Forums » Suggestions
So, I got to thinking about player owned stations, and how a nation would deem you 'fit' to build a station within their space. It couldn't be based on our current faction point system or money/trade goods, because that would give 'moth pilots the overwhelming representation, and it wouldn't be fair to make it based on PvP rating alone, because many players online open admit that they're trigger twitching skills are below par, but still enjoy the non-combat aspects of VO. And what about the middle man? Shouldn't having a large enough following, being leader of your own guild (that maintains numbers) for example demonstrate sufficient capability to own a station? It struck me that there are precisely three nations for these different governmental types. Regardless of where you are, though, one thing that's often appreciated in any society is the hard worker, and the dream that through enough time and patience you can climb the social ladder to the top.
A Plutocracy is the name coined for a nation by which rule is distributed on a basis of wealth. In any closed system, it's inevitable that citizens will distribute their wealth into a system seperate social classes, usually ranging from the many poor, to the miniscule percentage of fantastically rich. However, not all Plutocracies need to degenerate into this pyramid shape of power distribution, especially in VO where the system is plenty open, because goods can be mined and consumed indefinately. An excellent case of how forming a political power based on wealth is to look at TGFT. Simply being bound together for a sole purpose lets them appreciate eachother's strengths, and even others can benefit from TGFT's social construct, such as Broma-Ba Slick who uses their guild website to advertise his ore buying business. This system would allow individuals to purchase 'real-estate' in their territory based on their comparative wealth in raw goods/credits, and an excellent history of trade licenses. Despite all the advantages, plutocracies are infamous for their potential corruption, but where better to stick a government like this than in UIT space?
A source of many fantastic legends stem from the accomplishments of heroes within a feudal system of government. Be it Feudal Japan, or Feudal Europe, many people will agree that in times of war a certain breed of commander will naturally rise above others, with an authority purely of excellence. Often devoted to serving the interests of the public, these leaders are granted tracts of land in return for their pledge of fealty, and a swearing of arms. Whenever given the chance at combat, those who perform above and beyond the call to duty are rewarded with a promotion to power. In this system, players who are especially accomplished in the war against neighboring nations would be rewarded on a scale of appreciation similar to our current Faction system, but seperate by the fact that points would be awarded by a healthy dose of both PvP, and running nation based mission chains. Obviously there's a catch; These governments tend to reward the kind of generals who send in their subordinates to do the dirty fighting, and only enter the war to clean up the weaker foes, thereby improving their standing without actually risking anything. Some people might call this cheap, and others good tactics, but all this should be expected in the Serco Dominion, where pride and skill come hand in hand.
That's all and well for the truly dedicated players, but where's the place for the common man, for those who don't necessarily have the skills to fight or the massive amounts of Xithricate ore in their closets, but still demonstrate a clear ability to lead? If you yourself aren't incredibly wealthy, but are backed up by a large following should that not imply your worthiness to own a station, or even many stations for that matter? A democracy is a term thrown loosely around, but generally means a form of government where the people as a whole rule, with minority following the majority. This system would be built around one's influence within his guild, and their continued support. Having enough of a steady majority would qualify you to own station space and do with it how you please. From destructive war, to procreative trade, to anything in between, the player who meets the demand of his like minded fellows will find his/her self in the best position to carry out their wishes, but whoever these players are, they can only be few. Naturally this type of government tends to breed weak political leaders that manage to gain a following by image alone, but one has to be careful to maintain an adequate level of competence, lest the people elect a new leader from beneath you.
I suppose stations in grey space could be owned from any of the above methods, either by building one from raw materials, or capturing an already built station through force, or even absorbing one into your guild through political means. Or maybe long mission strings? Meritocracy is a word I dug out of wikipedia used to describe of form of government based around the concept of distributing power to those who have demonstrated ability worthy of their position. I suppose if you wanted to have a station backed by one of the large factions in the Universe like Corvus Prime, running a string of missions or something would be up this alley. In retrospect, any and every government is a meritocracy, because the people in power demonstrated that, well, they're in power. Anyone and everyone could find their way into power with this system, and that could be for better or for worse. It's a more grey system than it is black and white. Thoughts?
A Plutocracy is the name coined for a nation by which rule is distributed on a basis of wealth. In any closed system, it's inevitable that citizens will distribute their wealth into a system seperate social classes, usually ranging from the many poor, to the miniscule percentage of fantastically rich. However, not all Plutocracies need to degenerate into this pyramid shape of power distribution, especially in VO where the system is plenty open, because goods can be mined and consumed indefinately. An excellent case of how forming a political power based on wealth is to look at TGFT. Simply being bound together for a sole purpose lets them appreciate eachother's strengths, and even others can benefit from TGFT's social construct, such as Broma-Ba Slick who uses their guild website to advertise his ore buying business. This system would allow individuals to purchase 'real-estate' in their territory based on their comparative wealth in raw goods/credits, and an excellent history of trade licenses. Despite all the advantages, plutocracies are infamous for their potential corruption, but where better to stick a government like this than in UIT space?
A source of many fantastic legends stem from the accomplishments of heroes within a feudal system of government. Be it Feudal Japan, or Feudal Europe, many people will agree that in times of war a certain breed of commander will naturally rise above others, with an authority purely of excellence. Often devoted to serving the interests of the public, these leaders are granted tracts of land in return for their pledge of fealty, and a swearing of arms. Whenever given the chance at combat, those who perform above and beyond the call to duty are rewarded with a promotion to power. In this system, players who are especially accomplished in the war against neighboring nations would be rewarded on a scale of appreciation similar to our current Faction system, but seperate by the fact that points would be awarded by a healthy dose of both PvP, and running nation based mission chains. Obviously there's a catch; These governments tend to reward the kind of generals who send in their subordinates to do the dirty fighting, and only enter the war to clean up the weaker foes, thereby improving their standing without actually risking anything. Some people might call this cheap, and others good tactics, but all this should be expected in the Serco Dominion, where pride and skill come hand in hand.
That's all and well for the truly dedicated players, but where's the place for the common man, for those who don't necessarily have the skills to fight or the massive amounts of Xithricate ore in their closets, but still demonstrate a clear ability to lead? If you yourself aren't incredibly wealthy, but are backed up by a large following should that not imply your worthiness to own a station, or even many stations for that matter? A democracy is a term thrown loosely around, but generally means a form of government where the people as a whole rule, with minority following the majority. This system would be built around one's influence within his guild, and their continued support. Having enough of a steady majority would qualify you to own station space and do with it how you please. From destructive war, to procreative trade, to anything in between, the player who meets the demand of his like minded fellows will find his/her self in the best position to carry out their wishes, but whoever these players are, they can only be few. Naturally this type of government tends to breed weak political leaders that manage to gain a following by image alone, but one has to be careful to maintain an adequate level of competence, lest the people elect a new leader from beneath you.
I suppose stations in grey space could be owned from any of the above methods, either by building one from raw materials, or capturing an already built station through force, or even absorbing one into your guild through political means. Or maybe long mission strings? Meritocracy is a word I dug out of wikipedia used to describe of form of government based around the concept of distributing power to those who have demonstrated ability worthy of their position. I suppose if you wanted to have a station backed by one of the large factions in the Universe like Corvus Prime, running a string of missions or something would be up this alley. In retrospect, any and every government is a meritocracy, because the people in power demonstrated that, well, they're in power. Anyone and everyone could find their way into power with this system, and that could be for better or for worse. It's a more grey system than it is black and white. Thoughts?
I expect that the devs will read this, as it is worth reading.
Itani? I love the UIT being rich because well, they trade. I also love the Serco being more fighting based, and I suppose that Itani should be the same, but with a hint of democracy.
As for grey space, I like the idea of having them captured, created, or able to take control of by buying out or otherwise politically. Grey Space would provide a nice "Station Hunting Grounds" for the pvpers, and would have groups attacking stations much like groups attacking large Cap ships.
But let's stay on topic. It's not about Player Owned Stations, it's about Governmental Structure. So, for UIT, whoever manages to complete certain missions and buy-out stock or some kind of equity in their nation, has the most money, owns most of the space, and pays the most people off to vote for him, should become #1 whatever that title is.
I believe it would be very interesting to have in-game voting, and give many powers to the president/King/Queen/RULER.
Powers I would suggest:
Structures I would suggest: (VO nation ~= Group ; Titles) Attainable in gov't)
Itani:Future Monarchy(Star Wars Ep.1-2(Honorable : Care for Order) High Chancellor, Committee members, Guilds can join committees, etc.
UIT:Like U.S. on crack; President, Vice-President,Treasurer, etc.(political)
Serco:Feudal Japan (Honorable : Care for Chaos) Emperor, Imperial Commander Imperial General, etc.(military)
GREY SPACE:NO STRUCTURE
'Agreements' can be made between Guilds' owned stations: Non-Aggression, Friendly, Free Trading, Feuding, WAR.
The main idea is though, that the Nations should have different and fitting Governments to their current states.
Itani? I love the UIT being rich because well, they trade. I also love the Serco being more fighting based, and I suppose that Itani should be the same, but with a hint of democracy.
As for grey space, I like the idea of having them captured, created, or able to take control of by buying out or otherwise politically. Grey Space would provide a nice "Station Hunting Grounds" for the pvpers, and would have groups attacking stations much like groups attacking large Cap ships.
But let's stay on topic. It's not about Player Owned Stations, it's about Governmental Structure. So, for UIT, whoever manages to complete certain missions and buy-out stock or some kind of equity in their nation, has the most money, owns most of the space, and pays the most people off to vote for him, should become #1 whatever that title is.
I believe it would be very interesting to have in-game voting, and give many powers to the president/King/Queen/RULER.
Powers I would suggest:
Structures I would suggest: (VO nation ~= Group ; Titles) Attainable in gov't)
Itani:Future Monarchy(Star Wars Ep.1-2(Honorable : Care for Order) High Chancellor, Committee members, Guilds can join committees, etc.
UIT:Like U.S. on crack; President, Vice-President,Treasurer, etc.(political)
Serco:Feudal Japan (Honorable : Care for Chaos) Emperor, Imperial Commander Imperial General, etc.(military)
GREY SPACE:NO STRUCTURE
'Agreements' can be made between Guilds' owned stations: Non-Aggression, Friendly, Free Trading, Feuding, WAR.
The main idea is though, that the Nations should have different and fitting Governments to their current states.
Itani have no democracy, but rather a theocracy, a religious order governing the nation.
Other than that, I agree with SuperMegaMynt's idea.
No to voting someone onto the throne. Democracy does not (and maybe won't ever) work on the 'net. I'd favour meritocracy, the question is only, how the deserving are to be chosen.
Other than that, I agree with SuperMegaMynt's idea.
No to voting someone onto the throne. Democracy does not (and maybe won't ever) work on the 'net. I'd favour meritocracy, the question is only, how the deserving are to be chosen.
What is the purpose of governmental structures?
The perception of the hard worker has since long turned from appreciation to ducks taking water, if he`s percepted at all, and dreams about climbing up a social ladder become obviously true.
The perception of the hard worker has since long turned from appreciation to ducks taking water, if he`s percepted at all, and dreams about climbing up a social ladder become obviously true.
duplicate
though i wont blame your weak search skills given looking for such things in vo threads is tedious given the search functionality here.
i just happen to know the guy who posted the original:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11557
ninny-lock the dup please.
though i wont blame your weak search skills given looking for such things in vo threads is tedious given the search functionality here.
i just happen to know the guy who posted the original:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11557
ninny-lock the dup please.
Itani have no democracy, but rather a theocracy, a religious order governing the nation.
Okay good, I hoped that was the case because I think theocracies are alot more interesting. What's their religion?
But let's stay on topic. It's not about Player Owned Stations, it's about Governmental Structure.
Well sort of, but not really. The idea stemmed when I was reading up on Feudalism, the system where literally real-estate was distributed to those who performed well in combat. In the U.S. a popular concept is "social darwanism", which is financial survival of the fittest, and so I drew that connection to the UIT, naturally. I admit that the Itani system feels a bit weak, but none the less it's not a true democracy because there's no majority basis. If there were going to be 10 player owned stations in Itani space, you'd only need like 10% of the populace to back you.
I just hate the idea of creating rules about nominal titles and meaningless votes if there's nothing to gain from them. What would a president do? What makes him unique to other individuals? And what's the difference between one nation's form of government to the other's? I just used player owned stations as an example of how the rules of the game would become the laws of the VO universe, if that makes sense. I don't know, it just seems to me that land *is* power in it's purest form in society, because it only gives the opportunities to players that they themselves can think of, as opposed to "The president of the UIT gets an automatic 100,000 credit salary from the federal surplus every day."
What is the purpose of governmental structures?
When player run stations come out, a natural question will be how to get one for yourself, and I hoped there'd be a system with enough representation for everyone, one that trader, PvP twitch-action-master-fighter-ace-pilot, or just popular leader with any qualities deemed appropriate can find their way to the top. Government structures use laws, or rules to enforce fairness based on rewarding certain qualities, based on the form of government. Feudalism rewards military prowess for example. Another cool trick about letting the different nations reward different qualities, is that you'll start to get like minded people within the nations; Those most interested in PvP will often end up in the Dominion, etc. Hopefully players will then find their own system of balance.
Okay good, I hoped that was the case because I think theocracies are alot more interesting. What's their religion?
But let's stay on topic. It's not about Player Owned Stations, it's about Governmental Structure.
Well sort of, but not really. The idea stemmed when I was reading up on Feudalism, the system where literally real-estate was distributed to those who performed well in combat. In the U.S. a popular concept is "social darwanism", which is financial survival of the fittest, and so I drew that connection to the UIT, naturally. I admit that the Itani system feels a bit weak, but none the less it's not a true democracy because there's no majority basis. If there were going to be 10 player owned stations in Itani space, you'd only need like 10% of the populace to back you.
I just hate the idea of creating rules about nominal titles and meaningless votes if there's nothing to gain from them. What would a president do? What makes him unique to other individuals? And what's the difference between one nation's form of government to the other's? I just used player owned stations as an example of how the rules of the game would become the laws of the VO universe, if that makes sense. I don't know, it just seems to me that land *is* power in it's purest form in society, because it only gives the opportunities to players that they themselves can think of, as opposed to "The president of the UIT gets an automatic 100,000 credit salary from the federal surplus every day."
What is the purpose of governmental structures?
When player run stations come out, a natural question will be how to get one for yourself, and I hoped there'd be a system with enough representation for everyone, one that trader, PvP twitch-action-master-fighter-ace-pilot, or just popular leader with any qualities deemed appropriate can find their way to the top. Government structures use laws, or rules to enforce fairness based on rewarding certain qualities, based on the form of government. Feudalism rewards military prowess for example. Another cool trick about letting the different nations reward different qualities, is that you'll start to get like minded people within the nations; Those most interested in PvP will often end up in the Dominion, etc. Hopefully players will then find their own system of balance.
Quote by SuperMegaMynt:
Okay good, I hoped that was the case because I think theocracies are alot more interesting. What's their religion?
End quote.
Their religion seems to be deism, perhaps pantheism, it doesn't become much clearer than that from what I can gather by sloppily skimming the Backstory again. Perhaps incarnate also didn't want to make too rigid structures to allow for a multitude of people to like the Itani Nation as a major faction.
Okay good, I hoped that was the case because I think theocracies are alot more interesting. What's their religion?
End quote.
Their religion seems to be deism, perhaps pantheism, it doesn't become much clearer than that from what I can gather by sloppily skimming the Backstory again. Perhaps incarnate also didn't want to make too rigid structures to allow for a multitude of people to like the Itani Nation as a major faction.
“I just used player owned stations as an example of how the rules of the game would become the laws of the VO universe, if that makes sense. I don't know, it just seems to me that land *is* power in it's purest form in society,…”
I suppose I understand your reasoning on this matter SMM.
My take on it:
There is no other way to claim sectors as your territory, other than owning or controlling a station, and having some sort of defenses available (via turrets on the station, or Station Guards).
In order for the governments to work, we would have to define certain laws for each nation. Possible laws should include, but are not limited to :
Expensing ammo (even if you shoot no one) in a sector that prohibits it,
Hitting or Shooting a station is an act of tort against the owner of the station (the player who carelessly smashed the station should pay for it),
Dropping cargo in garbage free sectors results in a fine or clean-up,
Trespassing a sector owned by an enemy Government deemed “Authorized Personnel Only” should result in a fine,
Trade to a Station that is “Out of Bounds of the Free Trade Area” is prohibited,
Betting is illegal,
Illegal Substances ( Certain nations may be ‘anti-nuclear’, therefore mining nuclear material is prohibited) found to be in possession of anyone will result in a penalty,
Borders with stations specifically designed for you to pass through a gateway that scans your ship (or guards just ‘scan’ your ship) have certain ways of avoiding detection, and if you are suspected of tricking the system, there will be a reprimand.,
As the game gets better there should be more and more rules bounding certain nations, and balancing them out, in turn.
We need more possible laws, post them here please...
I suppose I understand your reasoning on this matter SMM.
My take on it:
There is no other way to claim sectors as your territory, other than owning or controlling a station, and having some sort of defenses available (via turrets on the station, or Station Guards).
In order for the governments to work, we would have to define certain laws for each nation. Possible laws should include, but are not limited to :
Expensing ammo (even if you shoot no one) in a sector that prohibits it,
Hitting or Shooting a station is an act of tort against the owner of the station (the player who carelessly smashed the station should pay for it),
Dropping cargo in garbage free sectors results in a fine or clean-up,
Trespassing a sector owned by an enemy Government deemed “Authorized Personnel Only” should result in a fine,
Trade to a Station that is “Out of Bounds of the Free Trade Area” is prohibited,
Betting is illegal,
Illegal Substances ( Certain nations may be ‘anti-nuclear’, therefore mining nuclear material is prohibited) found to be in possession of anyone will result in a penalty,
Borders with stations specifically designed for you to pass through a gateway that scans your ship (or guards just ‘scan’ your ship) have certain ways of avoiding detection, and if you are suspected of tricking the system, there will be a reprimand.,
As the game gets better there should be more and more rules bounding certain nations, and balancing them out, in turn.
We need more possible laws, post them here please...
Ha, I really like some of those laws, particularly this one, "Dropping cargo in garbage free sectors results in a fine or clean-up." Right now obviously the Devs are in charge; they make the laws, they draw the polical bounderies on the map, and they are the mighty apostles that appease the stirring angers of the mighty god Delieverator, for Deliverator is within every walking creature, ever man woman and child. It is what drives us, what directs us from to place to place, and without it the world falls into a state of stagnant chaos by which no progress can be made, a repetition of the dark ages of old. *Ahem*
Alright, so Itani are a theocracy based on practical religion; that is to say, manipulating the physical reality by prayer and force of will. I guess that's why the monks can learn to use the force. Anywho, since anything's an assumption at this point, I guess the only path left is to start making radical suggestions. How about Itani are the ones who divide their race into a caste system? Because most of early itani space flight was performed by avid monks, a similar system of dividing pilots into their best fitting casts still lasts today. Based on a tree of missions that begins with a Basic Flight test, and branches out into myriad directions, pilots would begin as "unsullied", emphazizing their lack of training, and depending on the path they choose through missions, they'd end up being like "Hunter-Killer", or "Apostle" or whatever. The titles would come along with the missions, and there are as many options are people willing to make 'em.
Serco Law:
*Failure to report for active defense upon reaching the rank of Private will result in a temporary demotion, until a sufficiently notable heroic achievment has been accomplished. (Sometimes Itani raid Serco space. Letting one pass right by ya' will be frowned upon, but obviously due to technical issues, etc., the reprimends will be far from permanent. Heroic achievments would probably constitute fully killing an opponent with a greater PvP rank, or somethin'.)
UIT Law:
*Proof of pirating will result in a revocation of weapons licenses, although they can be earned again through the same process as originally aquired. (Pirating in this case would consist of the destruction or damaging of any civilian craft, that's not unaligned. With limited radar capability in ion storms, however, there's always the potential to get away with murder. Afterall, dead men tell no tales!)
Itani Law:
*Foreign visitors are allowed, but must register with a Border Station to secure an escort that will accompany you for the duration of your visit. Costs of the guard will be administered at the visitor's expense. (I think it'd be the perfect irony if the Itani, at last being at peace with one another in perfect harmony, still treated other nationalities with untrusted discrimination. Although the Itani greatly regret their racism towards the Serco so many years ago, racist sentiments are still an integrated part of their culture, so much so that many if not all Itani see this law as easily within the bounds of common sense. It's other nations that are foolish for not employing similar standards)
My hope is that one day all stations will become player owned. It is at this point that if someone can unite all stations under his rule, he will become ruler in his own right.
Alright, so Itani are a theocracy based on practical religion; that is to say, manipulating the physical reality by prayer and force of will. I guess that's why the monks can learn to use the force. Anywho, since anything's an assumption at this point, I guess the only path left is to start making radical suggestions. How about Itani are the ones who divide their race into a caste system? Because most of early itani space flight was performed by avid monks, a similar system of dividing pilots into their best fitting casts still lasts today. Based on a tree of missions that begins with a Basic Flight test, and branches out into myriad directions, pilots would begin as "unsullied", emphazizing their lack of training, and depending on the path they choose through missions, they'd end up being like "Hunter-Killer", or "Apostle" or whatever. The titles would come along with the missions, and there are as many options are people willing to make 'em.
Serco Law:
*Failure to report for active defense upon reaching the rank of Private will result in a temporary demotion, until a sufficiently notable heroic achievment has been accomplished. (Sometimes Itani raid Serco space. Letting one pass right by ya' will be frowned upon, but obviously due to technical issues, etc., the reprimends will be far from permanent. Heroic achievments would probably constitute fully killing an opponent with a greater PvP rank, or somethin'.)
UIT Law:
*Proof of pirating will result in a revocation of weapons licenses, although they can be earned again through the same process as originally aquired. (Pirating in this case would consist of the destruction or damaging of any civilian craft, that's not unaligned. With limited radar capability in ion storms, however, there's always the potential to get away with murder. Afterall, dead men tell no tales!)
Itani Law:
*Foreign visitors are allowed, but must register with a Border Station to secure an escort that will accompany you for the duration of your visit. Costs of the guard will be administered at the visitor's expense. (I think it'd be the perfect irony if the Itani, at last being at peace with one another in perfect harmony, still treated other nationalities with untrusted discrimination. Although the Itani greatly regret their racism towards the Serco so many years ago, racist sentiments are still an integrated part of their culture, so much so that many if not all Itani see this law as easily within the bounds of common sense. It's other nations that are foolish for not employing similar standards)
My hope is that one day all stations will become player owned. It is at this point that if someone can unite all stations under his rule, he will become ruler in his own right.
How would this work? I`m stuck with thinking that governmental structures can only be enforced as far as implementation of rules in the game allows for that, but at the same time it occurs to me that it is up to the players to invent and to apply governmental structures and to run governments (eventually assisted by NPCs) in one of the many ways the actually implemented rules allow.
What would we have to define? Obligations for players how they have to run their stations (and how to govern their territory, if there`s such a thing)? Rules that allow players to run their stations (and to govern their territory)?
What would we have to define? Obligations for players how they have to run their stations (and how to govern their territory, if there`s such a thing)? Rules that allow players to run their stations (and to govern their territory)?
The best way to do this is just to mimic reality best we can, only fudging the physics. Personally I use the 10 Sephiroth and 22 paths in the Kabbalistic Tree of Life to determine what can and can't be done in reality, but the next best thing is just to jump in and say:
*Stations can be captured (exchanged)
*Or destroyed
*Or manufactured
So, now our already in game governments have a method of enforcing their laws; if you don't comply with their standards, they will destroy your station. Conversely, if you do comply with their standards exceedingly well, then they will allow you to have a station. Allowing means that for the moment they won't destroy your station, and will probably defend it, which is just destroying anyone who would attack your station. Perhaps they'd even manufacture one for you. Without relying on a governing nation, players could exchange stations with one another based on specific agreements. For example, "Drop your defenses, and leave that station so that my boys can occupy it, and we'll let you take your supplies with you. Otherwise we destroy it." Or, "If you give me X,000,000 credits, I'll manufacture a station, and then let you occupy it. However, you'll continue to pay me X,000,000 credits a month, or my big bad guild (or nation) will come and destroy it.
Notice how all power stems from the ability to destroy, or manufacture, and how all exchange is simply a combination of these two options while mixed with certain goods, and/or money. Where this gets tricky is in contracts, agreements that if broken get the nation involved on either side. So, until nations are run by humans, I propose that the government be based on strict rules. It could just be that there are three ways to get stations everywhere in the universe, and that it's completely vanilla wherever you go, but I just liked the idea of rewarding certain styles of gameplay accordingly to the 'personality' of the different nations, and factions in VO, just as a method of getting things rolling. It's the same with NPC convoys; before the economy can become dynamic to where each product had a specific point where it was previously manufactured and delivered, we need a system where NPC's can reliably get the cargo from point A to point B without getting stuck in asteroids.
*Stations can be captured (exchanged)
*Or destroyed
*Or manufactured
So, now our already in game governments have a method of enforcing their laws; if you don't comply with their standards, they will destroy your station. Conversely, if you do comply with their standards exceedingly well, then they will allow you to have a station. Allowing means that for the moment they won't destroy your station, and will probably defend it, which is just destroying anyone who would attack your station. Perhaps they'd even manufacture one for you. Without relying on a governing nation, players could exchange stations with one another based on specific agreements. For example, "Drop your defenses, and leave that station so that my boys can occupy it, and we'll let you take your supplies with you. Otherwise we destroy it." Or, "If you give me X,000,000 credits, I'll manufacture a station, and then let you occupy it. However, you'll continue to pay me X,000,000 credits a month, or my big bad guild (or nation) will come and destroy it.
Notice how all power stems from the ability to destroy, or manufacture, and how all exchange is simply a combination of these two options while mixed with certain goods, and/or money. Where this gets tricky is in contracts, agreements that if broken get the nation involved on either side. So, until nations are run by humans, I propose that the government be based on strict rules. It could just be that there are three ways to get stations everywhere in the universe, and that it's completely vanilla wherever you go, but I just liked the idea of rewarding certain styles of gameplay accordingly to the 'personality' of the different nations, and factions in VO, just as a method of getting things rolling. It's the same with NPC convoys; before the economy can become dynamic to where each product had a specific point where it was previously manufactured and delivered, we need a system where NPC's can reliably get the cargo from point A to point B without getting stuck in asteroids.
> Notice how all power stems from the ability to destroy, or
> manufacture, and how all exchange is simply a combination of
> these two options while mixed with certain goods, and/or money.
The ability to defend a station would also become important. Nations could be extinguished by destroying all their stations or by taking them over.
There should also be something to gain from owning a station, which would be the ability to manufacture and to repair ships, besides their economical influence. At some time, one player could own everything.
What do you do when you happen to respawn at a station the owner of which refuses you to sell you a new ship? Buy a ticket for a ferry and hope the local customs won`t find out that your aboard the ferry?
Times for pirates would be over. Death might become a permanent thing to characters.
> manufacture, and how all exchange is simply a combination of
> these two options while mixed with certain goods, and/or money.
The ability to defend a station would also become important. Nations could be extinguished by destroying all their stations or by taking them over.
There should also be something to gain from owning a station, which would be the ability to manufacture and to repair ships, besides their economical influence. At some time, one player could own everything.
What do you do when you happen to respawn at a station the owner of which refuses you to sell you a new ship? Buy a ticket for a ferry and hope the local customs won`t find out that your aboard the ferry?
Times for pirates would be over. Death might become a permanent thing to characters.
What do you do when you happen to respawn at a station the owner of which refuses you to sell you a new ship? Buy a ticket for a ferry and hope the local customs won`t find out that your aboard the ferry?
This is an occasion where the power to manufacture is more important than the power to destroy. Someone, somewhere in the universe is bound to pick you up, or sell you a ship for the right price. A totalitarian ruler may hold the reigns of power for a short time, but it's inevitable that his subordinates will eventually feel the need to rebel. That's the stuff that makes good movies, and excellent games. Death might become a permament thing... sweet.
This is an occasion where the power to manufacture is more important than the power to destroy. Someone, somewhere in the universe is bound to pick you up, or sell you a ship for the right price. A totalitarian ruler may hold the reigns of power for a short time, but it's inevitable that his subordinates will eventually feel the need to rebel. That's the stuff that makes good movies, and excellent games. Death might become a permament thing... sweet.
How would you rebel against a ruler when you`re stuck without a ship in one of his stations? I shall cry havoc and let fly the ships of war to rescue thee, that this fould deed shall fog all space. Alas, still you know how weak my powers are, and how futile my attempts.
Death is not sweet, but cruel. Now, think of how easyly I get killed ...
It might work and yield stuff good movies are made of, but make it too much like things are in RL, and we won`t want to play anymore because it is too much alike. One of the reasons to play games like VO is for me that you can do pretty much what you want, without being bothered by governments and their rules. I think it was in Privateer that I always killed the militia because they claimed tobacco to be contraband. It was annyoing.
Death is not sweet, but cruel. Now, think of how easyly I get killed ...
It might work and yield stuff good movies are made of, but make it too much like things are in RL, and we won`t want to play anymore because it is too much alike. One of the reasons to play games like VO is for me that you can do pretty much what you want, without being bothered by governments and their rules. I think it was in Privateer that I always killed the militia because they claimed tobacco to be contraband. It was annyoing.
How would you rebel against a ruler when you`re stuck without a ship in one of his stations?
I don't know... why don't you ask any of these people?
335 BC Theban Rebellion against Alexander the Great
73 BC - 71 BC The Roman Slave rebellion
66 AD - 70 AD Great Jewish Revolt
184 Yellow Turban Rebellion in Han China
1185/1186 Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion
1378 Revolt of the Ciompi in Florence
1381 Peasants' Revolt in England
1519 - 1659 Jelali Revolts in the Ottoman Empire
1524 - 1526 Peasants' War in Germany
1569 - 1582 Desmond Rebellions in southern Ireland
1594 - 1603 Nine Years War (Ireland) in Ireland
1612 Minin-Pozharsky Uprising
1637 - 1638 Shimabara Rebellion
1641 - 1642 Irish Rebellion of 1641
1642 - 1649 The English civil wars, also known as the Great Rebellion
1648 - 1654 Chmielnicki uprising in the Ukraine
1670 - 1671 Insurrection of Stepan Razin
1676 Bacon's Rebellion
1680 Pueblo Revolt
1689 Jacobite Rising
1715 the 'Fifteen Jacobite Rising
1739 Stono Rebellion
1741 New York Slave Insurrection of 1741
1745 the 'Forty-Five Jacobite Rising
1763 - 1766 Pontiac's Rebellion
1773 - 1774 Insurrection of Emelyan Pugachov
1775 - 1783 American Revolutionary War
1786 Shays' Rebellion
1789 - 1815 French Revolution
1790-1804 Haitian Revolution
1792 New York Revolt of 1792
1793 - 1796 Revolt in the Vendée
1794 Ko?ciuszko Uprising in Poland
1794 Whiskey Rebellion
1798 Irish Rebellion of 1798
1799 - 1800 John Fries's Rebellion
1800 United Irish Uprising in Newfoundland
1800 Gabriel Prosser's Rebellion
1804 - 1807 First Serbian Uprising
1811 Charles Deslandes' Louisiana Territory Slave Rebellion
1815 George Boxley Rebellion
1816 Fort Blount Revolt
1821 Greek War of Independence
1822 Denmark Vesey's Uprising
1825 Decembrist revolt
1839 Amistad Seizure
1831 Nat Turner's rebellion
1830 - 1831 November Uprising in Poland
1837 Rebellions of 1837 in Canada
1848 Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848
1851 - 1864 The Taiping rebellion
1853 - 1868 Nian Rebellion (????)
1857 - 1858 Sepoy Rebellion
1861 - 1865 American Civil War
1863 - 1864 January Uprising in Poland
1866 - 1871 Fenian raids
1871 Paris Commune
1876 Bulgarian rebellion
1885 North-West Rebellion
1896 - 1898 Philippine Revolution
1899 - 1913 Philippine-American War
1900 - 1901 Boxer Rebellion
1905 Battleship Potemkin uprising
1905 Russian Revolution
1908 Young Turk Revolution
1916 Easter Rebellion
1916-1918 Arab Revolt
1917 Russian Revolution
1919 - 1921 Tambov rebellion
1919-1920 Silesian Uprisings
1918-1919 Greater Polish Uprising
1918-1919 German Revolution
1919 - 1939 Non-Cooperation Movement
1921 Kronstadt rebellion
1932 Mäntsälä rebellion
1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt
1934 Austrian Civil War
1936 - 1939 Spanish Civil War
1940 - 1945 French Resistance; Norwegian Resistance
1944 Warsaw Uprising
1952 - 1959 Mau Mau Rebellion
1956 Hungarian Revolution of 1956
1957 - 1959 Tibetan resistance movement
1968 May 1968 revolt in France
1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal
1987 - 1991 First Intifada
1989 Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
1994 - Present Zapatista Rebellion
1992 Afghan Northern Alliance
1996 - present Chechen Rebels
2000 - Second Intifada
2003 - Iraqi Insurgency
It might work and yield stuff good movies are made of, but make it too much like things are in RL, and we won`t want to play anymore because it is too much alike.
What might work? "Government"? Look, all I'm suggesting is that in UIT space, stations are easiest to attain by money. In Serco , by killing shit. In Itani, I don't really know, so I threw out the wild card; Democracy. I guess Itani could be the balance between money and killing or something.
You said yourself, at the same time it occurs to me that it is up to the players to invent and to apply governmental structures and to run governments (eventually assisted by NPCs) in one of the many ways the actually implemented rules allow.
Well, yeah, but how is this anying new? We've had rules in this game since day 1, such as the NFZ, and how killing people in monitored space is unhealthy for your standing. And as for the ability to Destroy, Manufacture, or Exchange ships, we already have all three of those. By your logic, you could take it to the ultimate extreme, and say that a group of pirates could hound the exits to a station, and destroy you ever time, but that sort of thing just doesn't happen because the kind of people that would act like that kind of jerk are notorious for not having any friends to team up on you, and for every meanie like that, there's usually a nice guy who will help you out. In fact, usually alot more, which is why most people agree that society is a good idea. This fact never changes; if ever a corrupt dictator threatens to become unequaled in his power, the natural course is for a rebellion to rise, and take him down. The only thing that does change, is what qualities makes someone 'corrupt', what the unsaid rules for 'fairness' are.
Ask bojansplash what he thinks of dicatorship. http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11557?page=2#195862
We just had a case where CLM decided to take control of Latos. Was the public's response a supportive one? http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/7/15461
I don't know... why don't you ask any of these people?
335 BC Theban Rebellion against Alexander the Great
73 BC - 71 BC The Roman Slave rebellion
66 AD - 70 AD Great Jewish Revolt
184 Yellow Turban Rebellion in Han China
1185/1186 Vlach-Bulgarian Rebellion
1378 Revolt of the Ciompi in Florence
1381 Peasants' Revolt in England
1519 - 1659 Jelali Revolts in the Ottoman Empire
1524 - 1526 Peasants' War in Germany
1569 - 1582 Desmond Rebellions in southern Ireland
1594 - 1603 Nine Years War (Ireland) in Ireland
1612 Minin-Pozharsky Uprising
1637 - 1638 Shimabara Rebellion
1641 - 1642 Irish Rebellion of 1641
1642 - 1649 The English civil wars, also known as the Great Rebellion
1648 - 1654 Chmielnicki uprising in the Ukraine
1670 - 1671 Insurrection of Stepan Razin
1676 Bacon's Rebellion
1680 Pueblo Revolt
1689 Jacobite Rising
1715 the 'Fifteen Jacobite Rising
1739 Stono Rebellion
1741 New York Slave Insurrection of 1741
1745 the 'Forty-Five Jacobite Rising
1763 - 1766 Pontiac's Rebellion
1773 - 1774 Insurrection of Emelyan Pugachov
1775 - 1783 American Revolutionary War
1786 Shays' Rebellion
1789 - 1815 French Revolution
1790-1804 Haitian Revolution
1792 New York Revolt of 1792
1793 - 1796 Revolt in the Vendée
1794 Ko?ciuszko Uprising in Poland
1794 Whiskey Rebellion
1798 Irish Rebellion of 1798
1799 - 1800 John Fries's Rebellion
1800 United Irish Uprising in Newfoundland
1800 Gabriel Prosser's Rebellion
1804 - 1807 First Serbian Uprising
1811 Charles Deslandes' Louisiana Territory Slave Rebellion
1815 George Boxley Rebellion
1816 Fort Blount Revolt
1821 Greek War of Independence
1822 Denmark Vesey's Uprising
1825 Decembrist revolt
1839 Amistad Seizure
1831 Nat Turner's rebellion
1830 - 1831 November Uprising in Poland
1837 Rebellions of 1837 in Canada
1848 Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848
1851 - 1864 The Taiping rebellion
1853 - 1868 Nian Rebellion (????)
1857 - 1858 Sepoy Rebellion
1861 - 1865 American Civil War
1863 - 1864 January Uprising in Poland
1866 - 1871 Fenian raids
1871 Paris Commune
1876 Bulgarian rebellion
1885 North-West Rebellion
1896 - 1898 Philippine Revolution
1899 - 1913 Philippine-American War
1900 - 1901 Boxer Rebellion
1905 Battleship Potemkin uprising
1905 Russian Revolution
1908 Young Turk Revolution
1916 Easter Rebellion
1916-1918 Arab Revolt
1917 Russian Revolution
1919 - 1921 Tambov rebellion
1919-1920 Silesian Uprisings
1918-1919 Greater Polish Uprising
1918-1919 German Revolution
1919 - 1939 Non-Cooperation Movement
1921 Kronstadt rebellion
1932 Mäntsälä rebellion
1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt
1934 Austrian Civil War
1936 - 1939 Spanish Civil War
1940 - 1945 French Resistance; Norwegian Resistance
1944 Warsaw Uprising
1952 - 1959 Mau Mau Rebellion
1956 Hungarian Revolution of 1956
1957 - 1959 Tibetan resistance movement
1968 May 1968 revolt in France
1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal
1987 - 1991 First Intifada
1989 Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
1994 - Present Zapatista Rebellion
1992 Afghan Northern Alliance
1996 - present Chechen Rebels
2000 - Second Intifada
2003 - Iraqi Insurgency
It might work and yield stuff good movies are made of, but make it too much like things are in RL, and we won`t want to play anymore because it is too much alike.
What might work? "Government"? Look, all I'm suggesting is that in UIT space, stations are easiest to attain by money. In Serco , by killing shit. In Itani, I don't really know, so I threw out the wild card; Democracy. I guess Itani could be the balance between money and killing or something.
You said yourself, at the same time it occurs to me that it is up to the players to invent and to apply governmental structures and to run governments (eventually assisted by NPCs) in one of the many ways the actually implemented rules allow.
Well, yeah, but how is this anying new? We've had rules in this game since day 1, such as the NFZ, and how killing people in monitored space is unhealthy for your standing. And as for the ability to Destroy, Manufacture, or Exchange ships, we already have all three of those. By your logic, you could take it to the ultimate extreme, and say that a group of pirates could hound the exits to a station, and destroy you ever time, but that sort of thing just doesn't happen because the kind of people that would act like that kind of jerk are notorious for not having any friends to team up on you, and for every meanie like that, there's usually a nice guy who will help you out. In fact, usually alot more, which is why most people agree that society is a good idea. This fact never changes; if ever a corrupt dictator threatens to become unequaled in his power, the natural course is for a rebellion to rise, and take him down. The only thing that does change, is what qualities makes someone 'corrupt', what the unsaid rules for 'fairness' are.
Ask bojansplash what he thinks of dicatorship. http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11557?page=2#195862
We just had a case where CLM decided to take control of Latos. Was the public's response a supportive one? http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/7/15461
> I don't know... why don't you ask any of these people?
Because you seem to know and because none of them was ever imprisoned in a space station without any means to start a rebellion?
> What might work? "Government"?
Implementing governmental structures might work. Their instances are rules; there would have to be territory the rules would be applied upon and means to enforce the rules. As an example, there would be rules by which players can obtain stations and maybe other rules like Jim suggested.
> Look, all I'm suggesting is that in UIT space, stations are
> easiest to attain by money. In Serco , by killing shit. In
> Itani, I don't really know, so I threw out the wild card;
> Democracy. I guess Itani could be the balance between money and
> killing or something.
Sorry, I didn`t figure that out. I thought this thread is about `governmental structures` and that there`s a lot more to that than just to answer a question like `how to get a station`. Once you can get a station, other questions come up like `What`s the purpose of having a station?`, `How do you run and defend a station?`, `How do I enforce the rules of my government?` and many others I can`t think of now.
It`s just that I think that I don`t understand you yet, that`s why my comments are that weird. You seem to have something interesting in mind that goes far beyond `how to obtain a station` and the questions involved with that, but I don`t know what that is. I think it`s something else than `nation elections`, so there`s no duplicate post.
> This fact never changes; if ever a corrupt dictator threatens
> to become unequaled in his power, the natural course is for a
> rebellion to rise, and take him down.
Dictators are out of fashion and have to a great extend been replaced by democracy. Politics is dirty and annoying stuff, not like two sides of a coin where people do the right thing 1/2 the time. People do what they think is good for _them_ or at least what appears to them to be less bad, and a lot of things, if not the greater lot, are done without thinking at all, out of lazyness, out of what people feel is expected from them. Democracy only allows people to hide their corruptness, their incompetence, thier unrighteousness, their selfishness, their addiction to power, their lazyness and a lot more behind what`s called legality, behind the `governmental structures` that make them unreachable, behind the ignorance or within the cozyness of the unspoken consensus of their peer-society, and it allows them not to be held responsible for whatever they do. So where is the rebellion against democracy that is long overdue?
> We just had a case where CLM decided to take control of Latos.
My impression was that both the claim and the actions taken against it have been futile in a twee manner because there was nothing that could be achieved by either side. They may have been entertaining for those who like the fighting, though. I wasted about 500 or 700k for some ships and uselessly died about 95 times[1] for nothing except my curiosity. And nothing has changed, pirates still shoot me when I meet them. Do you call it a rebellion?
But I see the point you make. It`s not a true point in RL; it may be a true one --- and naively-romantic one --- in a game, but to what extend do you want VO to become a shadow of RL? RL is not romantic.
[1]: if the stats are true now; yesterday I noticed a jump from 27 PK deaths to 100 after I was killed once by a player
Because you seem to know and because none of them was ever imprisoned in a space station without any means to start a rebellion?
> What might work? "Government"?
Implementing governmental structures might work. Their instances are rules; there would have to be territory the rules would be applied upon and means to enforce the rules. As an example, there would be rules by which players can obtain stations and maybe other rules like Jim suggested.
> Look, all I'm suggesting is that in UIT space, stations are
> easiest to attain by money. In Serco , by killing shit. In
> Itani, I don't really know, so I threw out the wild card;
> Democracy. I guess Itani could be the balance between money and
> killing or something.
Sorry, I didn`t figure that out. I thought this thread is about `governmental structures` and that there`s a lot more to that than just to answer a question like `how to get a station`. Once you can get a station, other questions come up like `What`s the purpose of having a station?`, `How do you run and defend a station?`, `How do I enforce the rules of my government?` and many others I can`t think of now.
It`s just that I think that I don`t understand you yet, that`s why my comments are that weird. You seem to have something interesting in mind that goes far beyond `how to obtain a station` and the questions involved with that, but I don`t know what that is. I think it`s something else than `nation elections`, so there`s no duplicate post.
> This fact never changes; if ever a corrupt dictator threatens
> to become unequaled in his power, the natural course is for a
> rebellion to rise, and take him down.
Dictators are out of fashion and have to a great extend been replaced by democracy. Politics is dirty and annoying stuff, not like two sides of a coin where people do the right thing 1/2 the time. People do what they think is good for _them_ or at least what appears to them to be less bad, and a lot of things, if not the greater lot, are done without thinking at all, out of lazyness, out of what people feel is expected from them. Democracy only allows people to hide their corruptness, their incompetence, thier unrighteousness, their selfishness, their addiction to power, their lazyness and a lot more behind what`s called legality, behind the `governmental structures` that make them unreachable, behind the ignorance or within the cozyness of the unspoken consensus of their peer-society, and it allows them not to be held responsible for whatever they do. So where is the rebellion against democracy that is long overdue?
> We just had a case where CLM decided to take control of Latos.
My impression was that both the claim and the actions taken against it have been futile in a twee manner because there was nothing that could be achieved by either side. They may have been entertaining for those who like the fighting, though. I wasted about 500 or 700k for some ships and uselessly died about 95 times[1] for nothing except my curiosity. And nothing has changed, pirates still shoot me when I meet them. Do you call it a rebellion?
But I see the point you make. It`s not a true point in RL; it may be a true one --- and naively-romantic one --- in a game, but to what extend do you want VO to become a shadow of RL? RL is not romantic.
[1]: if the stats are true now; yesterday I noticed a jump from 27 PK deaths to 100 after I was killed once by a player
I think what yun was saying about not being allowed to buy a ship is true. It would be in poor taste to "trap" someone in a space they cannot buy anything from. In this case I would suggest either a respawn at a different station in the closest station where you are more welcome, or for you to be allowed to use the ec-89 (free bus) to leave always from anywhere. I tend to suggest the first because I am all for stations being completely customizable, and having unwanted visitors shouldn't be happening too much, unless they purposefully come into your sector which is marked:
"No Trespassing, Must Have Authorization with Owner to Access This Station!"
No noob in their right mind would come within 2 sectors of that sector (unless they were jumping past it to somewhere else).
This rules out people from going there unintentionally. The only people that would go there are most likely attackers opposing the lord of the station and probably want to either rob it, (BTW I'm all for stealing from a station not under protection of station guards) or destroy it.
Q: What happens to un-authorized players in a station they are tresspassing in? How do they get out? What measures are being taken to force the station owner into acting accordingly?
A: It all depends on the stations rules for the sector (or distance from the station within the sector).
The station owners can either select one of these options:
1) Transport (via a ship), trespassing players to nearest station liked by, or station with most items.(Automatically)
2) Transport (via a ship), trespassing players to nearest station liked by, or station with most items.(Manually)
Depending on how it may work, Standing for specific stations may take effect, and missions for such should apply. For trespassing players, stations may elect the ability to have them transported out, via another player's ship. Of course this is considering anybody can board someone else's ship, which they currently can't in this stage of the game.
3) Enable trespassing players to buy whatever they want, but add a coefficient to the price. For example, I don't like anyone, and I own a station. I can charge people more for whatever they buy, risking that people won't come to my station, but then I won't make any money, and will prolly lose my station soon because of the rent for this premium sector in Sedina (rented from Corvus... naturally). Someone comes to my station, I kill them via station turret (I love to camp...). They have a CHOICE, (only in specific cases like this where choosing is fairest) to purchase a ship for more than the usual price. Depending on how much they want to launch again, they can either buy a ship for more money, or be transported out (manually or automatically). (ideal for money hungry Guilds).
4) Restrict buying from trespassing players (I would let them buy any ship, but no small or large add-ons, if I had a station).
5) Allow trespassing players to escort themselves out, within a certain amount of time (like the pirates do to you in B8)
If we force the station owners to choose one of the above (or combinations of the above)(or possibly more if you guys can think of any more...) We, VO, should have no problem decifering which stations we should visit/trade with, and should have no problem leaving any station if we want to leave.
"No Trespassing, Must Have Authorization with Owner to Access This Station!"
No noob in their right mind would come within 2 sectors of that sector (unless they were jumping past it to somewhere else).
This rules out people from going there unintentionally. The only people that would go there are most likely attackers opposing the lord of the station and probably want to either rob it, (BTW I'm all for stealing from a station not under protection of station guards) or destroy it.
Q: What happens to un-authorized players in a station they are tresspassing in? How do they get out? What measures are being taken to force the station owner into acting accordingly?
A: It all depends on the stations rules for the sector (or distance from the station within the sector).
The station owners can either select one of these options:
1) Transport (via a ship), trespassing players to nearest station liked by, or station with most items.(Automatically)
2) Transport (via a ship), trespassing players to nearest station liked by, or station with most items.(Manually)
Depending on how it may work, Standing for specific stations may take effect, and missions for such should apply. For trespassing players, stations may elect the ability to have them transported out, via another player's ship. Of course this is considering anybody can board someone else's ship, which they currently can't in this stage of the game.
3) Enable trespassing players to buy whatever they want, but add a coefficient to the price. For example, I don't like anyone, and I own a station. I can charge people more for whatever they buy, risking that people won't come to my station, but then I won't make any money, and will prolly lose my station soon because of the rent for this premium sector in Sedina (rented from Corvus... naturally). Someone comes to my station, I kill them via station turret (I love to camp...). They have a CHOICE, (only in specific cases like this where choosing is fairest) to purchase a ship for more than the usual price. Depending on how much they want to launch again, they can either buy a ship for more money, or be transported out (manually or automatically). (ideal for money hungry Guilds).
4) Restrict buying from trespassing players (I would let them buy any ship, but no small or large add-ons, if I had a station).
5) Allow trespassing players to escort themselves out, within a certain amount of time (like the pirates do to you in B8)
If we force the station owners to choose one of the above (or combinations of the above)(or possibly more if you guys can think of any more...) We, VO, should have no problem decifering which stations we should visit/trade with, and should have no problem leaving any station if we want to leave.
What about player to player standings? The idea is so much at hand that it has probably already been suggested ...
Let players set home only at stations owned by players they have at least a neutral standing with. Once there is no such station, the character cannot respawn and remains permanently dead. His posessions are transfered to the owner of the station where they are on stock. Prevent abuse ... Hmmm, maybe not permanently dead, but unable to respawn before there is a station where respawning is possible.
If you happen to be homed at a station while its owner changes to someone you have bad standing with, once you die, you would respawn at another station where respawning is possible and which is closest to the station you are homed at.
Give station owners the power to decide who may dock at (or undock?) from their stations and who not. Maybe have some way to undock illegally.
[edited]
Let players set home only at stations owned by players they have at least a neutral standing with. Once there is no such station, the character cannot respawn and remains permanently dead. His posessions are transfered to the owner of the station where they are on stock. Prevent abuse ... Hmmm, maybe not permanently dead, but unable to respawn before there is a station where respawning is possible.
If you happen to be homed at a station while its owner changes to someone you have bad standing with, once you die, you would respawn at another station where respawning is possible and which is closest to the station you are homed at.
Give station owners the power to decide who may dock at (or undock?) from their stations and who not. Maybe have some way to undock illegally.
[edited]
I wanted to avoid "respawning" simply because it's unrealistic.
I agree with the whole homing thing, but what happens if someone just all of a sudden starts killing you at your home station? That is where my 5 ideas come into effect (in my previous post).
Perma-death is also in poor-taste, and will not be fun. Though I would like to somehow implement it, it's just not fitting for this game. As for transferring belongings, perhaps. Like I said above, it should be up to the owner what happens to trespassing players. If they trespass enough times, maybe the player forfeits all belongings to the station?
At some point station owners should have complete control over all aspects of their station. The only exception is how they deal with trespassing players. They must do it consistently and un-biased.
I agree with the whole homing thing, but what happens if someone just all of a sudden starts killing you at your home station? That is where my 5 ideas come into effect (in my previous post).
Perma-death is also in poor-taste, and will not be fun. Though I would like to somehow implement it, it's just not fitting for this game. As for transferring belongings, perhaps. Like I said above, it should be up to the owner what happens to trespassing players. If they trespass enough times, maybe the player forfeits all belongings to the station?
At some point station owners should have complete control over all aspects of their station. The only exception is how they deal with trespassing players. They must do it consistently and un-biased.
> I wanted to avoid "respawning" simply because it's unrealistic.
Characters either respawn or remain dead when they are killed. No one in his right mind would fly ships as brittle as there are, so I think it already unrealistic that they do :)
> what happens if someone just all of a sudden starts killing you
> at your home station?
At least his standing towards me would change to `hate`. We would need to think further about player to player standings and about an eventual effect of a particular PTP-standing towards standing to others. To give an example:
5 players in total have good standing with the owner `O` of my home station[1] and with me, 5 others are neutral. Now player `X` shows up at my home station and kills me each time I`m undocking. My standing towards `X` would change to hate, and because I`m in good standing with `O` and 5 other players, the standing of `X` towards `O` and the other 5 players would also change towards hate, and change all the more the better my standing with them is and change all the more `X` is killing me. Since 5 other players are neutral, their standing towards `X` would not be changed and remain neutral.
Once the standing of `X` towards `O` becomes low enough, `X` might automatically become unable to dock at stations owned by `O`, and if it becomes even lower, the station defenses may decide to attack `X`[2]. The other 5 players I`m in good standing with may choose to attack `X` when they meet him and see the bad standing. Or they might also be owners of stations, and `X` would become unable to dock at their stations as well.
I don`t think it would be workable as plain as described, but you get the idea.
As far as I understand your 5 ideas, they all describe ways to deal with `unwanted visitors` or `players you do not like to be there` or `players who did something you didn`t want them to do`. Translate that into terms of `standing`, i. e., players who you are in bad standing with. I would not consider players approaching my station as `trespassers` in the first place --- I would want them to come to trade in my station and sell my products to them, or I would repair and equip their ships, to make money. But once they get into a bad standing with me, I would either not let them dock at my stations or even attack them when they approach. Moreover, I wouldn`t want to have to always set options and prices on a per-player basis. I would want to set prices lower for players with the better standing and higher for players with the not-so-good standing with me. And I would want to protect players I`m in good standing with and ward off players I`m in bad standing with.
Maybe call it a necessary implementation of social structures before governmental structures can come to effect. Think further about it, like `kill a pirate, and your standing with station owners who don`t like pirates will increase`. And you would want to be in good standing with those who can allow you to have a station if you wanted to get one ...
> Perma-death is also in poor-taste, and will not be fun.
Yeah, see the edit.
> At some point station owners should have complete control over
> all aspects of their station.
yes
> The only exception is how they deal with trespassing players.
> They must do it consistently and un-biased.
Why? It`s up to the station owners how to deal with players approaching their stations.
[1]: I`m assuming that stations do not have standings towards something of their own, only the standings of their owner would matter.
[2]: depending on how `O` has set up his stations
Characters either respawn or remain dead when they are killed. No one in his right mind would fly ships as brittle as there are, so I think it already unrealistic that they do :)
> what happens if someone just all of a sudden starts killing you
> at your home station?
At least his standing towards me would change to `hate`. We would need to think further about player to player standings and about an eventual effect of a particular PTP-standing towards standing to others. To give an example:
5 players in total have good standing with the owner `O` of my home station[1] and with me, 5 others are neutral. Now player `X` shows up at my home station and kills me each time I`m undocking. My standing towards `X` would change to hate, and because I`m in good standing with `O` and 5 other players, the standing of `X` towards `O` and the other 5 players would also change towards hate, and change all the more the better my standing with them is and change all the more `X` is killing me. Since 5 other players are neutral, their standing towards `X` would not be changed and remain neutral.
Once the standing of `X` towards `O` becomes low enough, `X` might automatically become unable to dock at stations owned by `O`, and if it becomes even lower, the station defenses may decide to attack `X`[2]. The other 5 players I`m in good standing with may choose to attack `X` when they meet him and see the bad standing. Or they might also be owners of stations, and `X` would become unable to dock at their stations as well.
I don`t think it would be workable as plain as described, but you get the idea.
As far as I understand your 5 ideas, they all describe ways to deal with `unwanted visitors` or `players you do not like to be there` or `players who did something you didn`t want them to do`. Translate that into terms of `standing`, i. e., players who you are in bad standing with. I would not consider players approaching my station as `trespassers` in the first place --- I would want them to come to trade in my station and sell my products to them, or I would repair and equip their ships, to make money. But once they get into a bad standing with me, I would either not let them dock at my stations or even attack them when they approach. Moreover, I wouldn`t want to have to always set options and prices on a per-player basis. I would want to set prices lower for players with the better standing and higher for players with the not-so-good standing with me. And I would want to protect players I`m in good standing with and ward off players I`m in bad standing with.
Maybe call it a necessary implementation of social structures before governmental structures can come to effect. Think further about it, like `kill a pirate, and your standing with station owners who don`t like pirates will increase`. And you would want to be in good standing with those who can allow you to have a station if you wanted to get one ...
> Perma-death is also in poor-taste, and will not be fun.
Yeah, see the edit.
> At some point station owners should have complete control over
> all aspects of their station.
yes
> The only exception is how they deal with trespassing players.
> They must do it consistently and un-biased.
Why? It`s up to the station owners how to deal with players approaching their stations.
[1]: I`m assuming that stations do not have standings towards something of their own, only the standings of their owner would matter.
[2]: depending on how `O` has set up his stations