Warden

If said org has no notable or effective safeguards, them that is bad luck or natural selection I suppose. The theoretical disadvantage is that through maneuvering, enemies can essentially vote themselves into office or get there somehow. In reality there are more safeguards than online where you can't look into people's heads. Not like you can into reality, but there is more (personal) distance to everything. Some things are easier to do. This is where founder-led orgs "might" be slightly safer, as those will hardly sabotage themselves, not counting potential personal incompetence of course. Those cases also exist, I see plenty of it in the SC community. But that is just an opinion that assumes very basic cases. In the end, it can work or go wrong either way. And at the end of the day, nothing offers 100% safety. Besides perhaps not recruiting publicly at all or only letting in very close online friends you have known for years across games or only those you know in person. That, in turn, doesn't allow for much competitive growth however, in most cases. All a risk vs. reward thing.

The thing about this is that it is pretty much universal at its core however and then also broad. I would not solely or purely look at it from a materialistic standpoint (what you can steal or not). In short, there can be more to it and we will see our fair share of this in DU. The setting already encourages it. This will make or break organizations or alliances and should not be taken lightly overall. At the same time I don't want to be dramatic about it, but it is still not a minor factor.

It's somewhat amusing or ironic but I suspect that each time a thread is created about this topic, it might rather make it worse. How so? Even if your base intent is defense (against it), it will likely generally alert people to the topic. Adding grand stories from other games might probably amaze or encourage people further and those who already know about it... well, simply do. The gist of it - and my "Illuminati / Shadow Broker" friends from another realm (game) tend to agree with me on that - is that there is no defense against it. Let me rephrase that: There is no full safety measure that gives you 100% protection once you start publicly recruiting for your organization. You can only try to lower the risks but it cannot be fully prevented. Someone does not even have to formally get into the group to do it and someone you consider trusted and who was trusted could become fed up and turn on you. If you break it down it kinda turns into the old "freedom vs. security" debate if you consider applying certain measures. In the end it's more about damage control, I think. I also doubt people will truly put all of their cards on the table here. The downside of publicly discussing all kinds of potential defensive measures might help some; but the "others in question" simply get tips on how to improve or what (mistakes) to avoid. At the end of the day, "the game" will be part of this game due to how DU is set up.

I would not trivialize local voice comms. I'm not saying anyone against it is "wrong" or "How could you!?", of course, I just want to highlight some potential good uses. Of course, if they cannot implement it or have more dire priorities before they can get to it, that's that. Not the end of the world. But those who used local voice comms can probably understand why not just a few people are in favor of it, should it be possible without too much technical problems or instabilities. If you think of scenarios like in DayZ it can be a huge advantage to have local in-game comms. One should not always think of the simple game where people play in teams - in online sandbox worlds you can run into strangers at any time in theory and generally being able to communicate with people you run into (in the game) easily or fast cannot really be beaten by external software that is not integrated into the game and local environment. In a nutshell, if it becomes technically feasible they should begin to pursue the endeavor at one point - many will likely thank them later on. And if not ... well, we can get by somehow. Things worked before the more popular usage of local voice comms, after all.

Yup. If someone runs off with all your money and backups, you may not be done for as a larger player state can generate new money, assets, etc. Nevertheless at least a major setback, if the resulting shockwaves don't cripple or finish a group for good. Since you cannot avoid a few things once you start to publicly recruit, you must focus on damage control. More, I don't say at this point. Some have to do their homework or at least a bit of it themselves and figure out what might work or what they like to do in that regard.

Compartmentalization can work. Can't do it all alone anyway.

Natural selection, I suppose. Or "organizational darwinism", or something like that. It works and can compete or it can't. I'm curious to see if something like in (western) reality can work on this scale but players need to be willing to do this and organize it, and then in addition, this system would need to compete against others who may likely have faster response times on average and so on.

I think the earlier Netflix example was a relatively good one. Some people simply benefit less than the average user if their time is limited. As tough or unfair as it may sound, I'd rather have a stable income / cost coverage for NQ so far. The average mass appears to benefit from the classic sub model. Put it this way, not counting "sudden deployments" with no game access: if you can at least play 13 hours per month you'd pay 1 buck per hour. Double that and it is 50 cents, etc. That would equal a complete day and a bit. An actual week drives that down further. The more, the merrier.

/provewrong Lethys Did it work?

How exactly would you define democratic and how extensively democratic should your ideal organization be? The more you elaborate on what it should (not) have, the better your filters and offers.

I'd also suggest to invest in getting to know people or groups right now, rather than just trying to literally build, rather build a reputation. I personally will only start designs in the game itself because other games or programs might have notable differences. Sure, in the end blocks are blocks but being able to design with the right DU elements from the start seems more favorable. In short, what I build or design elsewhere I might as well do in DU once the required elements are in. But that's just me, not saying it is "wrong". Still, don't forget that "social currency".

I am also in favor of subs if it provides financial stability for devs while securing our virtual future. Given the scope they aim for, it seems like a fair deal or price to me. And if you are in a tight situation, there are DAC. Good compromise or enticer in general.

Greetings and welcome. Viel Erfolg mit der Organisation.

I - with the limited view or perspective of the consumer - advise them to expand on the team regardless, if possible. I loosey recall statements made by them about it earlier, if I don't mix them up, but regardless having perhaps one additional community related mod or similar or shifting staff around so the existing ones can focus on it more again might be helpful. I do not need to be spoon-fed, for example, but being fast with responses or being proactive can be crucial for some other people who consider pledging. It can, perhaps, make or break newcomers or people that stay. A lot, the community can do in a way, such as replying to newbie questions, but in some cases like above you simply need mods or an official presence to deal with things or to be notable. I'm not complaining but see slight room for improvements. Again, that is from the customer or "end consumer" POV. I'm certain NQ has their hands full, so maybe relocating or adding (human) resources can help a bit. Time will tell, I hope everything will be on a good track continuously. So far, so good.

A little bump for this thread: For any thoughts about the referenced thread, post in here. Should it also be stickied? Let us know in here.

Greetings and welcome. I hope you will have a good time. On another note, I was mostly involved into the multiplayer and combat aspects in Arma I and then II a bit. III? Even less, but the RPG game modes were interesting to me in there. Used to play the Evo(lution?) stuff in Arma I a lot where you had to conquer the whole island against AI or even players mixed into the other team. Arma II I mostly used for DayZ at one point before it became standalone. In a nutshell, with each new ARMA game, activity kind of decreased here Interesting concept ideas on that note.

Woops. Working on it. I sent you one, maybe that works until I clear some things. Try again next time you see this.

*Bump* Dusting off some cobwebs here. Still looking for interested people for the future. Recent thoughts encourage a Rhineland (Republic) approach. One could almost copy that faction from the Freelancer game, but I'm personally wondering if someone might complain (see earlier debates or problems where player organizations tried to mirror the Galactic Empire from SW including logos or other content and copyright concerns) later on. I personally assume it would be easier in this case as "Rhineland" is really broader than "Galactic Empire" while having logos of said Star Wars entity plastered all over. Instead of trying to be a copy, you can simply draw loose inspiration from it, something the player organizations that were affected in the Star Wars copyright debate also adjusted to from what I can tell. To bring things forward a bit, I hereby suggest The federal Republic of Rhineland that is roughly inspired by the Freelancer faction or "house" without trying to be an exact copy. I think that is positive for a matter of reasons. It's a nod to the SL/FL franchise, avoids using actual real life country names (compared to using "Germany" in the name for example) and still covers a certain cultural background - sorry non-Rhinelanders on that note. In addition, using a more modern form of government will likely be perceived better by default compared to something else and it might seem more logical in the setting of DU, even if we have other player nations that portray empires. What do you think? What other potential names do you think fit? Should you be interested in taking part, express it here or, more ideally, also send me a private message. The same goes for hard concerns or dislikes you might have, too. Due to the intended setup so far you can also take part if you're already part of an organization if you fit the bill. (Player) Companies might later benefit after all and as encouragement, players from companies that take part actively in this endeavor and let it lift off will likely see benefits for their companies later on as reward for participation - within reason.

SHIT Corp... nice

I honestly cannot remember. I was with the "wave" that came after the E3 last year though - I think. Maybe I saw some article on some gaming site (I do not visit those often) or because someone in another gaming forum (maybe Star Citizen) advertised it. What's more possible is that someone from my Steam friends list notified me about it. That sounds about right.

What MMOs were these? Because I think it heavily depends not just on the (technical) genre but the game setting. If you mean an average themepark MMORPG: Player policing is usually too tricky or would hardly work. Arma III where players are in control of their dedicated servers and thus can freely assign definite powers and authority? Different cup of tea. Likewise, games such as EvE (I'm guessing, didn't play it much) and DU allow more customization due to the sandbox nature and player power. Player nations here will likely require some sort of police force, whether that is a formal police force, some military defense force or just people literally called "moderators" or "administrators" that deal with problems or disputes is secondary, I think. Or simply corporate-like security forces with similar roles in the end. Whether this is viable or aimed for depends on the individual organization or alliance, of course. But I can see it happen formally (dedicated police forces) here already just for the heck of it and for immersion purposes. Depending on how people move about later on, it would probably make sense to have full-time security or police forces (who may have additional roles such as assigning temp rights or revoking them for other non-emergency situations). "Nothing happening" is part of the job or a potential side-effect or "risk", just like other roles may have these aspects. In reality you actually hope nothing bad (or at least terribly bad) happens in these roles, I'd say. But I feel we might speed away from the other original topics in here If there's more discussion demand, either of us should perhaps make a dedicated thread about it and continue there.

In terms of certain things being considered boring such as police jobs: You underestimate that there are whole communities and interest groups out there (more popular or known example: Arma III RPG) that enjoy this with a bit or a lot of RP even. I played cops and, more recently, an EMT myself. Spending a lot of time speeding around in an ambulance while talking in somewhat realistic short radio codes. To project that on security roles as I also played that job in A 3: there is demand. I mean there are already DU police groups, either integrated in player nations or standalone, to cover that stuff in the future. Just saying, someone might actually take your 911 call in DU in the future.

I'd love to see things like this. Some alien menace or even NPC slavery. However, due to the reasons mentioned above, we will likely never see this. Or not any time soon, at the very least.

Greetings. To me it is simple: get a TCU / into a safe zone to have a somewhat safe area. Beyond that, it is open game or emergent game play where damage or combat has to be expected regardless of the actual motivation of the aggressor. In some cases you might simply have to do something about it yourself or let other players do something about it. Maybe there will be a police or military force responsible for the area. Or mercenaries / security. Maybe some help you actively once you request it, maybe you have to pay them first. Emergent game play. You won't totally be vulnerable to others (or not at all times) depending on where you go or settle down, in short.

Starting small while thinking big might seem favorable. At one hand, unless you are a rather large organization or unless you can, at least, muster a large workforce from the start, you can't really start full-blown city-building, nor would it likely make sense unless you were larger. Yet one should keep urban expansion and growth in mind. If you do not consider this in the long run, you might have problems adapting in the long run and having to re-do things might be problematic later on opposed to keeping a larger space in mind from the start if you plan to build big. But that's just theory so far, in my book. Either way it will likely be a relatively organic process and take time. Even if you plan meticulously ahead, things might just suddenly or slowly change and you might throw things over board in favor or other ideas. In the end, cities (small and large) will be like organizations. They will vary in design, shape and how they are maintained or run. I so far suspect most settlements and cities will be faction run in the end unless you can find a various number of organizations (or an alliance) that come together for a shared project - possibly beyond individual factions or alliances, that is. Some organization or alliance concepts will favor this, others will likely refrain from this. Time will tell. I personally would mostly wait with detailed plans or designs until more gameplay features (relating to building) before you try to set things in stone.