While Dual Universe gears up for Beta, we in NMC snuck into the future and asked players about the anticipated and quite possibly game changing mechanic: energy. Do we see enormous power plants feeding cities and battleships going dark and helpless after an unlucky hit into a generator? Softcore or hardcore? Accessibility or immersion?
Time for opinions!
Q: Do you think energy mechanics in DU must be implemented as buff/debuff or a strict balancing requirement for industry/ship elements to work at all?
Actimist: Yes, I think energy mechanics are a crucial element in emergent gameplay to nurf mega-industry, excessive weaponry and core spamming. It makes sense for cores without power to eventually degrade, further encouraging persistent gameplay. Personally, I also think it should be harder to maintain massive ships.
Sawafa: I think buff/debuff way is better because of its simplicity.
Newton5969: Yes, I believe energy mechanics are important for balancing reasons else you could have an unfair number of elements on a ship which would break the balance especially in PvP. Imagine having a small ship covered in large guns it makes no sense. It could also stop Borg cubes from being used.
Hagbard: For things like basic Industry, i think this should be optional. A complex game creates part of its long term player motivation from exactly that complexity. But if the learning curve would get too steep, new players could just give up. For advanced things like e.g. Energy Shields it could be made a requirement. If you want the additional value, provide "fuel".
NanoDot: What I was hoping for was that energy/power systems would be a vital part of DU's design, i.e. power would be required for things to work. However, NQ cannot finish power systems in time for launch (which is 2 weeks away), so power systems will now be optional buffs, otherwise they would totally disrupt a live game with paying customers (which never goes well).
ZarTaen: Energy, if used as buff/debuff, needs to be a clear and heavy tradeoff, think 50%. I would prefer it as hard requirement for something to work, but that is unlikely and I accept that.
Anderson Williams: I would absolutely love to see an energy requirement. I feel that this could be one of the answers to the many questions of "how do we stop people from building ridiculous ships, or the Evil Borg Cube”.
IvanGrozniy: I think a balancing requirement would make more sense. The former approach is too arbitrary while the latter makes more "physics" sense, similarly to how fuel works right now. Additionally the latter approach would give us more elements to work with.
Msoul: My primary concern is that the bar to entry for newer players remain low so that they can freely try new career options without significant cost/complexity. As long as that point is observed then I would be fine with having the energy mechanic be used for balance purposes.
Destrin: I believe energy systems must be implemented such that they are the "great balancer". They need a way to limit how much stuff can go on different sized cores.
Setzar: As above working on other systems first that make PGC easier and more fun to make and then useful/functional to use comes first. Then granularity of systems comes after that depending on feedback at that stage. That would be my response. For example, such a system not only impacts all the above, but it's a HUGE economic component in game so it would be necessary to integrate that into such a feature... It's a HUGE amount of work. As said I think it's a secondary artifact of the current situation.
Soulinks: I think the original idea of implementing power/energy as a buff effect will be good enough, as this will balance certain game styles already. For example: added weight (thus slower maneuverability) for extra weapons damage or turret count.
vertex: 3 steps energy: off|scanty|on. Elements consume kW and when not enough power available they run at lower efficiency. Simple, linear calculation: 25/50kW available = 50% efficiency. Elements priority through power management, so low priority stuff might run at 20% while important stuff runs at 100% (see E:D).
YubinGaming: BUFF/DEBUFF would require modifying the existing skill system. So a balancing requirement would be preferred. There is already too many skills to manage.
DarkHorizon: Energy makes for an additional layer of depth to the game. A benefit or detriment gives off a more customization leaning feel, more suited for smaller constructs. But as a needed mechanic, an interesting balancing act for weaponized platforms, dynamic industry, or generally large constructs. It depends.
Noddles: Energy mechanics, as a requirement, are critical to the balance of the game. Without making them a requirement there is no trade off between speed, armament and shielding on ships. The same is true for industry that currently has no constraining factor for the size of factories.
Splutty: I'd much prefer there to be no energy requirements at all.
GraXXor: I personally believe that energy should be an absolute must for weapons, industry, forcefields, TCUs and future dome/shield tech. I believe it should be delivered as three aspects: Generation/Conversion/Storage. Conversely, I don't think we should need power for trivial functional items like lights, LG, ailerons and wings, elevators, PBs, DBs, screens or doors, though.
Nurocept: I honestly reckon it has to be added as a bit of both, but I guess more of a balancing mechanic into industry and possibly into ship module management. Otherwise you get into a situation where every person/character is able to build a single factory to do just about everything. Without energy or power management there won't be any specialisation, especially when it comes to industry, ships already have balancing mechanics to a degree, such as fuel, weight, centre of mass etc, but industry definitely needs this.
Pleione: I favor a strict balancing requirement, perhaps with a variety of fuel sources. e.g. Coal or solar cells for basic power production, perhaps an industry produced fusion plants later.
Demlock: I feel energy mechanics will act as both a buff & debuff for the purpose of balancing and enhancing the emergent gameplay of DU overall. Some elements could receive buffs with energy yet work without it whilst others require it to work. It would serve as a wonderful limiting/enhancing factor to the game for larger constructs, static, dynamic & space alike.
Sync: I believe that energy mechanics in Dual Universe, as it is today, should be a buff related mechanic. This type of technology should be seen as an advanced improvement for Static Cores, which improves the efficiency of Industry related elements.
un86Rn: I believe that the game should become more complex and hardcore, placing value on the the essential competency of the functional designer, but at the same time it's important that energy mechanics don't ruin existing ship designs. It should be a prerequisite to ship's operations, if added to the game.
Ram: In my opinion, energy generation mechanics need to be implemented in DU to act as a balancing risk vs reward system whereby players must build constructs with certain limitations in mind based on power supply. This will allow for players to build greater, more powerful constructs with the risk that it is easier to disable and harder to maintain. The reward for this risk is heavily increased capability in at least some major aspects. So, it should exist to balance industry/elements while acting as a sort of buff and potential debuff if it isn't maintained properly.
Tordan: While I feel that having energy mechanics in a game would add a level of complexity and realism that I enjoy and even prefer. I do not believe that it is essential.
Vonboy: I think it should be a requirement for large elements, like industry or weapons. I wanna see a need for large power plants to be built and maintained, With power making/management being another specialization.
Haunty: I think energy should be required for industry to work at all, but cheap for basic operation, and more energy required for a buff for more or faster output. I don't think ships need an energy requirement, it could just be written off as engines providing all the power to basic systems.
Grimmstone: As stated in a couple of live streams , forgive the lack of time stamp but JC has stated his wish for Power Systems to be Augmentative not Prohibitory, I agree with this take on it. Meaning the Minimal Power Requirement is met by the core unit itself, beyond that you would need to provide fuel/upkeep of some form.
facemywrath: I think it should be for balancing. There are certain aspects of the game that could be stronger and ones that are too strong.If they debuff specific things that need it, at least a little bit, then energy could work. My idea is that everything be slightly weaker than would be preferred, unless getting power. So, say, engines could be like 5% weaker at base, but adding power makes them up to 30% stronger. Meanwhile maybe some things are strong enough as is, they don't need that 5% debuff.
Armedwithwings: Without power there is no civilization. There should be ways to mass produce and distribute it. If done correctly it could serve as an incentive for urban areas and public industrial complexes. I expect it as a hardcore basic function for the game and in my humble opinion anything less would be wasted potential.
Elias Villd: In my opinion, energy should be a source of alimentation and not a boost. It would then be all the more interesting to be able to have access to a new form of propulsion, to power lights, devices ... etc. as well as industries. And why not solar panels, nuclear reactors, batteries ... etc.
_leael_: I lean towards energy being a requirement to function and not only (but also) a buff/debuff provider. Collaborative gameplay, strategic territory claiming/ships & industrial facilities sizes, economy (energy market?) are examples of key aspects of the game that could be positively impacted. The trade off is complexity, which can niche the game further, so, as with everything else, balancing will be key.
Watanka: I think it is better to make it an "end game" mechanic. The construct core could provide minimal energy, but for more complex constructs, you need additional source of energy. This way new players don't have to think too much about it, but it adds interesting gameplay for more advanced players.
Blazemonger: Personally I think energy requirements and management should be an integral mechanic to gameplay. It's probably the closest we'll get to having some form of survival mechanic and considering it "just" a buff while not a requirement just makes overall gameplay more shallow it feels to me like a cop-out easy implementation to be able to say the mechanic was "delivered as promised". I also think power management in general will provide a lot of gameplay opportunity and challenges as well as solutions to a lot of potential situations, not in the least construct decay and Territory Warfare defense.
Proximo: I think there should be a hard cost on energy, and as extension, fuel/resources you have to supply to industry and ships. This requires industries to be supplied without break, or it will go offline. Passive use of energy from ship systems also limits the time you can stay in space, far away from anything that could interact with you..
Thanks to everyone for participation!
Disclaimer: While we aimed for a relatively representative collection of opinions, methodology used was not perfect -- the pool mostly consists of people found on Discord at the moment (so, semi-random, with both ones we know in NMC and never talked before).
Special thanks to majesstic for proofreading!