Veld
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Veld
-
-
8 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:
A lot of idea could be implemented with out my desired structure
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.
- Murmandamus and dw_ace_918
-
2
-
14 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:
A more controversial aspect of what i am advocating for is an initial dev designed gov org. It would be needed to prove its value to players as well as provide a blueprint and foundation on which players can build. Its potential for failure posses a risk to dev as well as players response to it in the game. However, even if an initial iteration failed, player designed gov org structures may succeed in gaining subscription to initiate and potential gov orgs could still emerge, making the work to provide it to players not a waste.
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.
-
1 hour ago, dw_ace_918 said:34 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:
A red flag would show they are wanted.
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.
34 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:Bounty hunters and mercenaries could be hired by gov org as well
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.
-
4 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:
Yeah, something like that. Thanks for your interest in it, but it's kind of a dead horse now. If I knew how to delete it, I would.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:
I really don't know much about it yet, so this topic has become a learning experience for me. I'm feeling a little unqualified to speak on it anymore.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:
You got the idea, indeed in DU we need to let go our definition of things, think above what we see. A sub is nothing more than a space ship under water and a car or hover have the same idea, land transport. So its not the name but the idea that counts and only border is the lack of creativity or rules of NQ.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:
technically, a sub is just a sunken ship/hover that still moves
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.
-
-
7 hours ago, virtuozzo said:
It's a sandbox, so it is entirely up to the player.
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.
-
6 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:
Stealth technology and detection technology, even in a futuristic sy-fi game, would have to take its queues from our current understanding of these technologies, and known possibilities, if said game intends to be balanced and fair. Although imagination is the cornerstone of DU, combat technologies are not. I see a civilization trying to rebuild not self-destruct. Conflict is bound to happen when groups decide not to work together, but the intent is not to force such a scenario; it is not only unrealistic in an economically and politically driven world, but detrimental to the core mission of the more evolved survivor of Armageddon: they did not spend 400 years researching how to destroy each other, but how to rebuild.
That said, all war technology should be limited and used sparingly and at great cost not only financially but also politically. Defense should hold a higher priority in any case and be given much stronger mechanics.
Finally, if I may say, I think it would be great if, when building such systems, much thought and research was put into them, so that they have some scientific basis (though fictional), balanced, and consistent with the technologies related to a society attempting to rebuild light-years from home.
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.
-
20 minutes ago, Demonneo said:
That is actually very interesting. Dynamic events like that could suddenly turn a known low value zone into an hotspot, bringing new conflicts and interests into play.
Yea I like to think of it as like how a DM makes events in DnD. Hope they do something like that.
-
4 minutes ago, Caldakar said:
Thanks for the replies. Wondering now how NQ will keep beginning zone available for new players coming in to the game later on ? I mean if we strip it bare in the first couple of weeks. I do expect that safe area to be picked over pretty fast .. What will new players have to mine?
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.
-
1 minute ago, ShioriStein said:
If that be so my GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GRAND CHILD will mine those crystal vein that for me
Think you missed a few greats there
-
Just now, ShioriStein said:
Oh this is new now i know. So DU will have to live long than 10000 YEARs so new crystal vein will form there
Yup, but time flies when you're having fun...or dead from old age...
-
20 minutes ago, Evil_Porcupine said:
Both of these happen too slowly to be included in the game.
Yes, but where do they come from? a finite source.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
Can you give me one ? Especially the crystal form
Minerals get washed downstream by rivers. Crystals like diamonds grow very slowly. Crystals grow by solute evaporating from a solution leaving the precipitate behind
-
4 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
And in the real world things change, minerals are deposited, crystals form, plants grow, meteorites fall.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Kuritho said:
*shameless advertising ahead*
Well, Synism Precept can do that too!
Synism Precept plans on having a variety of stuff to do, including building and teaching!
Do you also have a sandwich bar, a gym and bean bag chairs?
-
7 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:
If the physics and stuff is realistic then a large iron rod (50,000-100,000 tons) dropped from orbit could destroy an area the size of a small town. We're talking a kilometer wide crater. That's realism. Also a bit OP for a game. It would be cool though. Because physics is cool. ?
3rd hand information: NQ has said there will be no collision damage
7 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:Oh gawd. Imagine if we could affect the orbits of random asteroids... That's orbital bombardment. But we can't destroy planets. /sadface.
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
-
12 hours ago, Kuritho said:
I think we should make an entire moon dedicated to building under protection of a neutral organization.
Imagine it, Hanging Gardens, a Leaning Tower of Pisa, Colossus, Temple of Artemis, the White House.
Beautiful.
Maybe someone could a full muesem in the game for free for people to explore history and actually learn a lot of stuff.
I imagine it now: people paying teachers to teach them history.
Battle of Waterloo? Cold War? Chernobyl? Maybe some trenches? Maybe even some WWI/II re-enactments?
The possibilities are very vast.
Sounds pretty neat. Hopefully someone will get some bright ideas other than mining and fighting like this.
@Korvid Rin you know you can edit your posts instead of posting sentence after sentence. It's at the bottom next to quote
Are you lost? (HIRING)
in Org Updates & Announcements
Posted
Just wait until I invent LUA Uber bwahahahaha