Jump to content
Archonious

Multi-Organisations membership

Recommended Posts

Archonious,

Everyone is simply stating their opinion on the matter in an open forum manner as it is meant to be. Some people are agreeing, some disagreeing, no one is saying that the choice to lock down an organization or vice versa is bad, infact, i've read the opposite where most have said that the game should allow you to decide how you want to run your organization as you are a player in this player driven game.

 

Both systems can work together and both systems are somewhat good when you want to work at certain levels. A larger collective may want to use multiple orgsnization member ship to make a community more tied together and a smaller enitity may want to lock down the organization and make sure anything within is safe from everyone, even with how the RDMS system works.

 

As far as i'm concerned, NQ will give the players the ability to form whatever organization they want to, locked down or not.

 

Also,

Guys, try to control the urge to fight, as much as we let passions get to us, the game isn't even in alpha yet - we should be focused on ideas and helping NQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ananasi,

that is what I'm saying (except RDMS). One option for one group, another option for the second group (Want A, take A. Want B, take B).

I didn't see RDMS functionality, I can't just hope on that. Will it include organisation amounts, how can it limit if it does? Questions, questions, question... I want a simple system (which is about the organisations, but not rights and duties), which won't confuse.

 

And as you can see, there are those who strongly against. So questions to them. I have nothing against Falstaf (or some others) or you. Right now, I'm trying to understand why some people AGAINST? Is there gameplay reason or that is just their human nature?

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If to speak about reality, let's take an army. If you joined one army, you can not be part of another (alliance - is very controlled, not join where you want).

If you join the company (serious), you very limited by the law (agreements).

If you part of government, you limited as well (law as regulator).

Those legal limits must be enforced by a governing body. UK law might very well have said that joing the American Revolutionary Army was an act of treachery and subject to execution, but if you can't enforce it I can get away with being a UK citizen and a part of it. If I am a citizen of OrgA, at war with OrgB, and I join OrgB's army, against the laws of OrgA, come and get me. If they want to prosecute me for treason, I say let them. But if they can't physically find me, I'll join OrgB's army all the same.

 

I do not trust this system (already explained abusable way)

If you don't see any risks in this system, I am happy for you.

I don't trust the system either. That sense of doubt, whether or not this new member you're accepting is actually a spy, makes it exciting. But this is also what real life is like. When you're on a frontier with few laws and no one can be trusted, you have to vet everyone. As others have said, if someone wants to be a spy, they'll find a way. Maybe they temporarily leave their org, promising to return after they find out the codes to get past your shields. An automated system will allow this to easily get through, so you'll need to perform background checks anyway if you're suspicious, defeating the whole point of the system. Emergent gameplay, mate, not NQ enforced protection.

 

The question is WHY this choice is not acceptable? Why is it bad? Why are you forcing use system, which somebody can dislike?

I don't like that there are so many pirates in the game, but the only way to get around it is to be careful - just like in real life. I'd love if I could pilot an enormous battleship with the power of seven suns to singlehandedly obliterate my enemies, but I don't advocate for it because the game is about realistic simulation of the rebuilding of society and it wouldn't be any fun or promote emergent gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust the system either. That sense of doubt, whether or not this new member you're accepting is actually a spy, makes it exciting. But this is also what real life is like. When you're on a frontier with few laws and no one can be trusted, you have to vet everyone. As others have said, if someone wants to be a spy, they'll find a way. Maybe they temporarily leave their org, promising to return after they find out the codes to get past your shields. An automated system will allow this to easily get through, so you'll need to perform background checks anyway if you're suspicious, defeating the whole point of the system. Emergent gameplay, mate, not NQ enforced protection.

And I'm absolutely fine with that =) If spy can use brain, not a game structure "holes", I'm fine with that.

 

And auto-deny to join many organizations is not against reality. This is the system which monitoring and blocking. Same as any other system in the game (allow or disallow something). Any system created to help, this one as well. It helps to save time (players pay for this time real money, once again). It does not break any game mechanic, it gives the possibility of different organization structure (equal to standard one).

 

It is not even about security. As an example, I want members of my team to be in my organization ONLY. No matter why (reasons could vary).

 

P.S: You quoted questions, but no answer.

P.S2: Example with 2 armies. You can not be an official member of both (known) at the same time (if you are not a double-side agent, and anyway, it won't be publicized). And overall, there is no law in the game (as in real life).

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that Achronious can read this, but...
Even someone in the Army might belong to other organizations: a sorority, a football league, an acting troupe, a book club...
The Army doesn't automatically force people to give up those affiliations. The Army might choose not to enlist someone with affiliations they don't like. They might kick someone out who has affiliations they don't like. But people might have to spend time to investigate that.

The Army doesn't have an automatic button that punts people associated with other organizations.

 

I might like to have a button that permanently turns of PvP in my territory, but that's not part of the game design.

I don't necessarily want to "waste my time" making sure that my territory remains Arkified - but, that's the game we have.

And, since having an Arkified territory is important to me, I will invest time in making sure the Bubble remains intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that Achronious can read this, but...

Even someone in the Army might belong to other organizations: a sorority, a football league, an acting troupe, a book club...

The Army doesn't automatically force people to give up those affiliations. The Army might choose not to enlist someone with affiliations they don't like. They might kick someone out who has affiliations they don't like. But people might have to spend time to investigate that.

The Army doesn't have an automatic button that punts people associated with other organizations.

 

I might like to have a button that permanently turns of PvP in my territory, but that's not part of the game design.

I don't necessarily want to "waste my time" making sure that my territory remains Arkified - but, that's the game we have.

And, since having an Arkified territory is important to me, I will invest time in making sure the Bubble remains intact.

Well, the way it seems, the only real safezone is the starting zone. Protection Bubbles beyond that, are simply safer zones. :|

 

But anyhow, you try to reason with Archonious... that won't happen.

 

I say let there be an "Exclusive Membership" choice for your org, that won't allow people in unless they are not part of any othe organisation. I mean, why not. Absolute control and stuff. And given orgs can be part of other orgs, I can it that people like spce-truckers may have to be "neutral" in order to be profitable and trustworthy as an org, so it's mandatory that your space-trucker is not part of another org, before joining a hauler organisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that, at the very least, they should make a way to see all the organizations that a person is a part of. Then groups could audit new members and do a background check of sorts. Then what they do with that information is up to them.

 

Simple to implement and supports emergent gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that, at the very least, they should make a way to see all the organizations that a person is a part of. Then groups could audit new members and do a background check of sorts. Then what they do with that information is up to them.

 

Simple to implement and supports emergent gameplay. 

Indeed.

 

I suggest a radial menu tied on the left click (like the utilise in building), with a "scan" option that reads the Implant on the brain of the target, revealing their Dossier.

 

Add a Hacker skill tree, with a skill called "Data-Mining" that allows the Hacker to see MORE info on the target and then have a Hacker be able to forge their Dossier.

 

So yeah, if the Devs go that way (which they said they may go indeed), Archonious will have to come up with actual ways of blocking Infiltrators from sneaking in his org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

 

I suggest a radial menu tied on the left click (like the utilise in building), with a "scan" option that reads the Implant on the brain of the target, revealing their Dossier.

 

Add a Hacker skill tree, with a skill called "Data-Mining" that allows the Hacker to see MORE info on the target and then have a Hacker be able to forge their Dossier.

 

So yeah, if the Devs go that way (which they said they may go indeed), Archonious will have to come up with actual ways of blocking Infiltrators from sneaking in his org.

 

expanding on this... a hacker skill could also be to hide another persons membership...  and other similar functions... so you could have hackers both looking for hidden info and trying to hide that info from normal people and other hackers...

But this is a digression.

 

I don't support a simple on/off for other organization membership... and if an org uses the rights management system to cut off all other org membership for its members then a side effect of that should be that the org itself can't join any other org.

 

If I am part of a shipping org... I can see that org not wanting me to be a part of a pirate gang or political factions... but should be fine with me being in a racing league... star wars fan club... or new player education volunteer... 

 

I think the current set up for the rights management can handle that... and it will require some effort on the part of org leaders depending on how much they care about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

expanding on this... a hacker skill could also be to hide another persons membership...  and other similar functions... so you could have hackers both looking for hidden info and trying to hide that info from normal people and other hackers...

But this is a digression.

 

I don't support a simple on/off for other organization membership... and if an org uses the rights management system to cut off all other org membership for its members then a side effect of that should be that the org itself can't join any other org.

 

If I am part of a shipping org... I can see that org not wanting me to be a part of a pirate gang or political factions... but should be fine with me being in a racing league... star wars fan club... or new player education volunteer... 

 

I think the current set up for the rights management can handle that... and it will require some effort on the part of org leaders depending on how much they care about it.

Well, the hacker is more of an "illusionist". Your suggestion kind of breaks the game. The hacker should be able to mask his Identity (call it Dossier, Bio-Card or ID chip) as well as others linked to him in his proximity , up to four people. If you want to go for the long-con you would need too much meta-game to acheive it.

 

The org itself is an entity. The rules it imposes to its members, should not be limiting the org. A leader may want dictatorship, so he imposes on which orgs can be joined or not and that dictatorship itself can be part of a larger empire of dictatorships.

 

The point is Archonious doesn't understand the Devs won't force players into one org by defaullt. Lord Cringeworth you see, is not taking No for an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And auto-deny to join many organizations is not against reality.

If you have a company IRL, and you don't want to hire criminals, what's the magical device developed by Alien Overlord Games, who have created this Earth 2.3 simulation? Nothing? Oh yeah, because in real life you have to actually perform background checks yourself by consulting police databases and such.

 

I think that, at the very least, they should make a way to see all the organizations that a person is a part of. Then groups could audit new members and do a background check of sorts. Then what they do with that information is up to them.

 

Simple to implement and supports emergent gameplay.

^I think it should work like this. Modify the community page so that it's easy to search by member, and look for their affiliations. Possibly you can check past groups they've been a part of, and if they very recently abandoned all their connections, maybe they're a spy or just a conman. Maybe they've discovered the light and will plead to let them join despite their shady resume. Should be integrated straight into the game UI. But nothing automatic. It forces you to think about all aspects of running an organisation.

 

It is not even about security. As an example, I want members of my team to be in my organization ONLY. No matter why (reasons could vary).

 

Then vet them, as I keep saying.

 

P.S: You quoted questions, but no answer.

I answered it in a roundabout manner. There are things that would increase the momentary enjoyment for me, but I recognise that overcoming the difficulties the game throws at you makes the game ultimately more fun and as such I don't advocate for it - not to mention it puts all sides of society (hackers, pirates, criminals, CEOs, truckers, traders, etc.) on a fairly even playing ground. You are advocating making running an organisation simpler when I think that allowing complexity means that organisations will be more rewarding when you can get them working accurately, and it will produce more entertaining stories when it's indeed possible for spies to enter large organisations with poor HR sectors, or for poor hires to be let in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

expanding on this... a hacker skill could also be to hide another persons membership...  and other similar functions... so you could have hackers both looking for hidden info and trying to hide that info from normal people and other hackers...

But this is a digression.

 

I don't support a simple on/off for other organization membership... and if an org uses the rights management system to cut off all other org membership for its members then a side effect of that should be that the org itself can't join any other org.

 

If I am part of a shipping org... I can see that org not wanting me to be a part of a pirate gang or political factions... but should be fine with me being in a racing league... star wars fan club... or new player education volunteer... 

 

I think the current set up for the rights management can handle that... and it will require some effort on the part of org leaders depending on how much they care about it.

Also, we need skill for every organisation you join (as more you join, as more skills you need), for every RDMS you set (as more RDMS in use, as more skills you need), for every new member in your organisation (as more members you have, as more skills you need) and other =)))

 

If your organisation do not want you to join any random organisation (which could make risk by mistake or system abuse), why it can't do that? If an officer of organisation don't want you to build anything on base, he/she just block it and everyone fine with that. This is just kind of RDMS (and I'm sure it won't be included in this system, because it works with game actions like build, mine, invite, deconstruct).

 

It is just way to control. Whole organisation at once. Then if player need/want to join any "club, religion or any other dream", the officer can make excluding, if that won't make the risk for the organisation. Similar to RDMS, you block some members actions because you do not want/trust.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered it in a roundabout manner. There are things that would increase the momentary enjoyment for me, but I recognise that overcoming the difficulties the game throws at you makes the game ultimately more fun and as such I don't advocate for it - not to mention it puts all sides of society (hackers, pirates, criminals, CEOs, truckers, traders, etc.) on a fairly even playing ground. You are advocating making running an organisation simpler when I think that allowing complexity means that organisations will be more rewarding when you can get them working accurately, and it will produce more entertaining stories when it's indeed possible for spies to enter large organisations with poor HR sectors, or for poor hires to be let in.

So then we can ask to remove/not to design RDMS system. Because of the same reasons.

There is no real life way to stop me from doing something (without physical disabling). And it would be more fun. So some people need to check what every member doing.

Yes, I'm advocating running my organisation simpler, as I want, as it better for me (and those who has similar vision). I do not ask that everyone who wants to join org need to go to org office or directly to the leader to join. Otherway it is a simpler way to run organisation.

 

The current direction of discussing is a dead end.

 

WHY is this option not acceptable? Why is it bad? Why are you forcing use system, which somebody can dislike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simply check in your RDMS:

 

if player.want-to-join-org = member.different-org

     then player.want-to-join-org.accept and set.RDMS = 0

     else player.want-to-join-org.accept and set.RDMS = 1

 

there you have your "no rights for a member of another org" setting. I still can't see the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simply check in your RDMS:

 

if player.want-to-join-org = member.different-org

     then player.want-to-join-org.accept and set.RDMS = 0

     else player.want-to-join-org.accept and set.RDMS = 1

 

there you have your "no rights for a member of another org" setting. I still can't see the problem?

Thanks, it would be at least minimal option (at least before testing).

RDMS is unknown for me. I can not hope and pray on that. I am not one of "No Man's Sky" fan-boys before release (what actually happens here, overall).

 

I don't see any problem to allow technical organisation management. That is an actual question. I do not need approval from members, I simply trying to understand WHY. Make it or not is the decision of NQ.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, it would be at least minimal option (at least before testing).

RDMS is unknown for me. I can not hope and pray on that. I am not one of "No Man's Sky" fan-boys before release (what actually happens here, overall).

 

I don't see any problem to allow technical organisation management. That is an actual question. I do not need approval from members, I simply trying to understand WHY. Make it or not is the decision of NQ.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Lord Cringeworth elects to be ignorant = Ignorance is cool.

 

But anyone who didn't elect to be ignorant? They are Fan Boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should make it so you can look at what orgs someone belongs to when they area part of your org (set their rank to some probation rank which does not give them access to anything). If you see an org that you don't like, you can do as you will with that information, be it kick them, ask them to leave it or whatever. If they then join another org, that you don't like, then you can do what you will (kick, ask to leave other org, etc.). This does mean you have to check, but this does make it fairer (i.e. officers need to do their job).

 

As someone earlier said, you could also train in a skill (hacking) that would allow you to hide one or more of your org memberships (rank dependant) from everyone but that org and whitelisted others (such as allies). The officer in the recruiting org can then also do a hacking check to see if they have any hidden orgs (does not tell you how well you did, just says which orgs they are a part of or "you could not find any additional information").

 

Helpful for recruiters, not hindering spys (it is up to you to secure your org, not the devs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the useful link =) It always nice to see some new info (even had similar thoughts about it).

It is possible that it can be included, true, it can fit this system. But still under question. Remember what was happened with NMS? People thought "It can fit, it will be included". But it wasn't said, it wasn't released. Result? Huge disappointment (and it is not only about one question I asked, it about everything).

 

+Ability to make excludings, like for fan clubs or something else (no risk, trusted organisations). It could make it vey complicated and self excluding:

-Tag A disallow to join all other organisations

-Tag B allow to join organisation X

 

Ofc if priorities would be designed well, it won't be a trouble. But much better to know proper answer - Will it be possible or not?

 

Once again, thanks for link

 

P.S: @Mrjacobean, player can join while has rights (and no officers online). To use abuse explained few messages above player need few seconds (nobody can react on that if not waited). I'm against any kind of abuse, so it is not just basic question.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...