Odendis

If you watched a feature film about all the secret police and wartime programs that go on under the hood, DU would probably have a sequel. And this is if you just limited it to the past century and only the G20 nations. In the mean time, we're digressing for the most part, and in reality just talking at each other rather than with each other. So if we want to continue on the debate, we should make a new thread for enforcement mechanisms and the debate of them. Otherwise, I think we should wait sometime to revisit the topic of contracts themselves until more information is available.

well, I wouldn't call it completely unpredictable. More like Feuding States with a bit of entropy xD

I think you misunderstand what I mean by granted by the game. I mean in game mechanics that allow players to enforce their laws (or simply their will). I don't want the system to enforce them for us, but simply give us the means to do so. In which, I only see two fairly weak ones, player killing and usage rights. Examples of this would be (all limited to owned territories...and even then I suggest these with great hesitation): the ability to capture other players the subsequent ability to fine other players the subsequent ability to imprison players based on a amount paid by the owner of the territory (with average reasonable costs equating to 1-2 hours, and exponentially rising to make bounties past 6 hours cost prohibitive outside of mega-corp orgs, and 2 days outside the range of multi-org coalitions) Subversion, exploitation, espionage, psychological operations, and their reverse side (COIN) are areas of study that interest me due to my hobby of being a living history reenactor. I have read nothing anywhere that would substantially deter me from doing other players harm, and recruiting other players to set up enclaves and networks to sustain such activity. From what I've read, there is very little risk; especially when failure means you simply lose what you've brought, respawn somewhere safe, and then amass and build again to do it over. (ultimately negating death as an impactful penalty) The safe zones prevent total catastrophe, and allow peaceful players to be as they wish. They prevent players from being malicious and wiping out entire cities, which is awesome. However, they also keep the blackmarket down the street safe, completely bypassing any RDMS enforcement. (negating usage rights as a impactful penalty) I'm not saying that it should be easy to completely rout malicious players. I'm saying in the moment of engagement the risk of loss lies extremely heavily on the prey.

I'm all for civilization/nation building, but a means to enforce must be atleast granted by the game. The only things I've seen talked about openly is the destruction of constructs outside of safe zones. It's worrying to consider asking for more power/control over other players than just that as it may create toxic environments. On the other hand, simply destruction is not a viable threat to most people who would want to do you harm as they will probably have all of their valuables in a safe zone. There are also other actors who will play with nothing to lose, and may be used as puppets to do harm to other players. I'm sorry I can't be more constructive on this part

That's why I suggested a review system for some kind of centralized reputation. I don't know what enforcement options other players will have other than destruction outside of safe zones though. I'm not even sure I want to suggest anything along those lines. At the most, it would be along the lines of timed imprisonment (based on a monetary amount) for dieing within a tile where you are marked by the RDMS system after 30 minutes of the bounty being set on your head (to prevent people from being ambushed). Along that line, also display a warning for tiles where you are wanted. Atleast, with a reputation system, we can generally shun that player in terms of contracts.

I realized that something game-wide like that would be difficult or eat up alot of time on NQ's part, so I wanted to bring it up here in case someone else had ideas. I guess something similar would not be too difficult (but tedious) to do on a local level with LUA as long as you can access some kind of UUID (ie. character name) from the accessing player and were able to store a large amount of data. Maybe I'll try to make one in the Beta if they haven't announced anything yet that would cover that need.

Ah, my apologies, I misread your post (not sure how, reading it again). I somehow inferred it as regulating them to simple trivial tasks, and I've seen that happen many times. I was more talking about the daily mining grind, more so than the organized excavation trips as well (in reference to scut work). Kinda like the movie Holes.

I don't think the two are quite related (or maybe I'm missing something). Though, I would like to see this RDMS system fleshed out more. The blog doesn't really cover specifically how money changes hands, nor how to ensure services and rewards are rendered.

I don't think casual players won't have a place in an org. I've actually employed casuals to great success when trying to just get more people to do something collectively (fighting bosses, raiding bases/dungeons, building / hauling). It doesn't matter what their skill level is when all you need is another warm body shooting, carrying, or crafting something. But I agree with Venstix, you have to treat them like people. I don't think very many people would enjoy mining for mining's sake. For most games with mining, mining is scut work. Casuals shouldn't be a means to an end, but an end in themselves. I had a casual in one of my guilds that would log on once or twice a month, drink and chat, solo some bosses, and dump off everything he didn't need to the new guys. And if he happened to be on for a raid, it was like having an unexpected second helping of dessert; rather than having someone missing 3/4ths of the time. People are casuals for various reasons, and they'll probably be better off and more efficient at doing the things they like.

I've tried to find a topic or blog about this but it seems everyone is only concerned about placing bounties on people. I feel like we could use a system in place where we can request services (as well as consorts: additional assistance on the specific task agreed), and rate the poster, tender, and consorts. workflow can be similar to: Poster posts the commission with reward Prospects bid to be accepted Poster, accepts a given number of prospects to tend to the commission Tenders repeats 1-3 if consorts are needed Tender executes the commission and reports it's done Poster confirms or denies the commission Everyone rates each other Services tendered can include the following: Bounties / Raids Building (ships, stations, bases, cities, houses, etc.) Material / Element fetching Escorts, Patrols, Defence, etc. There are a few considerations that would still need to be done though. This is susceptible to social engineering, so duplicate ratings should be handled with priority to the latest by that person. Older duplicate ratings should have a steep fall off if considered at all.

My favorite part of SE cameras are the zoom. It makes engaging and surveying significantly easier!

I feel like "griefer" gets toss around alot, but I don't think many of the times it's applicable. A few examples from other games: Someone who kills / CCs you in League isn't a griefer, even though you can theoretically win without doing so. Someone who intercepts your shipment in GTA Online isn't a griefer, they literally get an objective to do so. Someone who raids your base in PvP Ark isn't a griefer, as that is the intention of the game. Someone who goes rogue in The Division isn't a griefer, as that is also an intention of the game. These individuals have an in game task and purpose, which gives the game flavor and additional experiences. Piracy will in DU will give rise to punitive forces (like how the Front Line decided to come down on Laughing Coffin in SAO). Actual toxic behavior outside of the game's goal should be considered griefing as it is outside the mutual understanding of the players and the narrator/narrative. Intentionally feeding the enemy team / abusing All Chat (League) Driving the wrong way in a race Aggroing and kiting a Titanosaur to another person's base in PvE servers (Ark). Flash Podding a monster b/c someone mounted it (Monster Hunter). Intentionally team killing. I feel like what NQ is planning caters well to many kinds of play, especially with the safe moons and Arkships. If you want to build massive constructs for the sake of building, no one forces you to use what ever Unobtanium there is. And if you do really want it, go out and find a way to get it (escorts, marketplace, etc.). Glory isn't given, it's earned; you're not waking up a hero, go be one.

Yea, I have this weird pipe dream of using a mass driver on one planet, and sending the round through a gravity field of another to hit a planet behind the 2nd. I was thinking more of physical artillery than machine gun or battery fire. If it isn't in the game then someone's bound to try to make a construct out of it (like the gravel launchers from space engineers). I know they've said combat is supposed to be less twitch based and more lock on based, but I really hope its more like Armored Core, where you get a Lock Box rather than just a tab target system. I also hope that if there are any kind of AI turret they are limited to static constructs. The way this could work for larger crew served ships is that the WSO can designate targets for turrets, which abstracts responsibility. It makes commanding a ship more important as you have to delegate responsibilities properly to your pilot staff and weapons staff. It also brings in actual real life skill factors rather than just level up points. But I'll admit my biases though, in loud combat, I'm more of a small cavalry teams kind of person. I know people are going to build massive crew served ships, and I really hope there's a way for them to relay targeting and maneuver information to me.

Here's to hoping there will be ballistic weaponry that are properly influenced by physics and impart physics forces. It's hard on the server, but i bet it'll look awesome when two large masses collide.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant the promo they had where you could get a 3D model printed out based off the blueprint file. https://3dprint.com/18069/space-engineers-3d-printing/ I don't know why they seem to have stopped though

This took me far longer than I wanted to spend finding it, but it is something I support whole heartedly. Sometimes you just want to try a design or a theory in the name of science. It would allow us to also learn the physics and metrics of how the game world works and how each element interacts with it. More on topic, I know Space Engineers had a limited promo of being able to print your ships...but I don't know how that panned out or what the specifics of it are. From what I gather now, it doesn't seem like they do it anymore, and it doesn't state why. I feel like permissions for exporting could be something baked into the blueprint itself (sell the usable one for cheap, sell the blueprintable one for a bit more).

My only gripe about space engineers combat is the autoturrets. I don't mind them specifically, just what people end up doing with them, and that the only way to make a ship harder to assault is to just place more. If they had a large placement deadzone or if you could limit the amount you can place somehow, sure; but never cover the entire ship with them like a Tiki Marine ie. from Ark: https://goo.gl/images/jqtPJm I feel like turrets should operate like in StarMade. Where there you're given a reason to have bigger and fewer turrets (mostly due to power and size constraints). On another note, I do hope there is ample opportunity to have multiple classes and types of ships fighting. I always love the combined arms part of combat.

Just saying, I've had some amazing small scale star-wars like dogfight battles (kind of like what you see in the more recent movies, Rogue One, Solo, and Last Jedi...also specifically recreating Hoth). It's actually really cool to see someone get shot down while in atmo or low orbit and their ship just goes deadstick and augers in. It also makes the battlefield look really cool after a while (and cripple the server).

I think if criminals exist there will be vigilantes (by kindness and coin). I also assume larger orgs will also have a code of conduct within their own cities and also plan to forcefully enforce them. As we are paying for time on the server, I would prefer there not be a jailing aspect. or atleast one you cannot force respawn out of. ie. In Ark you can tranquilize other players, and drag their body into a cage. You can then fill their inventory with rocks so they can't walk around, and also hand cuff them so they can't pick up and eat something dangerous (like their own poop or other consumables that will eventually kill you). You can also retranquilize them in order to force feed them water and food. Ark's system allows people to be indefinitely detained on that specific server.

I do like adjustable shields, especially in terms of capacity, recharge rate, and recharge delay. Maybe we can have different elements that contribute to each stat individually (like having multiple different kinds of fuel tanks). Though, I'm not quite sure what you mean by Overclock / Underclock. Is there a reference for what that is in another lore? My main interest in combat is how the infantry combat is going to play out. imagine assaulting a defender that can literally just (re)place cover / walls. And then, there are recreating iconic feats like Master Chief floating through space to deliver a bomb.

Ark's beds prevent people from looking into your inventory IIRC. I don't think Space Engineer's cryopods prevent that though, but they do make it so you can travel with the ship while logged off. EDIT: Cryopods that are linked to storage / oxygen can manipulate inventories I think

Regarding the 1st bit: I think player persistence would be a good idea, but I don't think it would reduce trolling significantly (what happens on Ark as a prime example). Combat Logging has been kind of dealt with gracefully in some games. Some make you wait, some persist your player for an additional 30 seconds dead stick style. Others penalize you monetarily. Regarding the 2nd bit: I think creating a 3D place holder of someone wouldn't ease stress significantly unless the body was adhere'd to a another rigid body. Maybe you can reduce a logged out player into a cube and adhere them to the closest construct or voxel (within 2m) would be good. Some games allow you to log out gracefully (I prefer this heavily). By this I mean like Haven Bags in Wakfu or beds in Ark. A place to put your character that combines you with a rigid body.

Fun part about it is that if people do it, someone's going to train and kit out to deal with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_rat

I was actually talking about this in chat yesterday. Having Cave / canyon worlds would be awesome for racing and combat as well.