patience. It's now time to announce who the winners are for the 2017 edition!
 
• 1st Prize: Dwarf3d for the short story "Day of Optimism"
• 2nd Prize: Stig92 for the short story "Right to Exist"
• 3rd Prize: Kurock for the short story "Bastille"
 
Congratulations! Thank you to all the contestants! We're always happy to read how our players grasp Dual Universe's… well,  universe 
We're aware that writing such stories represent an investment and we appreciate it. As a token of appreciation, each contestant will receive one DAC!
 
More news related to NovaWrimo are coming soon, so stay tuned.
 
Cheers, 
Nomad

With the recent E3 trailer, it might be a good time to discuss the topic here. And since it might just be a year away or closer.
 
 
Long story short, who's waiting for it? Or hasn't heard of it at all so far?
Who has reservations?
Who likes the general style and might want to copy things in DU?
 
What do you want to accomplish or play in the game?
 
I'm personally looking to get involved in the cop or corporate world and see where the journey takes me.
 
And you?

Pick one /s

(If you don't want to read through pseudo-law or mild in-universe babbling, just ignore this post, it's intended to comment from a mild "in-character" point of view while giving the project idea below some spark for further debate or to encourage other reactions of any kind by other organizations)
 
 
 
 
 

 
A preliminary assessment on the Charter of Alioth
»Source thread | Awareness tags: @Rafiki
 
 
We have noted recent efforts and the first version of the Charter of Alioth (COA). Immediately, efforts have begun to assess the document in its current form, as released recently, in determining whether the document is fit for support from a corporate view. A reason for this response is also the following quote from the preamble of the charter, prompting this response:
 
 
 
I'm responsible for the "central branch" of Vulture Corporation and as such will reply in its name; this may not refer to other future branches that may be established, as there will be notable autonomy for each branch in how it conducts business or operations.
 
While we commend such initiatives and grand undertakings, and especially commend projects to revive aspects of the old world, the cradle of humanity, we as sovereign entity come to the following conclusion:

 
 
 
Reasoning / assessment
 
Foreword
 
It should be noted that there is no ill-will against the notion of a charter like this; the big rejection graphic is mostly symbolic or visualization. This assessment or comment on it simply intends to state the personal stance of Vulture Corporation (central) as a whole, encompassing its assets and personnel. Additionally, this "format" of public response is, in the end, intended to create further discussion about the idea, which should aid the charter draft or suggestion, generate feedback and thus be helpful to its creators and supporters, but also opponents or rejecters.
 
Corporate stance
 
While the creation is commendable and the underlying intention appears noble, aspects of the charter cannot fully be supported by us, as it may be possible that violations may occur or be deemed necessary regarding specific circumstances and articles. From our perspective, it appears outdated or may not completely be able to incorporate and mind the current situation humanity faces or might be forced into.
 
Due to notable, obvious conflicts with certain articles (or parts of them) of the document that could interfere with corporate sovereignty and the necessary frame to counter specific threats, we also reject the notion to agree or sign the charter for "PR purposes" only to ignore or violate it when it may be deemed suitable.
 
After speaking to assessors, I hereby list some articles that could eventually be deemed problematic. The conflict zones are, however, not necessarily limited to them. It is merely a selection to highlight certain potential problems that make signing of this document un-wise, if not impossible, with our stance in mind:
 
Potentially or likely problematic parts underlined, our comments are highlighted in teal color.
 
 
■ Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, organizational or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or intergalactic status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.  
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to distinguish based on a notable amount of factors, partially some of those ruled out in this article, if deemed necessary. As such, "everyone" cannot be granted what is noted in the article.
 
■ Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.  
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to deal with 'criminal charges' in any form deemed necessary. While potential innocence is always taken into account and while evidence and likelihood is carefully compared and assessed, we do not guarantee "public hearing" in all cases, mostly also given our nature as non-state-actor with a sovereign status. In addition, "independent, impartial tribunal" could be provided, but is not guaranteed.
 
■ Article 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the area claimed by his organisation.  
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to restrict movement in any claimed and administrated (managed) area based on various factors, if deemed necessary. The same can apply for our own employees. "Right to freedom of movement" does not list any potential restrictions and thus implies "total freedom of movement", which cannot be guaranteed based and must be distinguished regarding legal status, rank, affiliation and other factors. Less abstract: A service member or new employee may not have the right to enter a restricted internal research area deemed 'sensitive'.
 
 
Given these areas of conflict between corporate regulations or interests - depending on the situation - and the framework of this charter, it is deemed partially incompatible, even if other aspects are very well aligned or supported by idea.
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Simplification of possible critic - in a nutshell
 
In different terms, the COA is deemed static and unflexible with today's practices of organizations and actors, and is based upon an old framework apparently mostly applied to classic nation state actors in such a way to find common grounds between many actors on one world. With this new rebirth of mankind and civilizations and a spread among the starts while minding a diverse set of interactions between many different types of actors, it mostly seems to restrict organizations in certain areas. Perhaps it is also unspecific in certain articles or may need rewording to find wider acceptance.
 
It is assumed that countless organizations would not be willing to fully accept or sign this charter in this stage as it would mildly to notably impact their ability to act in their own interests. While an intergalactic framework that lists or encourages "common ground" may certainly be useful, it can never be assumed that all organizations would support or sign it, just like certain agreements and regulations were not fully supported or signed by state actors of the old world.
 
In addition, it appears that authoritarian states already exist in not just a very limited number, making their support or even interest in the charter questionable. It could also beg the question how signing actors would react or interact with those that might either be anything but interested or even openly opposing the charter or its core values.
 
To lastly resort to a word of the old world, to some it could seem that this charter could mostly end up being a "Lippenbekenntnis" (idiom: 'Talk is cheap'; lip service) for signing actors until it no longer suits their needs or restricts them, in which case they would ignore aspects of it - overtly or covertly.
 
 
Current corporate main stance regarding support or acceptance  - in a nutshell
 
Currently, it is our assessment that we as sovereign corporate actor will be 'better off' minding aspects of the charter, but not following it strictly to the letter, making formal support and signing impossible. We intend to support humanity's revival through innovation, research and service but deem it necessary to ignore aspects of the charter in specific situations in enforcement related cases when this aids the protection of the corporate body or others unaffiliated to it.
 
We also do not think, as at least indirectly implied in the preamble, that not strictly following the charter or signing it would exclude us from being a "reasonable, social and righteous" organization.
 
 
I thank you for your time and review. We remain open for debate in the specified channels you have provided elsewhere.
 
 
 
 
//If I may add my two cents below this without pseudo-babbling or fluff-talk, you have an interesting idea there. I personally do not think it's very viable or, in other words, it won't be liked by many organizations and players or supported fully at least, but one can tell you put some thought and effort into this, and seem to apply some sense or understanding of real law, whether copied from real charters and whatnot or added through own knowledge and understanding.
 
 
 

Welcome to... Counter Strike: Global Offensive?
Kryoz! Did you mess with the script again!
---
Yeah, of course I'm going to use one of my old introductions!
---
You try and make a unique introduction every time! It gets boring, mate!
---
Yeah, pretty sure Sinon is best gurl.
---
Just give me the damn script.
---
Welcome to League of Legends- I give up. Welcome to Dual Universe. Blah-blah-blah join our organization or whatever blah-blah-blah Mama Yama will "show you the way" or wahtever.
GLHF.
 

Hello there,
 
Reporting with a little update:
 
1) Thread Title
We replaced "RP" with "Immersion" in the thread title, it might be less confusing to some while being more "spot on" with what it is trying to express. Still, those with (a classic) RP experience should not feel left out, if they are open for an interactive experience not completely focusing on "passive RP" - we want to interweave gameplay, what is happening in the community, with an 'immersive' experience. Too unspecific for you? Just ask and I shall elaborate on our views regarding that.
 
2) Discord!
Perhaps it is a bit late given our age in this community - but you could say better late than never. Now, a dedicated public relations discord server exists that awaits your arrival.
Those interested in the corporation can ask related questions, while any other partners, spokespersons or diplomats of other organizations and states can also of course join to establish ties or send inquiries.
 
»Discord server link (click here)
 
Notice: It is new and still needs adjustments, core changes or intended frame will be done this week, including user groups.
 
 
In other news, some promotional content (website) will soon be updated or changed and discord promotion (ads) in various hubs will begin. Who knows, might even make new promotional videos.
 
 
⇣ On a personal closing note - if you look for a group right now or maybe in the near future
 
 
 
 

(If you don't want to read through pseudo-law or mild in-universe babbling, just ignore this post, it's intended to comment from a mild "in-character" point of view while giving the project idea below some spark for further debate or to encourage other reactions of any kind by other organizations)
 
 
 
 
 

 
A preliminary assessment on the Charter of Alioth
»Source thread | Awareness tags: @Rafiki
 
 
We have noted recent efforts and the first version of the Charter of Alioth (COA). Immediately, efforts have begun to assess the document in its current form, as released recently, in determining whether the document is fit for support from a corporate view. A reason for this response is also the following quote from the preamble of the charter, prompting this response:
 
 
 
I'm responsible for the "central branch" of Vulture Corporation and as such will reply in its name; this may not refer to other future branches that may be established, as there will be notable autonomy for each branch in how it conducts business or operations.
 
While we commend such initiatives and grand undertakings, and especially commend projects to revive aspects of the old world, the cradle of humanity, we as sovereign entity come to the following conclusion:

 
 
 
Reasoning / assessment
 
Foreword
 
It should be noted that there is no ill-will against the notion of a charter like this; the big rejection graphic is mostly symbolic or visualization. This assessment or comment on it simply intends to state the personal stance of Vulture Corporation (central) as a whole, encompassing its assets and personnel. Additionally, this "format" of public response is, in the end, intended to create further discussion about the idea, which should aid the charter draft or suggestion, generate feedback and thus be helpful to its creators and supporters, but also opponents or rejecters.
 
Corporate stance
 
While the creation is commendable and the underlying intention appears noble, aspects of the charter cannot fully be supported by us, as it may be possible that violations may occur or be deemed necessary regarding specific circumstances and articles. From our perspective, it appears outdated or may not completely be able to incorporate and mind the current situation humanity faces or might be forced into.
 
Due to notable, obvious conflicts with certain articles (or parts of them) of the document that could interfere with corporate sovereignty and the necessary frame to counter specific threats, we also reject the notion to agree or sign the charter for "PR purposes" only to ignore or violate it when it may be deemed suitable.
 
After speaking to assessors, I hereby list some articles that could eventually be deemed problematic. The conflict zones are, however, not necessarily limited to them. It is merely a selection to highlight certain potential problems that make signing of this document un-wise, if not impossible, with our stance in mind:
 
Potentially or likely problematic parts underlined, our comments are highlighted in teal color.
 
 
■ Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, organizational or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or intergalactic status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.  
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to distinguish based on a notable amount of factors, partially some of those ruled out in this article, if deemed necessary. As such, "everyone" cannot be granted what is noted in the article.
 
■ Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.  
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to deal with 'criminal charges' in any form deemed necessary. While potential innocence is always taken into account and while evidence and likelihood is carefully compared and assessed, we do not guarantee "public hearing" in all cases, mostly also given our nature as non-state-actor with a sovereign status. In addition, "independent, impartial tribunal" could be provided, but is not guaranteed.
 
■ Article 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the area claimed by his organisation.  
Stance / potential conflict area:
We reserve the right to restrict movement in any claimed and administrated (managed) area based on various factors, if deemed necessary. The same can apply for our own employees. "Right to freedom of movement" does not list any potential restrictions and thus implies "total freedom of movement", which cannot be guaranteed based and must be distinguished regarding legal status, rank, affiliation and other factors. Less abstract: A service member or new employee may not have the right to enter a restricted internal research area deemed 'sensitive'.
 
 
Given these areas of conflict between corporate regulations or interests - depending on the situation - and the framework of this charter, it is deemed partially incompatible, even if other aspects are very well aligned or supported by idea.
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Simplification of possible critic - in a nutshell
 
In different terms, the COA is deemed static and unflexible with today's practices of organizations and actors, and is based upon an old framework apparently mostly applied to classic nation state actors in such a way to find common grounds between many actors on one world. With this new rebirth of mankind and civilizations and a spread among the starts while minding a diverse set of interactions between many different types of actors, it mostly seems to restrict organizations in certain areas. Perhaps it is also unspecific in certain articles or may need rewording to find wider acceptance.
 
It is assumed that countless organizations would not be willing to fully accept or sign this charter in this stage as it would mildly to notably impact their ability to act in their own interests. While an intergalactic framework that lists or encourages "common ground" may certainly be useful, it can never be assumed that all organizations would support or sign it, just like certain agreements and regulations were not fully supported or signed by state actors of the old world.
 
In addition, it appears that authoritarian states already exist in not just a very limited number, making their support or even interest in the charter questionable. It could also beg the question how signing actors would react or interact with those that might either be anything but interested or even openly opposing the charter or its core values.
 
To lastly resort to a word of the old world, to some it could seem that this charter could mostly end up being a "Lippenbekenntnis" (idiom: 'Talk is cheap'; lip service) for signing actors until it no longer suits their needs or restricts them, in which case they would ignore aspects of it - overtly or covertly.
 
 
Current corporate main stance regarding support or acceptance  - in a nutshell
 
Currently, it is our assessment that we as sovereign corporate actor will be 'better off' minding aspects of the charter, but not following it strictly to the letter, making formal support and signing impossible. We intend to support humanity's revival through innovation, research and service but deem it necessary to ignore aspects of the charter in specific situations in enforcement related cases when this aids the protection of the corporate body or others unaffiliated to it.
 
We also do not think, as at least indirectly implied in the preamble, that not strictly following the charter or signing it would exclude us from being a "reasonable, social and righteous" organization.
 
 
I thank you for your time and review. We remain open for debate in the specified channels you have provided elsewhere.
 
 
 
 
//If I may add my two cents below this without pseudo-babbling or fluff-talk, you have an interesting idea there. I personally do not think it's very viable or, in other words, it won't be liked by many organizations and players or supported fully at least, but one can tell you put some thought and effort into this, and seem to apply some sense or understanding of real law, whether copied from real charters and whatnot or added through own knowledge and understanding.
 
 
 

I disagree with this.
 
If you really wanted the land you would have claimed the territory for yourself.
 
In DU you take the chance of losing everything on that land if you dont.
 
The mechanism isnt a weapon at all, but if you take the risk of not claiming the land you are on, and someone else claims it, then you just lucked out.
 
You take your chances, you roll the dice, and see what unfolds.
 
Naturally, you can always setup in a safe zone where nobody can touch you - problem solved.
 
 
 

Want to know more about DICE?
 
Read about it in Issue 2 of spaceshipdrama.com
 
 

I like your video :3.
 
The PR guy looks professional.
And he could probably sell me an house made out of waffels ... and i would want one made out sirup next to it.

@Sofernius
 
In addition in regards to the whole "losing players due to pay gap" (simplified summary) and measures to promote the game, we should not forget something else.
 
Word of mouth. Multimedia. This:
 

 
 

... and of course many more, these are just two prime examples of sharing content. I also used those big pictures on purpose, as those are two big notable platforms that can and will promote DU beyond forum threads, reddit and anything else that could aid in spreading the word.
 
In the end, not everyone will be able to take a look till beta and whatnot. Regardless of whether there is a free / limited trial or not, all those platforms just mentioned will not just allow people to get a look at the game, it will promote it and make it known to some in the first place. I'm not even looking at what I would call pure gameplay videos or videos from the community.
 
There are many known Youtubers (and Streamers) beyond single or few games, channels covering various games. "John Doe" just playing DU and posting videos is doing his part, but there's also big names out there who will cover the game, and due to their followers and fans and their reach, those "influencers" will do their part in promoting the game. I think if people really start to like the idea of the game and - once ready - its technical, social and gameplay possibilities, if they generally could afford a sub they'd take the dip and try it out. Or they can inform themselves about cutting down on hard costs due to DAC and whatnot.
 
Last but not least we should not ignore the slim or perhaps not-so-unlikely chance of news outlets picking up stories of the game, if it will turn into something like a "new EvE Online" for people, whether it intends to do this or not. I mean there are plenty of news articles about the game not solely posted on primarily game related websites and whatnot.
 
There's a friggin Playboy article about the guy who died in the US embassy attack who played EvE Online in his free time and did notable things in there, while I think other stories were mentioned about some players and their "life style" in that game. I can see DU as something like a progression with sandbox elements to this.
 
If all goes well.

Well, as far as this whole thread goes.
 
We can sum it up in four blocks:
 
- Can't afford sub
- Can afford sub, but doesn't want to. He rather wants to be able to buy cool hats, skins or give himself a boost over someone else
- Can afford the sub and even churns out DAC so he can skip the tedious things. He has enough money somehow.
- Can afford, but he just wants to play. Without ever paying anything.
 
1. Could do stuff so he can buy himself an DAC ingame.
2. Skins and Cosmetics probably will be ingame, if they're extremly sucessfull we might get that sub fee gone (not necessarily good ... but it can work).
3. Could make a contract with someone, that he will "work" ingame for him for a certain time for a DAC.
4. Could just leave out one pizza + drink per month or any of the thread starters suggestions (simple math, sub isn't alot),
 
We will certainly lose alot of people, at the start, without them ever haveing tested the game.
IF they never add a 7 day or 14 day trial time.
 
The best way to go or rahter the two best ways to go:
- Free Beta Keys. Game is nearly finished and people can take a look, if it's something they would pay for. We got these to handout to friends and other random people. + NQ will probably hand them out via PR actions too.
- Trial time. People can play, but everything will be gone if they don't decide to invest a DAC into it or a sub. To prevent abuse ... trade might need to be restricted. We don't want "gold sellers" getting into the game as easy as possible. (But that's another topic .... these guys just use "stolen creditcards" and buythemself in anyways. Getting an refund on that anytime, they get cought ...)
 
 
I think, DAC will be easyer to achieve then alot of people think.
If anything, duo to the large amount of DAC at the start. A single DAC will be alot less worth, then lets say after 2 years.
For that starting time, people that can't or just don't want to pay will be able to acquire them easily.
 
 
--
 
I will certainly not say what i think of free to play games. A neat free to play app game is circling around atm that is scamming people (again).
But people will need to look at free to play at one point in time and think. Think hard.
 
Most of these are made, so that you're hassled and bothered. If you don't pay for that exp boost or that time dilution for your crafting ... or you have only 1 craft slot and VIP have 5. They're made so that ultimately they funnel alot of people into buying.
 
And i am not even going to the broken P2W ones, these just hunt for whales. And count on the other "free" users to be living bait.
 
I love Extra Credit :
 
 

Usually a subscription is used to pay for servers and development. MMOs tend to last a lot longer than your average Fallout game, hence why Fallout 76 shouldn't have subscriptions (EDIT: Fallout 76 might have a subscription, similar to Elder Scrolls Online. However, due to the type of MMO that it is, it might include free to play elements, whereas they wouldn't be as suitable in Dual Universe ). In a game like Halo (also multiplayer) the server and development costs after release are paid by those who purchase DLC and, these days, micro-transactions. The Dual Universe developers don't want the downsides that DLC or micro-transactions have, and they want the game to last, hence a monthly subscription.
 
I understand why people wouldn't want to pay a recurring fee to play a game, however it means that they can try the game for a lot less ($15 instead of $60) before they commit more money to it. Also, there is an item in game that will give you a month of free time, so once you can get a steady stream of it you don't have to worry about paying the subscription as much.
 
In addition, these threads will close since you are replying to it way after it has been deemed dead. I recommend you compile everything you want to reply to and make a new thread that contains the links to these threads. Also, most of these threads will not have all the recent information regarding the game, so statements made in them are more likely to be inaccurate.

It's all about clever marketing or picking the right approach.
 
I mean, countless people also played and play EvE Online which also has monthly cost, as far as I can still assume. It's been almost a decade since I touched it.
 
When getting to that particular topic the key is mentioning the compromise, that you do not necessarily HAVE to pay monthly to play.
 
Someone could gift you DAC, letting you play - although chances are strangers wouldn't just do that for nothing in return, and assuming it's not some lottery where those owning them throw them out like that. But that means you can earn those and use them to obtain game time (1 DAC should equal 1 month). Maybe you pay initially but then obtain sufficient in-game funds to buy DACs in the game and use them for game time.
 
My point being, unlike some other games, you do not have to necessarily pay to play. How (un)likely that becomes is of course dependent on too many factors to list or fantasize about, but it is possible. To give an example, any backer of a certain status gets free DACs, from a few to a lot. Some could hoard them, some could sell them for in-game currency and some could gift or grant them to other players relatively free of charge or under specific conditions.

"Go Boldly, Thread Lightly, Wipe Softly." (Jean-Christophe Baillie, June 2018)
 
(See you in July, one babbling per month seem just enough for now.)

With the recent E3 trailer, it might be a good time to discuss the topic here. And since it might just be a year away or closer.
 
 
Long story short, who's waiting for it? Or hasn't heard of it at all so far?
Who has reservations?
Who likes the general style and might want to copy things in DU?
 
What do you want to accomplish or play in the game?
 
I'm personally looking to get involved in the cop or corporate world and see where the journey takes me.
 
And you?

If JC is the lord and saviour of mmos then CD projekt red is the lord and saviour of rpgs.

I figured since NASA, ESA, Roskosmos, SpaceX et al. have all these neat mission patches, Dual Universe should have one too. So I designed one. Not sure about the years, since lore is still a bit spotty. The idea is to have this eventually turned into a real embroidered patch (not for commercial purposes, obviously ).
 
Thoughts? Suggestions?

For the month of May, it's finally here. Here's your "monthly" update from Ark Central, with a high volume of community created content showing this month.
 
 

With the recent E3 trailer, it might be a good time to discuss the topic here. And since it might just be a year away or closer.
 
 
Long story short, who's waiting for it? Or hasn't heard of it at all so far?
Who has reservations?
Who likes the general style and might want to copy things in DU?
 
What do you want to accomplish or play in the game?
 
I'm personally looking to get involved in the cop or corporate world and see where the journey takes me.
 
And you?

Job titles will vary and likely be practical.
Services will be somewhat wide, but not too much. We want to do a few things, but not everything. Can't focus on everything with a smaller team anyway.
 
Compensation is considered; for our main project, it is possible. For our police side project, we strongly aim for in-game compensation on a regular basis ("salary")  if viable and possible. Might depend on whether we are integrated into city funding and taxes or not. Those working in the main project and beyond will be compensated with real money depending on their position or merit.
 
Marketing is always considered. From feedback obtained over years, it appears we have a unique approach to marketing or at least the possibility to reach many people if we truly must and pour our efforts into it.
 
 
As for skills
 
I humbly believe the particular skills (and approaches) I obtained over the years will provide an advantage. Not because I like to dream about it but because it has gotten us and me into good positions in the past. So far it seemed to work and I doubt it will change completely. As for the last question, not counting ranks:
 
Both.
 
I was wondering if you, perhaps between the lines, we're looking for inspiration in finding or selecting certain job titles for your own current or future endeavors. Could that be the case?
 
It would, at the very least, be a side effect for readers as soon as people share their "titles".