Warden

This group produces the best memes and satire I have seen (here) so far and the approach is rather unique. 
 
Even if I was the one being made fun of I couldn't help but laugh. Actually, that was already the case (*cough raptor cough*) so no regrets. 
 
While not everyone will like a group like BOO I think they will provide a unique angle to DU and be one of many "special snowflakes" (no, not like that, more positive!) in the community - and make it unique. 
 
Can't only have Empires and mega corps, right?

This group produces the best memes and satire I have seen (here) so far and the approach is rather unique. 
 
Even if I was the one being made fun of I couldn't help but laugh. Actually, that was already the case (*cough raptor cough*) so no regrets. 
 
While not everyone will like a group like BOO I think they will provide a unique angle to DU and be one of many "special snowflakes" (no, not like that, more positive!) in the community - and make it unique. 
 
Can't only have Empires and mega corps, right?

I already Made my statement where I write about what I think is wrong in eve and with perception of it. 
Partly players fault (not the griefers but the ppl who want instant gratification), partly eve itself. 
 
Your idea isn't really yours tbh as NQ already plans for that: protection bubbles or shield domes. You learn the first steps in the arkzone and then you can move on and build such defenses (which have 48h invulnerability Timer btw) to protect your stuff.
 
But that doesn't change the fact that people will still complain and leave the game because they get killed sometimes. As No tutorial can show you what Du is really about (all the Meta, other Not so obviously defensive mechanics, ship building, Base building, ...). 
And that's basically what i posted before:
- people need good Tutorials to get to know Basic Game mechanics and how to defend them (shield domes for example)
- but people also need guidance from others to get to know the deeper mechanics and the meta which no tutorial can describe
 
If newbros just venture outside because they have a wrong impression of Du and then get killed, I can already foresee all the salt. 
And again: to me it's Not so much nqs job to bring players to the right mindset but ours as players. Teach them. Show them. Talk to them. They need guidance from us otherwise they'll leave and be salty about Du too

I think you might be underestimating him. Don't let your 'hatred' of those who disagree stop you from thinking straight. Attacks against character are only useful if you want to undermine their ability to reason (and therefore bait them into doing what you want them to do). And attacking Twerk's character means you lose, since it is usually a last resort (it is also what he wants you to do).
 
Be rational, play devil's advocate, learn when to back down (I go by the phrase "If someone disagrees, check again to see if you are right").

Movie Synopsis :

The Intergalactic hive mind known as Te'Ra Onion - a species of sentient onions - invades Alioth. Anyone sent to fight them, is quickly overrcome by them, as the more layers you remove from the Te'Ra Onion the more tears you get as visions of drama and turbonerding overcome the victims of Onions. The only thing that can turn the tides of salt and tears following Te'Ra Onion everywhere, is a group of drama immune super soldiers, trained in the secret martial arts of Badgeraikido and MemeJutsu, while using the latest in drama extermination technology - Photoshop. Based on a true story of bravery, knavery and 1GB worth of screenshots of the Te'Ra Onion's top-secret discord channels, full of backstabs, frontstabs, sidestabs within Te'Ra Onion and a keg of beer Twerkmotor had to drink in a day to handle not dying from salt overdose. this is,
 
ONIONS.

Happy new year !!!
 
New year, New poster
 

 
By Alethion

Some of those aspects sum up my thoughts about it.
 
To give anyone reading this a better understanding: I don't even consider myself as a hardcore PVP'er or some "badass", or whatever.
 
If I had to summarize, I'd rather focus on creation than destruction. And yet I can't help to agree with some here that some people would consider PVP-focused. In my opinion, some here currently seem overly nervous about an undefined future of DU and some arguments in the debate, on both sides I suppose, seem somewhat exaggerated at times - maybe just to prove a point or because they have that actual fear? I can't tell or look into people's heads, but only wonder.
 
Then again, I suppose my background is a bit different. While I favor creation I ran around PVP / potentially-lose-it-all environments. DayZ, MC, ARMA 1 to 3 (RPG servers), etc. In MC, random people attacked our base (and there were some sort of safezone mechanics, temporary or depending on certain factors).
 
Complaining about those particular threats didn't make them go away. Surviving and fighting them actively usually did the trick in MC, and in other games if it was not possible, evading them was an option. An DayZ RP server is a good example I can give to people. There, currently, a bunch of criminals and communists banded together trying to establish a new state. They want to also disarm people of certain weaponry, causing a large ruckus and lots of heated debates on the radio and maybe in person.
 
Nobody would think of complaining about it, as it's part of the setting and "roleplay" or gameplay. They have many people and you either try to hide or organize a fight and find allies, what some people do. It's simply part of the game to have abstract or specific threats.
 
If we can all agree on that, what are we generally arguing about? Some harder safe zone mechanics will be in the game, but not easily obtainable by loners or perhaps smaller groups - which seems fair to me. There'll be risks and rewards, compromises, mechanics, and something for everyone. But sometimes someone wants to annoy you or bring you down because you stand in their way.
 
Do something about it actively, evade or, either way, simply accept that it could happen and that it is part of the game. The people that attacked us in Minecraft surely didn't want to get "wiped" or vaporized by us after attacking us unprovoked, but that's also part of the game and exactly something you can do if someone attacks you: Fight back.
 
----------------
 
To summarize, it will likely not be that bad as some imagine it. And if something becomes bad, the players (in general) can still try to find a solution or counter-action to this. That's part of 'emergent gameplay' after all I suppose.

Some of those aspects sum up my thoughts about it.
 
To give anyone reading this a better understanding: I don't even consider myself as a hardcore PVP'er or some "badass", or whatever.
 
If I had to summarize, I'd rather focus on creation than destruction. And yet I can't help to agree with some here that some people would consider PVP-focused. In my opinion, some here currently seem overly nervous about an undefined future of DU and some arguments in the debate, on both sides I suppose, seem somewhat exaggerated at times - maybe just to prove a point or because they have that actual fear? I can't tell or look into people's heads, but only wonder.
 
Then again, I suppose my background is a bit different. While I favor creation I ran around PVP / potentially-lose-it-all environments. DayZ, MC, ARMA 1 to 3 (RPG servers), etc. In MC, random people attacked our base (and there were some sort of safezone mechanics, temporary or depending on certain factors).
 
Complaining about those particular threats didn't make them go away. Surviving and fighting them actively usually did the trick in MC, and in other games if it was not possible, evading them was an option. An DayZ RP server is a good example I can give to people. There, currently, a bunch of criminals and communists banded together trying to establish a new state. They want to also disarm people of certain weaponry, causing a large ruckus and lots of heated debates on the radio and maybe in person.
 
Nobody would think of complaining about it, as it's part of the setting and "roleplay" or gameplay. They have many people and you either try to hide or organize a fight and find allies, what some people do. It's simply part of the game to have abstract or specific threats.
 
If we can all agree on that, what are we generally arguing about? Some harder safe zone mechanics will be in the game, but not easily obtainable by loners or perhaps smaller groups - which seems fair to me. There'll be risks and rewards, compromises, mechanics, and something for everyone. But sometimes someone wants to annoy you or bring you down because you stand in their way.
 
Do something about it actively, evade or, either way, simply accept that it could happen and that it is part of the game. The people that attacked us in Minecraft surely didn't want to get "wiped" or vaporized by us after attacking us unprovoked, but that's also part of the game and exactly something you can do if someone attacks you: Fight back.
 
----------------
 
To summarize, it will likely not be that bad as some imagine it. And if something becomes bad, the players (in general) can still try to find a solution or counter-action to this. That's part of 'emergent gameplay' after all I suppose.

Some of those aspects sum up my thoughts about it.
 
To give anyone reading this a better understanding: I don't even consider myself as a hardcore PVP'er or some "badass", or whatever.
 
If I had to summarize, I'd rather focus on creation than destruction. And yet I can't help to agree with some here that some people would consider PVP-focused. In my opinion, some here currently seem overly nervous about an undefined future of DU and some arguments in the debate, on both sides I suppose, seem somewhat exaggerated at times - maybe just to prove a point or because they have that actual fear? I can't tell or look into people's heads, but only wonder.
 
Then again, I suppose my background is a bit different. While I favor creation I ran around PVP / potentially-lose-it-all environments. DayZ, MC, ARMA 1 to 3 (RPG servers), etc. In MC, random people attacked our base (and there were some sort of safezone mechanics, temporary or depending on certain factors).
 
Complaining about those particular threats didn't make them go away. Surviving and fighting them actively usually did the trick in MC, and in other games if it was not possible, evading them was an option. An DayZ RP server is a good example I can give to people. There, currently, a bunch of criminals and communists banded together trying to establish a new state. They want to also disarm people of certain weaponry, causing a large ruckus and lots of heated debates on the radio and maybe in person.
 
Nobody would think of complaining about it, as it's part of the setting and "roleplay" or gameplay. They have many people and you either try to hide or organize a fight and find allies, what some people do. It's simply part of the game to have abstract or specific threats.
 
If we can all agree on that, what are we generally arguing about? Some harder safe zone mechanics will be in the game, but not easily obtainable by loners or perhaps smaller groups - which seems fair to me. There'll be risks and rewards, compromises, mechanics, and something for everyone. But sometimes someone wants to annoy you or bring you down because you stand in their way.
 
Do something about it actively, evade or, either way, simply accept that it could happen and that it is part of the game. The people that attacked us in Minecraft surely didn't want to get "wiped" or vaporized by us after attacking us unprovoked, but that's also part of the game and exactly something you can do if someone attacks you: Fight back.
 
----------------
 
To summarize, it will likely not be that bad as some imagine it. And if something becomes bad, the players (in general) can still try to find a solution or counter-action to this. That's part of 'emergent gameplay' after all I suppose.

Rebuilding civilization doesn't take forever, however, depending on how different parties define society or rebuilding it.
 
I thought about pointing that out since I've seen the argument a few times. On the large scale it might be ongoing as new players enter the stage and try to build up whatever society they imagine, for others, the step or phase might be complete at one point. And then they act against others at one point, whether it is forced upon them or if they cast the first stone.

@supermega radar and shields are planned (See various threads and the Artwork). Shields are a community goal though and possibly not achievable by solo players as those will be very expensive to build and need fuel.
 
@blazemonger yeah there are consequences.... Cause No one will want griefers around. So they will be KOS and every org will deny them access to the market. 
 
I still don't see the problem as, again, it works in eve very well. Griefers aren't a problem at all there - it's just ppl complaining about others who band together and kill solo bling ships. But those ppl don't do anything against it, except complain, so it doesn't change. 
 
If ppl would actually put a little thought in their style of gameplay they would do far better. 
 
I was killed time and time again until my corp showed me the ropes. That was the last time someone got me, all other ships I lost were because of us roaming. 
 
Heck I flew battleships through 6 gatecamps with no problem - a feat i thought Impossible in the beginning with even a fast frigate. 
 
It's really funny to watch this discussion as the "carebears" seem to think that newbros will be killed instantly by a huge numbers of big bad griefers outside the safezone. 
 
For all I care alioth as a whole can be a safezone with no PvP at all, but to me risk vs. Reward is the best balancing mechanic here. 
 
Some builder guy only wants to create statues and buildings? Fine, give him abundant stone resources in the safezone.
 
But as soon as people want to build ships, gates, gather rare resources they should be at risk to lose stuff as the rewards are high. 
 
Will ppl grief you there? Sure. That's why you don't go alone. Or you know, organize resistance. Like they do in eve for years now. There should be basic mechanics to prevent griefing and disencourage ppl to do so, but at the end of the day it's in your/our responsibility as players to disencourage that behavior
 
 

on point 3 it means there is likely to be an architectural clusterfeck compared to pre-DU systems
 
On point 4 you can easily isolate en-mass. There is nothing stopping a group of say 100+ people from building a 'hidden' outpost somewhere so you get isolation plus social game. They are not mutually exclusive.

I think it's less an issue of surprise and more about what type of defenses are needed. Underground attacks take a lot of time to set up so you wouldn't have to build defenses against those types of attacks from the beginning. Meanwhile, attacking the "bottom" of a space station is just as easy as attacking the "top" and so you have to have defenses covering a larger range of angles. In general it just takes less to defend a ground structure than a floating structure.
 
That being said I think space stations will be completely viable in this game because people will be willing to put in the extra effort to defend them properly. And inevitably, both planet bases and space stations will sometimes fall if enough people want it to.

I dunno, to me DU seems good enough if they can later provide sufficient assets for further customization of player (gear), construct and other things (misc items, furniture, etc) alike. 
 
I'd only consider "jumping ship" if the same grand scale can be offered with voxel-like building and notably better visuals without sacrificing in terms of scope and mechanics. Before something like that comes out I feel like more time has to pass for the tech to improve where this becomes feasible. 
 
Look at Star Citizen's current problems in 3.0 with memory and processing many objects in the background while looking good = problematic client performance. They might fix it at one point but still can never put 1000s of people in an instance-less game (or the same instance alternatively).
 
DU might just be the next big thing for a decade before it slowly gets replaced by something that can offer the same with overhauled tech and visuals, if not by the same people bringing us DU (NQ). Just saying, anything gets old or replaced at some point. But I so far don't see competition on the very same level. 

Never had much (or long-term) EvE experience, but as they like to say: Many ways lead to rome.
 
Here it was a bit of advanced Minecraft PVP and so on (advanced in the sense of NOT having a bunch of children build things or pink genitalia out in the wilderness, but something encompassing an economy, faction plugin, emergent gameplay, the likes) and a bit of DayZ.
 
While even comparable games can have vast differences on a more specific level I still think that you can obtain or get into general mindsets through other games - as long as the core ideas are roughly the same.
 
Minecraft (and anything comparable I suppose)
 
In short, I saw many build bases or outposts to last. But after a time, the ruins spoke for themselves. Abandoned, (partially) destroyed or maybe even completely razed to the ground? Who knows? The field you see with a few trees or the plains with nothing in particular at all but grass might've contained some house, village, base that was completely removed by the owners as they moved or an opposing party. Like it was never there to begin with. Ruins were even more fascinating to me, telling stories to some extend. The most fascinating thing I saw was an abandoned city. It actually was completely surrounded by a notable wall and looked like a city (of sorts, not modern design by the blocks they used but not too medieval or fantasy-like either) that was abandoned because the people left the server. Just by looking at the ruins you could immediately tell: They built this place to last or to stay, otherwise who would've poured all that effort into it with that high amount of people only to let it rot a short time after?
 
DayZ
 
Some might probably raise eyebrows as this isn't specifically your comparable sandbox game with building elements - but it contains some of the same aspects. Social interactions, emergent gameplay, focus on material possession or advancement and the risk to lose it all to others or even yourself if you do wrong things. Like in any sandbox game online anyone could come around the corner and take what you have, or try to.
 
I recently dipped into a private server with RP components. The experience is somewhat different to the standard public servers that also allow ghosting or teleporting behind obstacles on one server due to just going there on a different server. The private shard with RP elements is somewhat closer to sandbox experiences because factions on that server are more persistent, so I think it is a good example because all share that one shard and all stay on that one shard instead of hopping around. And there it is the same, basically, with the difference that you obviously cannot freely build things. You have to rely on what the map gives you. While the map is also limited where sandbox worlds tend to be larger on average and more dynamic, it's still fascinating to see how factions interact in that world. And from my experience and since whatever storage or base you put up can be found by others, you just have to move all the time.
 
I lost track of how often we or I had to move because someone suddenly found the hideout or base and stole, thus compromising the position. It was also more than once where a hostile criminal or ideological faction settled nearby, forcing us to move again. Because you can be as noble or bold as you want, if a bunch of (roleplayed) mexican criminals or communists settle nearby and you don't fit their world view, you'll think twice of staying in an area where you are heavily outnumbered and could be attacked any day. Heck, from the report I got, we occupied a police station and eventually had a mob of slave traders form up in front of it and throw threads around, just to give you all a few specific examples.
 
 
Moral of the story or recap
 
This basically just is intended to underline that you can plan all you want but in the end, a static location has potential cons and if you (plan to) build it, you better accept the risk that you might eventually lose it. A mobile base like a larger ship might be more preferable in some situations or as additional asset. If you lose static or stationary assets you can at least still move that around. Or you simply hope the stationary asset you build will never see war or takeovers due to location or obfuscation.
 
But in these games, it's to be expected that due to conflicts, wars, etc. people will lose and gain assets and you, the average player, will likely not be an exception to this. Those who want to avoid it better make the right policies, politics and find the right friends, but it can still happen. As with many things you can likely just try to lower the risk or run damage control, but not completely avoid it.
 
Text wall over and out.

Sorry (but not really sorry) to post this here, but I think it would be a great boost to Dual Universe if everyone would take a few seconds out of their day to vote for it as the top crowdfunded MMO of 2017 in the MassivelyOP poll here:

http://massivelyop.com/2017/12/22/massively-ops-best-of-2017-awards-best-indie-or-crowdfunded-mmo/


We're currently sitting at 95 votes with 12% of the total, surely we can do much better than that :-) 
 
Not to mention that Elite shouldn't even be on the list considering how many years ago it came out... 

"Here's a little artwork from the HTX. We are neither nice nor cruel. We are opportunists, whether in the market or in combat; in taking lives or in saving them.
So, what will it be, dear traveller?
 
 
Spirits, Lavender or Onyx? 
 
Take that Step."

My suggestion, as stated prior unless this becomes problematic in the eyes of NQ: keep it as it is unless you want to rebrand everything (visually).
 
You explained your reasoning and that should suffice. If this arises on the community side in the future, having a disclaimer or pointing to this (not this, but yours of course) post might do the trick. I see no issue in this case and from an in-character POV it is also no biggie in this case, with many more decades and millenia in the future. Maybe simply because it's not that known or questionable like a swastika look-alike. 
 

Interestingly, every (present-day) higher German sergeant has that symbol (looks just like the rune) as rank thingie on the shoulders. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptfeldwebel_(rank)
 
No implication, just an observation or as "fun fact". 
 
As for the posts above, I think ODY never had particular implied intentions or affiliations so I'd rather shrug it off or clarify (if I were in their shoes) because that seems easier than to rebrand everything visually.  In terms of work effort and keeping a visually established brand, I mean. 
 
But that depends on how many other people (in the future) draw that connection and consider it problematic. 

Oh, how I wish I would get things (resources, money) out of thin air in life... 
 
But sadly, it won't happen
 
Everything has to come from somewhere and sticking to that as far as possible is one of the reasons people will be attracted to Dual Universe ? 
 
Whatever you will receive, money or material, will have some history. It was obtained from someone. Maybe mined or stolen. You get the picture. 
 
Let's not water this down with rewards out of thin air, I'd say. Besides as prior posters said, who defines good and bad, something highly subjective to begin with? 
 
 

"
As part of the many steps this organisation has taken since its inception more than a year ago, we have finally narrowed our goals and vision to suit realism. Many of you are already aware of a few of the recent changes: the first of them was the rebranding from The Aether to the Heimera Trade Xchange. The name itself was not easy to come by, and the amount of stress the search for a single unique name can birth is not something a select few are willing to go through again...for the foreseeable future.
 
Secondly, the decision to join the Band of Outlaws (BOO) as a Special Interest Group (SIG) was more of a strategic decision than one made out of pure emotion. For a very long while, BOO has proven itself to be a stable and dynamic group. We have seen the recent changes in organisations, and drama - as always - has never been in short supply. Troublesome as they may be, we have known a substantial number of their members on an individual level - and they have proven themselves capable of quietly handling as much trouble as they loudly cause. In recent months, BOO has taken a more 'mature' turn even as they touch up their image as a gaming community, not mere pirates. We are immensely proud of our decision to join BOO and look towards a future of great gameplay, not only within the alliance but with the rest of Dual Universe. 
 
Thirdly, we have changed our logo. We are very fond of the hexagons, that for a long while, were synonymous with the Aether via artworks and lore, but we have found that it is not fitting with the new image and aligned goals of the organisation. The hexagons are expected to surface from time to time in artworks and future lore. We might no longer be Aether purely in name, but we are still Aether within. 
 
Certain members of the Dual Universe Community have expressed their concerns about the impact of our 'supposed' neutrality within an alliance like BOO. To be clear once and for all, 'neutrality' will do no one any good when their lands and houses are being ransacked by the enemy. We have seen Dual Universe mature with time and with that, the concept of neutrality without a big stick has become quite laughable. For us, we will operate by our means, and avoid trouble wherever we see it. At the same time, we will give our all to having a capable and true deterrent - with or without BOO. 
 
TRANCE will remain neutral, as long as we can keep it so. We have received various expressions of good gesture and support from various organisations, all of which we are thankful for. However, stargates are still a long way off from being a major concern for any organisation keeping its internal capability and strategic environment in view. While we continue to add a little bit here and there to our concept of the stargates, we are open to working with credible and mature organisations to make TRANCE what it what meant to be: a tool for the Community. 
 
Heimera Trade Xchange (HTX) is also on very friendly terms with ODY, and we hope to make an announcement by the weekend. 
 
 
Cheers, all.
"

You know or see dedication when folks make a Radio station. Let's just underline that for a moment. 
 
A radio station. 
 
You just don't see this for any type of game and this has a lot of potential, but surely requires a "long breath" as we surely look for years of usage here.
 
Regardless I hope that NQ realizes these community efforts and benefit through mentioning it at one point. Cross promotion, kinda? 
 
At least I see "people creating radio stations" as good selling point for this sandbox game. Win/win. 

This seems to be the "hot iron" many games (or their devs, respectively) won't touch because it could annoy or "piss off players" whereas it is more normal in other games or game modes. 
 
If you also want to cover police aspects or elements of slavery this is must-have in my eyes however. The key is balanced mechanics. A potentially too hard system could be seen in the Minecraft civcraft server where players could be captured in a twilight dimension while their "soul" was bound to the overworld pearl. Problem: holding a player does not burn much "fuel" and to release a player you had to have the pearl. So what do people do? They capture someone and put the pearl in secure storage where others can hardly reach it. In short you could be held weeks, maybe a month or longer before you could consider appeals through a higher instance such as server admins as it was simply part of the server and game play. 
 
A more controlled system you see in Arma 3 or Space Station 13 where player police or security can put you into prison temporarily. These sentences were often limited, on a minute basis. At best you'd sit in it for 10 to 30 minutes depending on offense. 
 
What would I propose,  how could it work in DU? 
 
1) I would not mind an A3/SS13 like system with limited sentences that everyone should be able to live with as they are time capped, often through built-in timers. 
 
2) How this could be implemented or rather work in DU is a tougher question. If you have a general capture mechanic for players I sense abuse or indefinite holding if you can just put someone in a room or cell with no (easy) way out. And if the player has no way out on his or her own, either through tools or commands. 
 
At best i can currently see domestic prisons work that only work on player run tiles or faction owned tiles where you can place actual cell units (complete item given by devs) where you can place (misbehaving) players for a limited time. In the context of DU 10 minutes are a joke so it could be a bit more on average, but not exceeding 1 day or so. Or half a day. Or a quarter. A third. Fifth? You get the idea. As it is faction run you also do not have to go there if you don't like how they handle things on their turf like taxes or punishments. 
 
Binding this mechanic to faction controlled tiles (Alioth could also be excluded from this) prevents "griefing" all over while making things interesting on faction turf with some sort of local punishment system. 
 
At least, that is my ideal "solution" or compromise but you can bet we won't see prison mechanics. 
 
Because "hot iron". 

This seems to be the "hot iron" many games (or their devs, respectively) won't touch because it could annoy or "piss off players" whereas it is more normal in other games or game modes. 
 
If you also want to cover police aspects or elements of slavery this is must-have in my eyes however. The key is balanced mechanics. A potentially too hard system could be seen in the Minecraft civcraft server where players could be captured in a twilight dimension while their "soul" was bound to the overworld pearl. Problem: holding a player does not burn much "fuel" and to release a player you had to have the pearl. So what do people do? They capture someone and put the pearl in secure storage where others can hardly reach it. In short you could be held weeks, maybe a month or longer before you could consider appeals through a higher instance such as server admins as it was simply part of the server and game play. 
 
A more controlled system you see in Arma 3 or Space Station 13 where player police or security can put you into prison temporarily. These sentences were often limited, on a minute basis. At best you'd sit in it for 10 to 30 minutes depending on offense. 
 
What would I propose,  how could it work in DU? 
 
1) I would not mind an A3/SS13 like system with limited sentences that everyone should be able to live with as they are time capped, often through built-in timers. 
 
2) How this could be implemented or rather work in DU is a tougher question. If you have a general capture mechanic for players I sense abuse or indefinite holding if you can just put someone in a room or cell with no (easy) way out. And if the player has no way out on his or her own, either through tools or commands. 
 
At best i can currently see domestic prisons work that only work on player run tiles or faction owned tiles where you can place actual cell units (complete item given by devs) where you can place (misbehaving) players for a limited time. In the context of DU 10 minutes are a joke so it could be a bit more on average, but not exceeding 1 day or so. Or half a day. Or a quarter. A third. Fifth? You get the idea. As it is faction run you also do not have to go there if you don't like how they handle things on their turf like taxes or punishments. 
 
Binding this mechanic to faction controlled tiles (Alioth could also be excluded from this) prevents "griefing" all over while making things interesting on faction turf with some sort of local punishment system. 
 
At least, that is my ideal "solution" or compromise but you can bet we won't see prison mechanics. 
 
Because "hot iron". 

*childish voice*
can i haz the leeder posheeon? i am verry koalafied to taek tis verry harhd jahb.