Anaximander

God please no. CCP killed Eve with that

Automated defenses on STATIC CONSTRUCTS are already planned. Those will be weaker than a Player controlled turret for obvious reasons but it's possible
 
 

The announcement will be posted on our Facebook, Twitter and on the official website in the news category. We'll also send an email to the players that subscribed to our mailing list! The ETA is still Q1, we are working on improving our website so that people interested in supporting the project don't encounter any issue when they'll get a supporter pack.

PC-Master race. People who think that their rig is the best and that you need watercooled-512gb-quad-titanX-RGB to even start playing. Not saying anyone Here is though

Pompompompompompom....
 

What a day ! What a lovely day !!!
 

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

Our beloved twerk found it:
 
AMA pt 2:
"FTL will be handled in a very basic way at release, but we might add the fact that FTL flight happens in a "parallel" hyper universe in a later stage after the initial release. The idea would be then that FTL travel happens in a hyper space, where you could possibly add bubbles that, when intersected, would take you out of FTL space, back into normal space"

Another angle on this sub question topic: A superior product can demand a sub price OP, if DU achieves that, then it will be the commercially best pricing option for NQ irrespective of any person's personal preference. Not even coming back to server costs, player investment in virtual economy and social groups ROI of sub...

Subscription games are like buying a 60 USD game once every six months and DU's plan of free expansions once every six months or so, means you can take a six months break and - unlike WoW - you won't have to buy the Expansion you never got to play, since each Expansion is ADDING to the game, not the "end game".
 
And if you guys didn't notice, B2P is not even good enough to support EA's games which come out every year or two years. 

The recent debacle of Lootboxes, had analysts in EA's favor saying "Gamers need to spend 10 USD a month for these companies to sustain the game post-launch". That's 10 USD a month ON TOP of the 60 USD you payed for the game itself. DU has no B2P price due to that.

DU is not lying to you with "free to play" and then shoving a paywall and saying "pay or grind forever like a limeston quarry slave". and EVEN the DAC system (you buying subscrtiption for other people and selling it in-game for in-game cash) is built around the notion of subscription as a microtransaction.
 
See, in DU, you don't get in it cause it's F2P, then paying a metric fuckton to be on equal footing with others. You START at an equal footing with others and then end up - literally - playing for free, by buying you subscription for in-game cash - which is not hard at all, if you are business savvym or, you know, pay attention and talk to people.

servers need money to run, your skill progression needs to be saved (even when you're offline), B2P not viable here, Cosmetic shop not enough for the scope of DU, It'll be sub based - period
 

Glad to know that this will be possible. Interplanetary travel and space pirating would be boring without being able to interdict others.

If 5% of a 30.000 player alliance makes the move they will instantly have 1500 organized members in game.
I know of at least two big alliances with preparation ongoing to establish a presence in DU. I think you underestimate the organizational strength of some of these alliances.
 

attacking logistics is fun.
you WANT to fight in deep space and kill that transport
you DON'T want to fight near a space station or a planet
 
I'm glad NQ goes for interdiction as it adds a lot more gameplay to DU

There are LOTS of safe zones (ASA ad MSA). Read the blog.
 
They can't fight for those zones as PvP is forbidden there.
 
There are NO valuable materials near Safe zones, as explained by NQ. 
 
More safezones will be opened up later to give new players a home in a safe zone. Again, that's what NQ just said here.
 
Why do people always complain and not actually read (and understand) ?

No.  Just stop.  Please.
 
NQ has spoken for player freedom.  I back that choice.
 
In the "high sec" in DU, it will be impossible to grief... since combat will be impossible.  I imagine damage to constructs will not be possible within the safezones.  I doubt collisions will be possible even outside of the safezones, as I believe NQ stated collisions may be too resource intensive to implement.
 
Also, NQ literally stated that they will open up new areas for players.

That's not that simple
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

Yes, Voxel Farm has been considered in the early days of Novaquark. However, at that moment, while Voxel Farm was very advanced on many things (builder tools, etc), performances weren't adapted for a massive, scalable, multiplayer game as Dual Universe. That's why the voxel tech has been done internally, and now, after all the research and work accomplished so far, even if Voxel Farm has improved on the massively multiplayer aspect, it wouldn't make sense to spend money to adopt an alternative tech.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

Hi everyone,
 
It seems the DevBlog was not clear enough on some points.
We have said it many times before, and we'll continue to say it again:
While many players wants to see Dual Universe with a dominant gameplay aspect, it's important to understand that it's NOT the case. 
 
Building gameplay is as important as Combat gameplay. Not more, not less. Balancing both won't be easy and we are aware of it. No, Building is not the major feature of Dual Universe. If the Building aspect has been made first, it's only because, it was making total sense to start the development with this part: we are pretty much in R&D field regarding the Voxel technology. It was an essential piece of tech to build the base of the game: Voxels were necessary to create editable planets in the first place. Then the logical next step was to develop tools to give players to manipulate voxels. That wouldn't make sense to develop Combat gameplay before the two previous steps because, there wouldn't even something to destroy, or even an environment where the combat could happen.
 
The order in which the features are developed are NOT by order of importance.
It's just a matter of logical game development roadmap.

We have no plan to make Dual Universe a total free for all PvP game, just as we won't make it a whole game universe safe, just because some players want to explore it completely without taking any risk. While we don't plan to make our game some kind of "EVE Online 2.0", we don't want either to make a "No Man's Sky 2.0". We understand this may not appeal to everyone taste, and we totally understand that. However, if there is something that is very unlikely to change, it's the fact that there's no intention to catter to only one specific category of players. 
 
A final word about the griefing and the mindset of the community. Our point of view is that griefing mainly proliferates when it's an easy way to get rewards with little effort, not necessarily because many people really wants to play that way. Of course, there are people who like to grief just for the enjoyment of annoying other players but we are convinced they're not a majority. If game mechanics are designed in such a way that griefing doesn't give easy rewards, then griefing will be naturally limited. 
 
Why not simply remove the possibility of griefing, then?

Yes, it would be clearly easier and quicker to remove the ability to grief other players, but while we have no intention to encourage griefing, removing it totally would go against the very definition of the sandbox concept: players are free to interact in the way they want. If we remove any kind of interaction, then we are not in a Sandbox MMORPG anymore: we would be in a Theme Park one. And that is not Novaquark's vision. We want a game universe where bad behavior is discouraged by game mechanics and heavy in consequences if a player still choose to do so, than arbitrarily forbid the said behavior. We want players to be free but also to live with the consequences of their choices. That's what Sandbox mean to us at Novaquark.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

You can't program an AI and you can't have intelligent droids. 
That's against the nature of Du as ppl do those tasks

How would you enforce that? Kick everyone out the safezone who killed one guy? 2? 20?
What about wars and the people participating there?
What about accidently killed people?
You want this to be a "who shot first" thing? Cause that can be abused (as you see in various games nowadays) and people will be griefed. 
 
And again: If there's a tradehub somewhere in the safezone then ppl can just exclude Others from trading there. Let players handle it. 
 
Besides a pvper can just circumvent this with an alt. And since safezones are huge it doesn't really matter at all. Cause ppl who don't want to PvP won't go out there anyway. 
And you can't exclude ppl from the arkzone in any way as this is the primary RN node for everyone
 

That is not how it works. By your logic anything that has already been around in other games cannot be emergent in DU. BS if you ask me. The very definition of it is creative solutions, complex situations that emerge from simple mechanics. There's even something called intentional emergence such as similar situations intended by devs. Either way we've been given the tools. And if people find unexpected ways to do PvP or literally anything else it is very much emergent gameplay, you can't just dismiss it pointing at another game. See, other games does not set the standard for what will be emergent in DU since it's a new game in itself that comes with its own complexity and player solutions to problems. 

What for? To have less diversity? Less gameplay? Less specialization?
 
Meh

To give a clear image of what we have in mind, here is an example:
Let's say you want to build a car.
With low resources in an ASA, you will be able to build this:

 
This will do the job as a car. 
However, don't expect high performances in speed, security, comfort and such.
Don't expect either to win a race, or any competition with it.
 
However, with high value resources you will be able to build this:

 
Now with this car, you will be able to compete with other players in a race.
The car will have far better speed, better security and comfort, due to high quality Elements crafted and used in it.
 
So with low value materials, you will be able to do things that you could with high value materials but with the minimal specs you could ever imagine, just to get started.
We hope this give a clear idea of what we have in mind now
 
Best Regards.
Nyzaltar.