Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'bot'.
Hereby I would like to present you my Discord Bot "DU-auth" for each Discord Server. The users of a discord with "DU-auth" can authenticate themselves with their Dual Universe Board Profile. With this bot, fakers and cheaters have no room. Facts about the bot: - Users only need two steps to authenticate themselves. - Server owners only need three simple steps to install the bot. - Auto check of changed names (enable or disable). - Many admin commands to configure the bot. - Define the role for authenticated users. - Define the channel for commands. - Create private welcome message (enable or disable). - Users only have to authenticate on one discord with "DU-auth", then they are also authenticated on other servers. - Needs only minimal permissions. More information: https://sites.google.com/view/du-auth Try it now on my test Discord server: https://discord.gg/GZ8u5UG greetings CodePeon
This will be a proposed solution to a problem that NovaQuark has thus far decided not to create: losing money (that is, in-game currency: Quanta) upon death of a player. Let's dive into it. The Problem If my sources are correct, NovaQuark has stated before that such items as DACs, Blueprints, Territory Control Units, Resurrection Nodes, and Quanta will not be lost upon death. Most of these items I have listed are justifiably non-lose-able; they are highly rare and valuable or, in some cases, unique items that would dramatically affect the total universal supply of these items. However, that last one, Quanta, seems not to belong on that list. Quanta will be as common as dirt, and the entire economy of DU will circulate around it. It is not rare, and it useful purely as a medium of exchange. So it seems to me that, like any other item, at least some percentage of Quanta should be lost by a player if he/she dies/is killed. A further incentive to encourage safe civilization building practices, of course. And a mechanic to facilitate looting of money, which is really the end goal of most looters. After all, in real life, should you be killed or rendered unconscious, any cash you may be carrying is easy pickings. However, you might say, if a player dies of non-PVP causes, doesn't that create a currency sink? If a player were particularly deep-pocketed, it could even have a significant impact on the universal economy. Surely, this is a problem that we are better off avoiding? The Attempt at a Solution Allow me the privilege of tickling your economic fancies. We all know, of course, that NQ plans on implementing market bots/non-player-buy-orders initially, in order to inject some currency into the infant economy of the early game. Now let's take that a step further. A player dies, drops random x% of Quanta. First, to facilitate looting, most of his inventory (including that Quanta) will have dropped. In most looting cases, looters will immediately snatch up these items and continue along their merry ways. If it is a non-PVP death (ex. taking too high of a fall, crashing a spaceship), presumably those items will just disappear after x amount of time. But wait! We can't just have Quanta dropping through a wormhole into another (triple?) universe. Oh the humanity economy! So here is what I propose: instead of vanishing like those other inventory contents, Quanta will be whisked away into one of those nifty market bots that will be present at the beginning of the game to inject currency. These bots will purchase items from sellers on the universal market, thus recirculating the money back into the economy. Extension Of course, this all hinges on NQ's willingness to spend development time on this feature, and how to manage the balance between immersion and practicality (there are no market bots in the real world, but there are institutions installed to regulate the economy). This competes against the benefits of such a feature to the game: reality (it makes sense that you should lose money upon a death, even if temporary), the ability to loot money (for all the pirates and scavengers and outlaws), and indeed, the possibility of banking (who would bank money that is perfectly safe in a wallet, save for interest on deposits?) Therefore, discuss.