Veld

I'm 50/50 on this. I have explained that orgs in DU are anything they want to be. They only describe a system by which a group of individuals operate. A government is an org. We do not need a separate org type with different mechanics to take on the role of a government. Implementing tools for enabling a government in the sphere of your own org is a good idea. Like ID, prosecution and surveillance. Giving those tools to one government that has predetermined authority is a very very bad idea. Government in real life does not have absolute power. It can be challenged with equivalent force. Any system can be challenged if you have the firepower. Creating a system that cannot be challenged is against sandbox and against realism and most of all player freedom. On the subject of tools given to everyone. I see no reason not to. The players join and choose to comply by the rules and are given an ID (if they use the IDs). Whenever they die or are hurt a script can be set up to store and calculate over the data. Whenever they speak or perform a certain action a script can calculate over that data. Like RIGs from dead space but more totalitarian. Or perhaps not. Perhaps your org values the freedom of its players or perhaps that just what it says to them. The sky is the limit. Whatis a little wishy washy is video surveillance. I don't think it would be technically feasible to store anything other than text in an in-game database. These databases would need a storage limit of course to stop lag. But then the issue arises of players making collosal 'i have no mouth but I must scream' super databases with multiple calculations being made. Now that would cause a lot of lag. Of course you could solve this by limiting the types of data you can acquire to infrequent forms Edit: forgot about prosecution. Agree on no to incarceration. Only forms of punishment that are feasible are corporal and financial.

Just wait until I invent LUA Uber bwahahahaha

In all honesty I don't think you really understand the role of government and political systems in general. A lot of what you say seems like you're beating around the bush a bit. It's hard for me to address direct points because of this. My understanding of your outlook on politics is you see anarchy as some form of lawless system. That is untrue. Anarchy is not a system. The word is used to describe a collective of disparate and distinct systems perpetuated by individuals. It is describing an absence of centralised control. In example, the world is in anarchy as any nation can act off their own accord. But when you describe one system that is not anarchy. That is describing a presence of centralised control. It all depends on what you're looking at. DU is anarchy. But within the systems that operate within it justice is enforced. There is no objective basis for justice. This is because there are no two individuals alike. Philosophy is the manifestation of ego in thought. Politics is the manifestation of philosophy in the environment. Therefore politics is the manifestation of the ego in the environment. Your government is exactly this. Your politicians argue from their own egotistical standpoint like everyone else. The 1% control your society because of their mutually shared ego for dominanation. Hippies preach peace and love for their mutually shared ego for harmony - the idea they are 'enlightened beings'. There is no 'angelic' basis for human thought. We are apes. A globalised administrative power is no different from a localised administration. The differences in labeling only imply one is part of diverse whole and one is part of a homogeneous whole. There is no need for a central government in DU. In real life the state is useful for public services and to protect the specific interest of its civillians. Too much fragmentated and specialised entities will decay on their own. In DU all the orgs take on a governmental role. They are not specialised. Or they operate as their own syndicate as part of a larger whole. Take BOO for example. They abide by the same code of conduct yet operate as independent organisations able to disagree and exchange services with the other.The very word BOO only describes their moral code. BOO is their governing set of principles. Their government. If someone wants to make a united nations org then they can do that. If people want to sign up to it they can do that. There is simply just no need for NQ to force a UN org if the players can do it to exactly the same effect. Edit: I tried to steer the discussion towards giving players tools to facilitate their systems. But I see it was quite the digression.

Controversial indeed. I just don't see how this is useful. Players don't need a blueprint. They can make their own blueprints. Could you elaborate on "prove its value"? When you say gov org you imply a central body that issues laws? I don't see that as necessary either. Every org functions as its own independent governing body. They will not resolve issues between each other by justice. Justice is for internal issues where they have the administrative power. External issues will be solved like they are in real life between nations. Squabbling and shady back room deals. No org would willingly submit to a governing system as it would have no authority other than military power. In that case the 'gov org' is simply a tyrannical force (technically every gov is but I won't get into that). Everyone wants to make their own rules and will not submit for the sake of it. Its human nature. From an objective point of view, and not a human nature point of view. There is no logical incentive to submit to a gov org. They are subject to fallability and misconduct as much as anyone else. The org itself might as well seek to perfect their own justice system to their standards.

This is an example of how intelligence is used. The said red flag could be made by flagging them up on their database and spreading the word to other organisations. Intelligence is a key asset to anyone who wishes to control and enabling simple mechanics to document the activities of players would be very interesting to see play out. Especially as databases could be vulnerable to sabotage and espionage. I brought this up in another post actually: all that's needed for a bounty hunter system is a method of taking trophies from individuals. With a registry system, they could cut off the head and dump it in the LUA scripted head deposit box and claim their reward. With regards to the rest of your post it seems you are describing contracts and treaties? In places I have trouble understanding. But, even so, contracts are something that can be facilitated by LUA and the registry system. The actual contract just has to be a secure piece of data. As for systems of justice, most of it is down to the players' activity independent of any game mechanics. The only sentence being that of ostracisation. I don't see any in game system that fits seamlessly into the sandbox that can allow to enact justice in a non intrusive manner. To add any system of restraint and conviction would only cause certain issues to arise. Such as: New players getting hauled off by trolls to noobtanamo bay never to see the light of day. The problem being they have no friends to bust them out. They won't get to experience the game. Restrained players not complying because they don't have to care about dying Of course registry could be used to set all turrets to open fire on them if they got close. But you're not going to be able to make them comply to engage in trial.

This is a discussion not a bitch fest. If someone tries to take it in that direction then they're not worth the time of day. That's that. No room for emotion. I disagree. A lot of people disagree. And through that the answer has been laid out. There are tons of dead threads people go to to answer their questions. This thread will serve that purpose like any other. Back on topic. I think tools can be provided in game to make political and corporate organisation easier. The problem arises that a lot of activity cannot be effectively monitored in game without having a guy watching and taking notes. The solution: a versatile supplement to LUA. Databases can be added in game to hold and store information inputted by players themselves. They have their own coded data signatures and can interface them with coded systems. The sky is the limit here. A polling station, a checkpoint, clocking in to the job. If it has to do with data; you name it. You want to make a big brother org. You can do it.

I don't even know what the OP is even about. Is this just an open discussion for in game politics mechanics? Honestly all I see are a bunch of 'old man yells at cloud' posts from libertarians and people disagreeing with making some sort of in game system. Edit: ok so at a second glance it seems your original idea was to make cookie cutter orgs? Not detrimental. Not beneficial. Just not needed really. Unless you are lazy ofc.

@dw_ace_918so I take it the idea is to make in game tools that players can use to organise their political systems? I see no issue with that other than players can simply use many online tools for such things. It can be argued that, for example, online polls could be sabotaged by the enemy. But is that not like how it is in real life? *cough* Putin *cough* *cough*. To be honest you could probably LUA script a polling station.

Cars and hovercraft; tomato tomato. Different things for the same effect and not entirely necessary to have as two distinct methods of transport. If NQ let us fly rockets underwater then yes, a sub is an underwater spaceship. But I sincerely doubt that. It would look totally stupid and is just plain lazy from a design point of view. However, I believe NQ has said they will add anti-gravity propulsion which would validate underwater spaceships from a design perspective. Imagine that. Flying space submarines. Subs aren't essential to the game. Hell ships aren't even when you can just fly. But if they add seafaring vehicles or allow hovercraft on water then their implementation would make a big impact. I have heard that NQ do not intend the ocean to be a medium of travel though. But this is 3rd hand info.

Technically a sub is entirely different pieces of kit that uses ballast tanks and nuclear reactors. But yea I guess we could just submerge a liquid fuel booster or a mag lev booster (that works off the earth's magnetic field and has virtually 0 lifting capability other than to, as the name implies, hover) and expect them to work having their propellant unable to ignite and their systems being electrocuted to ash. Sarcasm aside. All we need is a depth control module (ballast tank) and an outboard motor. That way ships and subs are possible. Without looking dumb. We don't want dodgy ksp jet subs.

Agreed, @unown006 i actually have a hard time understanding you in a lot of your posts. But yes we do need to get back on topic. But at the same time I think we should keep the discussion open to minor digressions.

Totally agree. To argue from a philosophical standpoint. Nobody intrinsically had rights. Rights are something we have to fight for ourselves and protect as individuals dedicated to a single and subjective moral cause. In a game which attempts to encompass the freedom of human ingenuity, I don't see much handholding other than safezones for PVE players. To use myself as an example, I don't concern myself with PvP. Partly because I suck and partly because I have other things to do. My organisation will be able to protect those rights for me to not have to engage in combat in exchange for my services. You as a civilian in the real world have your rights protected by your government. Your government is subject to failure and misconduct. Are you digging bunkers, hording canned food and amassing an arsenal? Perhaps; perhaps not. But in the case of the latter, it is because you are either a sheep or you take full advantage of your civil rights to live your life how you want. DU is no different.

Don't even put a bounty 'system' in. Only have the mechanic for a trophy you take from a corpse. Like their helmet or something. When someone is pissing yoy off: put a price on their head. When the bounty hunter kills them then they take a trophy and bring it back. Easy peasy. There's a difference between a bounty hunter and a hired killer. An organisation will realise that and ostracise any contractors they deem as undesirable. Associating with said undesirables would only serve to sully their reputation. If a disreputable hunter came with the head of a bounty target then the poster of the bounty could simply refuse to pay them. There's a reason orgs like BOO are going to exist. They essentially serve as a hub for hitmen and smugglers etc.

First of all please us the default text colour because I can't see shit. So as far as I understand the technology you research is stuff that comes with the arkship? Ifso then yes I do agree that war technology should have a separate place in how you research it. For instance it could be derivative of arkship technology, a secret cache from a malignant individual or entity independent of the ship. But even so, the gameplay is not defined by the lore it is defined by the players. I don't see the limiting of gameplay to that degree for the sole cause of immersion is acceptable. If a player has wrathful intent then so be it. Even if it was to be debated from a philosophical and lore friendly standpoint, you have to accept that humans are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. It's our nature to do so.

Great idea But what about details on the part that are too small for the game to render? I'm not entirely sure how in depth the voxel building in game goes as of now. But I'm certain there will be a base voxel size. With using CAD all the dimensions must conform to in game constraints. It seems like the voxel building system will have to be rebuilt from the ground up to accomodate such a change. However, we could just add simple fillet, indent, spline, bevel, hole, dimension tools etc. in game.

Yea I like to think of it as like how a DM makes events in DnD. Hope they do something like that.

The new players will have to join more developed organisations. It's how it works in reality. The early bird gets the worm. If players want to make their own ships and constructs they can always buy the resources by working for quanta.

Think you missed a few greats there

Yup, but time flies when you're having fun...or dead from old age...

Not doubting anything you've said. Personally I think resources have to be finite for the game to function from a logical and immersive point of view. With infinite resources there's no incentive for large scale expansion (one of the main concepts of the game) and there's no need for efficiency. With the sheer size of the game world, a planets resources would regenerate before it would be drained. If they were set so they didn't regenerate so fast, the megacorps will still have a monopoly on mining them. And over this long period of time any infrastructure built up with those minerals would have to be displaced. To make way for ore veins. Plus it's just plain weird having rocks appear out of nowhere.

Minerals get washed downstream by rivers. Crystals like diamonds grow very slowly. Crystals grow by solute evaporating from a solution leaving the precipitate behind

Minerals are deposited and crystals grow, yes, but are you going to wait 10,000s of years for that? Yup plants grow can't argue with that. And meteriotes would be an interesting feature. Like a bunch of meteorites appear and they have a new material on them.

Do you also have a sandwich bar, a gym and bean bag chairs?

3rd hand information: NQ has said there will be no collision damage And nothing other than player made constructs actually orbit anything. Too demanding on the engine to move every single voxel about a point.

Using the power of physics to crush my enemies kekekekekekekek