Anopheles

Interesting.
True and wrong at the same time.
 
Well alot of corp will still come up and even be well done.
You don't need 100+ people for a corp to work. 2 good friends would be enough already for some, 20 would be a good count for alot of these.
 
YOu can say that 90% of all corp registered members are probably ghosts, they might comeback or not.
But before we reach Beta, anything out there is just a note for people to look at.
 
Wait and see. Make a corp yourself or join one.
If it fails, evolve and take the next step.
 
A few of these corps will surely get trough, simply by the tenecity they show over the time.
And the active people that drive them.

As I see it I would not worry too much. The 'Organizational landscape' will change drastically once it becomes apparent that running an org is not easy and requires RL skills, effort and a _lot_ of time. Many current orgs are fairly loosely knit communities where infighting and general disagreements will cause breakup of some of the bigger ones very soon after the game starts going.
 
The current framework is mostly a placeholder IMO and while there are a few solid, well organized ones, these are generally specialized and not the dime a dozen 'we will kill you if we want your land and you do not submit' type of which there are too many.
 
Also it's interesting how so many seem to think that just setting up a military or government style leadership structure will make things work.. A title is just that unless the person holding it understands what it means to bear it. 

So is it that the leader must operate the same way an empire would.
Like fast communication to all cities within its borders
Sending supplies, citizens and soldiers to wear they need to go quickly and efficiently
An identity based on policies,"propaganda", and media like having community created content
The empires strengths like military or transport
The power structure being the best for the empire.
 
I'm probably wrong or confusing in this but i what do you think

There are problems with an organization at the beginning of a Game.   The Corp I set up in Elite Dangerous (The Code - nothing to do with Eve's C.O.D.E - that eventually partly splintered to form the SDC) had things in the charter that didn't happen in the game (splitting loot mainly and other things that seemed logical but didnt get put in) so, yeah, some organizations will fail because of that, or burn out or politics.
 
Some won't.
 
The ability to have an organization infrastructure (leadership, webpage, practical knowledge of game systems) already in place is a huge secret bonus for those lucky enough to get into Pre-Alpha.

Simply brushing the argument aside with an opportunistic comment seems somewhat easy. Even when OP is exaggerating, he does have a point.
 
I think the current orgs in general really have no context, they mostly have no reason to exist and quite a few seem to be more about the 'leadership' not looking out for anything but them being leaders/CEO/King/General of their own little piece of DU. As mentioned I do believe most of these will fall apart quickly especially the ones built around conquest and conflict as a main driver IMO. The orgs that are emerging in more specialist and unique ways would tend to be able to grow and flourish much more and much faster.
 
The problem will be though that these failing orgs will potentially leave a lot of collateral damage which may actually impact the game in a negative way if people come away with a bad taste. So yes I would agree that it may be better to at least not have orgs establish and promote themselves as much as happens now, especially on 'official' platforms. I do believe this will resolve itself within the first 6 months after the game goes live for reasons mentioned earlier.

Seems like every niche has already been filled.  New organizations will be minnows and will struggle to survive.   
 
Yes, I know Organization Churn is a thing in games, but everything you want to do will already be up and running, so you are under a lot of weight.
 
This will be true even after a wipe.     This means the best areas will be found sooner (organized effort), better defended and so on.
 
Organizations shouldn't have started until a relatively short beta or after.

Seems like every niche has already been filled.  New organizations will be minnows and will struggle to survive.   
 
Yes, I know Organization Churn is a thing in games, but everything you want to do will already be up and running, so you are under a lot of weight.
 
This will be true even after a wipe.     This means the best areas will be found sooner (organized effort), better defended and so on.
 
Organizations shouldn't have started until a relatively short beta or after.

I like playing evil, on occasion, in games. 
 
This doesn't mean I torture animals in real lifeel  (anyway cruelty to people pays better and they seem to appreciate it more).
 
Neither do I play evil for the lulz.  I like to be the consequence of laziness, greed or bad planning.  In one Space game my organization made it so that you could buy a pass to not be pirated and briefly turned a core area of space into the New Caribbean until the developer drained the joy out of pvp and the core professions of piracy.
 
We were a bad organisation that had a code (more of a guideline, really).
 
The one thing I like in a game is rules which can be broken and worked around but not so tight that you can't do anything.
 
We enjoy conflict with security and playing cat and mouse with traders.  But while we enjoy pvp, we didn't (as happened in the other game) want to do it all the time.  We wanted every contact with Traders to be unique-ish.  We weren't murder hobos, we wuz pirates. 
 
I understand the 'hours wasted' argument against non consensual pvp - i really do - and I like DU's way around it with zones of varying security but I do not understand people who join a free form sand box and start omediately seeking ways to restrict it.
 
It is upon you to defend your 'hours of work' by use of forethought and care.  It is not for the developer to make a game where you are totally safe all of the time.
 
A good game has safer and less safer areas.  It also has levels of risk which can be modified by player actions  (forming a convoy, not putting everything you own in one fragile ship).
 
Adapt yourself and everyone can have the game they want.   Strangle the simulation and you only end up with one type of player and a shrinking player base.
 
And with that, good day. 

This thread is not intended as a place to discuss pvp/griefing.   Just use it for declarations of interest or queries.   Don't query the queries or we'll soon be in a quagmire made out of dead carebears.
 
Time Zone: Any
Language: any (but questions in English please)
Style: political/roleplay/optional combat
 
***
 
If you are willing to be a Sub Rosa Agent state your interest and whether you are in pre alpha or not.   Sufficient interest from pre Alpha or alpha 1 players will see the boards up sooner than my own dazzling entrance.  
 
This depends entirely on it being possible to hire people to kill people which is should be if the game is kept free form.   It may be limited if being in a safe zone prevents violence as well as theft, but still workable. 
 
Sub Rosa agents are (not necessarily) assassins or bounty hunters but rather brokers. If you want to be an assassin and a broker that's fine.  Please note you will not receive any protection from communal acts of revenge from the organization until such revenge can be deemed griefing. (And we'll know it when we see it, but mostly repeated attacks, successful or not, over a shortish period of time, out board harassment, etc).
 
If someone wants someone or something dead then you contact a known Sub Rosa Broker/Agent and request a player/s deathe by bounty hunter.  Payment is to be up front by whatever method of transfer is possible.
 
No coin. No listing.  
 
A listing request should be be sent to any Agent  (contact info will be published once we know how non direct communication is implemented) with the following information.  Missing any of this will lead to delays and or cancelling the contract at the Agent's discretion.  
 
Regardless of your relationship to the issuer no bounty will be paid before the listing appears publicly.
 
***
 
Contracts issued entirely at an Agent's personal discretion.  Limitations of contract are stated at the bottom. 
 
Every Contract will have a unique number (usually Agent's initials/target's initials/contract number in this format xx/xx/0000000).  You can see if it is a genuine contract by comparing it to the public list within 24 hours (agents have busy lives) of issue.  Probably by Google doc or forum post.
 
Where possible you should state contract number before engaging target of contract.
 
Target
 
Bounty offered (minus small listing fee, usually no more than 10%)
 
Last known system
 
Level of danger (good/bad pilot, part of big angry clan, etc)
 
Amount of kills (max 3 with an equal multiplier of bounty - 2 kills means you pay 2x the amount stated above). If you want to pay different amounts for each kill, for some reason,  say so here.
 
Anything else: base destruction/theft of blueprints, etc.  This should be reflected in the size of bounty. 
 
Start date (date of payment received if not stated).
 
If the bounty runs out (2 week limit) you will need to put up the bounty again by paying another non negotiable 10% listing fee or it will be taken down.  Bounties will be paid if bounty is still listed at time of collection. No quibble. 
 
***
 
First confirmed kill/claim gets the chicken dinner.
 
Feel free to join or form other groups (i will be setting up The Code pirate group (from Elite Dangerous not c.o.d.e from eve)) as Sub Rosa will be politically neutral with no alliances beyond non-aggression pacts outside of wars of survival.  We will have no bases, own no territory and pay no taxes) so wars of survival seem unlikely. 
 
Well also have no secrets as contracts including Ultima Contracts will be publicly listed.  Apart from issuer identities which will only be known to the contacted Agent and will be kept confidential. 
 
To prevent griefing by proxy no contract can be for more than 3 kills or longer than 2 weeks max whichever comes soonest.
 
There will be no Contract Tennis.   A victim of a contract may ONCE put a contract on the person who put a contract on them (if known, obviously). At the Agent's discretion multiple contracts on the same target from different issuers may or may not be staggered.
 
No contracts will be accepted from the victim of a contract on the Bounty Hunter who tried to collect on that contract, successful or not or any known Bounty Hunter tied officially to Sub Rosa (yes, this does mean protection from our contracts but, yes, we will know if you are gaming us).
 
If a bounty hunter fails in 3 attempts on a contract (primarily because they are defeated in combat) then he must stop attacking. He may try again one full week from his last failed attempt if the contract is still live.
 
Unless it is specified directly in the contract nothing of the victims must be damaged apart from what is necessary to collect on the contract.  This will principally refer to the ship or single building they are in. No excuses for destroying a 5km diameter base!)
 
No other individuals are to be hurt unless in self defence or to collect another contract except where it neccessary to collect a contract (otherwise being a crewmember would be insta-sanctuary).
 
If it it's not possible to collect the bounty without injury to unconnected parties (same crew on a small or medium ship wouldn't count here, citizens on a liner would) or damage to unconnected property then you should not try.
 
Bounty hunters should obey all local law that is not directly an impediment to collection.  Repercussions from  the disregard of local legislattion are taken at Bounty Hunter's own risk and issuance of contract is not endorsement of the Bounty Hunter's behaviour by Sub Rosa.
 
The following will get a shiny Ultima Contract (all the restraints stated above are removed and the bounty will ve generally larger):
 
Anyone bating or harassing a Sub Rosa Agent, contract target or bounty hunter on any board that is not explicitly in character roleplaying AND is moderated solely by NQ staff on NQ boards. 
 
Anyone killing the target more than the contract permits except in self defence (and going to the area where the target is within 48 hours of successful claim will invalidate self defence).
 
Proven griefers at our discretion.
 
Anyone claiming to be a Sub Rosa agent who isn't signed up.
 
Scamming by Agent's.  Feel free to take a screenshot of a pre confirmation  message -  it's good  practice to see if your contract is acceptable before transferring funds. This also also includes failure to pay out on kill confirmation (make sure you have video/link
ill proof before claiming). Naturally,  this will need to be investigated first.
 
Anyone claiming a bounty with no proof of kill (scamming).
 
The owner sheltering a target in a bubble once notification of contract has been given by a bounty hunter.
 
The owner/s of bubble preventing access to a bounty hunters seeking to collect on a contract once notification of contract as been given or any prevarication or time wasting until contract runs out.
 
Time wasting. Giving and removing a contract several times a day, for example. 
 
Knowingly giving a false impression of the target.  (You said he was a bad pilot in a small group but he's the best pilot in the game and leader of a sprawling multilayer alliance).
 
Issuing Troll contracts (including but not limited to: non game entities (Barney, Dr Who, etc) NQ staff, 'myself',  celestial bodies, abstact nouns (fear, sadness), all Sub Rosa agents, etc).  We may have a public board for japes and tomfoolery.
 
Gaming our system.
 
Other behaviour we would seem sufficiently heinous but which cannot yet be specified. 
 
If you are willing to be a Sub Rosa Agent state your interest and whether you are in pre alpha or not.   Sufficient interest from pre Alpha or alpha 1 players will see the boards up sooner than my own dazzling entrance.  
 
There is no need to give a false name as a Sub Rosa Agent as you are not the issuer of contracts (barring the Ultima punishment contract) nor the initial  supplier of the reward.
 
This may be edited because of the time limit thing, which is why it's a bit sprawling. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

To paraphrase a lot of unnecessary text and mild condescension;
 
"It's payment system is like Eve Online before the free to play thing.  You pay for the game or earn/steal/trade the equivalent of a pilot licence which can be traded for  game time."

There are no griefers, or do you mean aggressive players that you did not prepare well enough for?
 

Assuming a wipe at beta/release all areas outside the newb base will be lawless until someone puts some law there and that law will only extend as far as people are wiling/able to control.
 
Over time  the area of lawless space will shrink (barring deliberate setting up of 'anything goes' regions by player groups and natural decay of ownerships) which will last until the devs extends the space again.
 
I don't see how it would be anything else?
 
 

I'm sorry, I misused the general discussion forum for generally discussing something which was not specifically brought up.
 
I had something unIque to say that I didn't want to be lost on page 43 of static. 
 
 

I like playing evil, on occasion, in games. 
 
This doesn't mean I torture animals in real lifeel  (anyway cruelty to people pays better and they seem to appreciate it more).
 
Neither do I play evil for the lulz.  I like to be the consequence of laziness, greed or bad planning.  In one Space game my organization made it so that you could buy a pass to not be pirated and briefly turned a core area of space into the New Caribbean until the developer drained the joy out of pvp and the core professions of piracy.
 
We were a bad organisation that had a code (more of a guideline, really).
 
The one thing I like in a game is rules which can be broken and worked around but not so tight that you can't do anything.
 
We enjoy conflict with security and playing cat and mouse with traders.  But while we enjoy pvp, we didn't (as happened in the other game) want to do it all the time.  We wanted every contact with Traders to be unique-ish.  We weren't murder hobos, we wuz pirates. 
 
I understand the 'hours wasted' argument against non consensual pvp - i really do - and I like DU's way around it with zones of varying security but I do not understand people who join a free form sand box and start omediately seeking ways to restrict it.
 
It is upon you to defend your 'hours of work' by use of forethought and care.  It is not for the developer to make a game where you are totally safe all of the time.
 
A good game has safer and less safer areas.  It also has levels of risk which can be modified by player actions  (forming a convoy, not putting everything you own in one fragile ship).
 
Adapt yourself and everyone can have the game they want.   Strangle the simulation and you only end up with one type of player and a shrinking player base.
 
And with that, good day. 

I'm sorry, I misused the general discussion forum for generally discussing something which was not specifically brought up.
 
I had something unIque to say that I didn't want to be lost on page 43 of static. 
 
 

I like playing evil, on occasion, in games. 
 
This doesn't mean I torture animals in real lifeel  (anyway cruelty to people pays better and they seem to appreciate it more).
 
Neither do I play evil for the lulz.  I like to be the consequence of laziness, greed or bad planning.  In one Space game my organization made it so that you could buy a pass to not be pirated and briefly turned a core area of space into the New Caribbean until the developer drained the joy out of pvp and the core professions of piracy.
 
We were a bad organisation that had a code (more of a guideline, really).
 
The one thing I like in a game is rules which can be broken and worked around but not so tight that you can't do anything.
 
We enjoy conflict with security and playing cat and mouse with traders.  But while we enjoy pvp, we didn't (as happened in the other game) want to do it all the time.  We wanted every contact with Traders to be unique-ish.  We weren't murder hobos, we wuz pirates. 
 
I understand the 'hours wasted' argument against non consensual pvp - i really do - and I like DU's way around it with zones of varying security but I do not understand people who join a free form sand box and start omediately seeking ways to restrict it.
 
It is upon you to defend your 'hours of work' by use of forethought and care.  It is not for the developer to make a game where you are totally safe all of the time.
 
A good game has safer and less safer areas.  It also has levels of risk which can be modified by player actions  (forming a convoy, not putting everything you own in one fragile ship).
 
Adapt yourself and everyone can have the game they want.   Strangle the simulation and you only end up with one type of player and a shrinking player base.
 
And with that, good day. 

Yes, we disagree there
Yeah because being 100% safe while mining rare resources is the way to go. 
Risk vs reward is the best driving mechanism imho. If you venture outside, it should be dangerous. No 24h war declaration bs needed to attack someone. The shields are there for a reason and that's fine (and needed
 
Edit: and only because you disagree, doesn't mean it's not what NQ wants. And that doesn't mean that everything will be equal either. It depends on players and how they shape the world, If they Go for chaos or order......who knows

I like playing evil, on occasion, in games. 
 
This doesn't mean I torture animals in real lifeel  (anyway cruelty to people pays better and they seem to appreciate it more).
 
Neither do I play evil for the lulz.  I like to be the consequence of laziness, greed or bad planning.  In one Space game my organization made it so that you could buy a pass to not be pirated and briefly turned a core area of space into the New Caribbean until the developer drained the joy out of pvp and the core professions of piracy.
 
We were a bad organisation that had a code (more of a guideline, really).
 
The one thing I like in a game is rules which can be broken and worked around but not so tight that you can't do anything.
 
We enjoy conflict with security and playing cat and mouse with traders.  But while we enjoy pvp, we didn't (as happened in the other game) want to do it all the time.  We wanted every contact with Traders to be unique-ish.  We weren't murder hobos, we wuz pirates. 
 
I understand the 'hours wasted' argument against non consensual pvp - i really do - and I like DU's way around it with zones of varying security but I do not understand people who join a free form sand box and start omediately seeking ways to restrict it.
 
It is upon you to defend your 'hours of work' by use of forethought and care.  It is not for the developer to make a game where you are totally safe all of the time.
 
A good game has safer and less safer areas.  It also has levels of risk which can be modified by player actions  (forming a convoy, not putting everything you own in one fragile ship).
 
Adapt yourself and everyone can have the game they want.   Strangle the simulation and you only end up with one type of player and a shrinking player base.
 
And with that, good day. 

I like playing evil, on occasion, in games. 
 
This doesn't mean I torture animals in real lifeel  (anyway cruelty to people pays better and they seem to appreciate it more).
 
Neither do I play evil for the lulz.  I like to be the consequence of laziness, greed or bad planning.  In one Space game my organization made it so that you could buy a pass to not be pirated and briefly turned a core area of space into the New Caribbean until the developer drained the joy out of pvp and the core professions of piracy.
 
We were a bad organisation that had a code (more of a guideline, really).
 
The one thing I like in a game is rules which can be broken and worked around but not so tight that you can't do anything.
 
We enjoy conflict with security and playing cat and mouse with traders.  But while we enjoy pvp, we didn't (as happened in the other game) want to do it all the time.  We wanted every contact with Traders to be unique-ish.  We weren't murder hobos, we wuz pirates. 
 
I understand the 'hours wasted' argument against non consensual pvp - i really do - and I like DU's way around it with zones of varying security but I do not understand people who join a free form sand box and start omediately seeking ways to restrict it.
 
It is upon you to defend your 'hours of work' by use of forethought and care.  It is not for the developer to make a game where you are totally safe all of the time.
 
A good game has safer and less safer areas.  It also has levels of risk which can be modified by player actions  (forming a convoy, not putting everything you own in one fragile ship).
 
Adapt yourself and everyone can have the game they want.   Strangle the simulation and you only end up with one type of player and a shrinking player base.
 
And with that, good day. 

I like playing evil, on occasion, in games. 
 
This doesn't mean I torture animals in real lifeel  (anyway cruelty to people pays better and they seem to appreciate it more).
 
Neither do I play evil for the lulz.  I like to be the consequence of laziness, greed or bad planning.  In one Space game my organization made it so that you could buy a pass to not be pirated and briefly turned a core area of space into the New Caribbean until the developer drained the joy out of pvp and the core professions of piracy.
 
We were a bad organisation that had a code (more of a guideline, really).
 
The one thing I like in a game is rules which can be broken and worked around but not so tight that you can't do anything.
 
We enjoy conflict with security and playing cat and mouse with traders.  But while we enjoy pvp, we didn't (as happened in the other game) want to do it all the time.  We wanted every contact with Traders to be unique-ish.  We weren't murder hobos, we wuz pirates. 
 
I understand the 'hours wasted' argument against non consensual pvp - i really do - and I like DU's way around it with zones of varying security but I do not understand people who join a free form sand box and start omediately seeking ways to restrict it.
 
It is upon you to defend your 'hours of work' by use of forethought and care.  It is not for the developer to make a game where you are totally safe all of the time.
 
A good game has safer and less safer areas.  It also has levels of risk which can be modified by player actions  (forming a convoy, not putting everything you own in one fragile ship).
 
Adapt yourself and everyone can have the game they want.   Strangle the simulation and you only end up with one type of player and a shrinking player base.
 
And with that, good day. 

I intend to make my ships so beautiful that to shoot at them will cause the aggressor to die from shame.   
 
The Aesthetic Aegis, if you will.

I intend to make my ships so beautiful that to shoot at them will cause the aggressor to die from shame.   
 
The Aesthetic Aegis, if you will.

I intend to make my ships so beautiful that to shoot at them will cause the aggressor to die from shame.   
 
The Aesthetic Aegis, if you will.

I intend to make my ships so beautiful that to shoot at them will cause the aggressor to die from shame.   
 
The Aesthetic Aegis, if you will.

New roadmap in summer - you'll see "soon"