Org created standings and reputation.

[Kongou]

Allowing a means for players to create and interpret data from a standings system with their own definitions of what gives or takes standings points.

 

Allowing player orgs to decide what gives or takes standings with their respective entity.

Perhaps you have it set so that attacking a ship with a specific standing or lower, a point decided by the legate authority of that org, gives a positive standings increase.

 

Conversely setting it to attacking a friendly might decrease or do nothing. although perhaps they have it set so that even attacking allies gives a standings increase.

 

Perhaps completing missions through their terminals, donating money or resources, going on a patrol run for their armed forces, and so forth as is possible to define with in game tools.

 

Allowing the org to decide on a per organisational level what increases or decreases standings in relation to that organisation would allow the organisations to specifically define themselves.

 

Allowing the orgs to define their parameter and the level of gains or decreases. for instance -1000 to +1000 with +1 2 or 3 gains or losses or a more familiar -10 to +10 with .01 .02 .03 gains and losses as described by individually tagged actions.

 

 

 

In conjunction to standings a reputation system which runs independent from standings so that orgs could further interpret peoples data with an equally expansive table to define what increases or decreases reputation based on player actions as decided by that organisation.

 

For instance you might have +100 standings but -100 reputation, achievable if the org hands out positive standings for stealing goods, but negative reputation for the act.

The org by means of the hierarchy of power and application of tags to said roles of power in the hierarchy can cutoff a players usage of certain stargates, yet not acknowledge them as a red kill on sight enemy.

 

 

Perhaps you could allow further creation or desruction of these standings / reputations to allow for players to interpret many different types of behaviors or actions. This would allow organisations to create automatic means for players to complete tasks missions or activity and gain access to other areas that players have created. such as harder missions, access to specific stargates, or so forth.

 

In fact this kind of application would let players by their own powers create and apply the sense of security ratings to systems, by means of requiring specific standings or reputation levels to use a certain stargate.
 

Thank you reader.

[Anaximander]

I made my point in the other thread about On Duty / Off Duty tasks, with the Loyalty Points suggestion here  But since these are the forums and nobody bothers clicking on links, here we go .

Quantification of difficulty, in a pure sandbox game as DU, does not work as one might expect. No org would put up a job offer for someone outside the org to get a shipment of Unobtanium and deliver it 100 Light Years away, with a difficulty rating of 100 Arbitrary Units of difficulty. That is going to a person, within the org, that is proven as a capable spacetrucker.

Howver, the possibility of a bounty being placed not only on a person, but on a construct, creates a much higher dynamic. If I open the contract, read it and see I have to go after a person that pays X amount on a kill, and 1000 times X amount if I kill said person and their ship, then suddenly, the higher rewards transforms said contract to a group contract, possibly, even a raid (in the literal sense, you won't be able to take a ship over and destroy it without a raid). Perhaps, even bringing back said ship "alive", for lack of a better word, thus creating a Dead or Alive system, but instead "bring me back the ship as a prize istead of its killmail".

The Loyalty Points is a simple idea. Essentially, you do jobs for an org, they pay you with Loyalthy Points, currency you can't use on the marketplace, but you can use it on the org you did the job for, to get items they got in supply as a "quest reward", so every quest, is a quest YOU can help, no matter if you are an engineer, a soldier or a pilot. You all split the contract's monetary reward (beware of double-crossings O_O ) , but you get all the same Loyalty Points for i.e. my bounty. And it's a good way to lure in more people into one's org.

"Look at all the cool stuff we have, these Loyalty Point rewards are just the tip of the iceberg".

Also, a standing, is a reputation rating. You can't be on an Excellent Standing, and be -100 on Reputation. There's no such thing as "excellent a-hole". Trust me, I would know :V .

On top of that, in EVE, a system's security is based on arbitrary lore macguffins, not on actual player actions. Also, you operate under the idea that ALL stargates will belong to one, massive entity, for this system to work. Sadly, that's not the case. If my org is dedicated at building stargates for-profit, I won't shut down my stargates because Johny McNugget wants to conrol his populatio from leaving the system their org is. Tolls make the world go round. A person went through a stargate that leads to the stellar equivalent of Vietnam circa 1967, with sniper ships waiting to blow people's ships up? Lady Luck is a tough woman, that's all I'm saying.

But yeah, I am all in for players having to use their mind to figure out what's dangerous and what's not, what's worth the risk and if the rewards validate it (Loyalty Points = player quest loot). If they got to ask other players on if said area they have to go to is safe, they got to socialise. Remember, there's no Wowhead for jobs in DU, for you to have a "guide" to how you will finish the "quest". You got to ask around -- espcially on a bounty -- gather a crew of unsavory individuals, track down the mark, and pump as much lead in them as possible... or, you know, ambush them when they least expect it, by studying their routine. 

In my opinion, we don't need tags for "DON'T GO THERE, DON'T DO THAT!" or "I remove -1000000 Reputation on you, because I don't like you". If you are to add a "secondary" currency, make it as little as possible for people to abuse it, just saying.

Cheers.

[Kongou]

Might I add to this that, I hypothesize that it creates a soft way for players to handle system sovereign without a hard enforced rule.

Basically those who control the stargates to a system control the sovereignty. as well as deciding that systems security rating as it relates to their organisations reputation systems.

 

Although it would still be nice to have some kind of way to get a color coded map.

As well as a means for giving more or less reputation or standings gains based on system location.

 

For instance, If CSYN outlined a system as 1.0 security, relevant to csyn members, and we decide to mark it as such. We decide what level of security gains or losses for actions, in that kind of solar system marked with that security rating we have set it as.

Alternatively unmarked, or systems marked 0 would be treated as lawless and we might have it set so that no standings or reputation systems are in effect in these said areas. Specific and relevant only to the org CSYN. Maybe a element like the communications satellite some sort of system broadcast satellite or something.
 

Its useful so we could make a gradient of reputation ranging from the lawless to more controlled sections based on the scale that player organisations decide. Space is a big and in this world - infinitely generating place.

I feel this is useful for defining spacial areas according to how the organisations decide. It keeps the game free of solar system wide safe zones, a zone is only as safe as you can make it and sovereignty isnt defined by a big station but by the players capacity to manage their space.
If an org marks territories are level 10 aka 1.0 security and cant actually defend it, then its their own fault and people will learn to not respect that organisations claims about systems. I feel its all self regulating, people would just disable the maps from orgs which dont mark things properly, or even potentially leave them or whatever.

Edit: How players use the tools is up to them. The standings are relevant only to each org. And yes some organisations might actually want to create contracts for all different sorts of people, ones you like or even dont like. Its more complicated than a loyalty point currency. Yes difficult transport missions will be done by trusted people, having the tools to decide who meets the qualifications is important.

It allows for a guild to take in players and give them missions, youll never route every spy before they commit an action, naturally. but once someone crosses the soft laws that an org sets up thats when player management can kick in and oust the people who dont play by that communities guidelines.

Theres bound to be many different communities in this game and a more interesting system for reputations and contracts amongst other things would spice the universe up.

Simply having hard drawn borders where nobody engages with anyone else, except in the act of killing and being sworn enemies. Resulting in being a toxic community isnt all that enticing.

[Anaximander]

Might I add to this that, I hypothesize that it creates a soft way for players to handle system sovereign without a hard enforced rule.

 

Basically those who control the stargates to a system control the sovereignty. as well as deciding that systems security rating as it relates to their organisations reputation systems.

 

Although it would still be nice to have some kind of way to get a color coded map.

 

As well as a means for giving more or less reputation or standings gains based on system location.

 

For instance, If CSYN outlined a system as 1.0 security, relevant to csyn members, and we decide to mark it as such. We decide what level of security gains or losses for actions, in that kind of solar system marked with that security rating we have set it as.

 

Alternatively unmarked, or systems marked 0 would be treated as lawless and we might have it set so that no standings or reputation systems are in effect in these said areas. Specific and relevant only to the org CSYN. Maybe a element like the communications satellite some sort of system broadcast satellite or something.

 

Its useful so we could make a gradient of reputation ranging from the lawless to more controlled sections based on the scale that player organisations decide. Space is a big and in this world - infinitely generating place.

 

I feel this is useful for defining spacial areas according to how the organisations decide. It keeps the game free of solar system wide safe zones, a zone is only as safe as you can make it and sovereignty isnt defined by a big station but by the players capacity to manage their space.

If an org marks territories are level 10 aka 1.0 security and cant actually defend it, then its their own fault and people will learn to not respect that organisations claims about systems. I feel its all self regulating, people would just disable the maps from orgs which dont mark things properly, or even potentially leave them or whatever.

Adding 1.0 and making a system safe, are not the smae thing. In EVE, 1.0 system security, means that the NPC cops ill come to your aid within 5 seconds. It means nothing in DU.

 

The same "security" level, can be achieved with a congregation per celestial volue of your org's members. CSYN is concentrated within an area spanning 10 light years in radius, then you have the center of it being bright with CSYN member presnece, then as you reach the borders, the glow fades, or mies with the other faction's glow. However, this again, is silly, as it only creates an unfair and omnipotent seeing eye in the sky. It's borderline magic, not science fiction.

 

I made a suggestion HERE on how to implement "security" status on a system and sovereignity, without adding EVE's most atrocious aspect, the System Security Level and the omnipotent Local Chat (sorta, read the thread ) . Give it a read, give feedback, It technically, covers your color coded idea as well, as it has to do with Comm-Arrays.

 

 

Cheers!

 

[Lethys]

So those reputation thing would only be seen by org members? That means there will be 30000 different definitions of the same planet/system whatsoever. Sounds...complicated.

 

For the rest of that "rep goes up if you kill pirates, rep goes down if you kill friends":

 

Johnny McAmbush is a spai. And he is good. He infiltrates csyn and happily kills TU vessels of another TU spai. Rep goes down to a point where No One really knows why this all happend and why the fuck TU is attacking everyone and so on. Hilarious shit tbh, but messy and no fun to play with because it's automated. Leave it to players to decide who has ano good rep and who is bad for them. Members will squabble because "I'm in csyn and nonetheless TU attacked me!" - but the difference is, will you believe him? A Spai and infiltrator is hard to play and should be that way. It's no fun if you can just abuse an automated system and mess up an entire empire because if that.

[Ben Fargo]

One way of implementing an organization standing system would be to say each character carries an identification device with them.  This device could run Lua scripts, like the elements in constructs do.  Each organization could designate a script that runs for all of its members.  When the player does certain actions, such as attacking someone or trading with them, it would trigger an event in the script.  The script might be written to increment a counter called standing or reputation, and when that reaches a certain value, the script could assign a new function (role) to the player.

 

Using a script would allow this process to be as simple or as complex as the organization chooses.  Each organization could decide what values the script maintains and whether it acts on them or just reports them to the organization.  Organization scripts could be traded in the game, like any other script.  Of course, an organization could choose to not use a script at all.

 

The RDMS would determine who could view the code for the script, who could change the code and who could see the values it maintains for each member.  There should be different rights for viewing and changing the code since, for example, some organizations might believe in open information and allow all members to know what code affects them, but still restrict changing the script to very few.

[Lethys]

One way of implementing an organization standing system would be to say each character carries an identification device with them. This device could run Lua scripts, like the elements in constructs do. Each organization could designate a script that runs for all of its members. When the player does certain actions, such as attacking someone or trading with them, it would trigger an event in the script. The script might be written to increment a counter called standing or reputation, and when that reaches a certain value, the script could assign a new function (role) to the player.

 

Using a script would allow this process to be as simple or as complex as the organization chooses. Each organization could decide what values the script maintains and whether it acts on them or just reports them to the organization. Organization scripts could be traded in the game, like any other script. Of course, an organization could choose to not use a script at all.

 

The RDMS would determine who could view the code for the script, who could change the code and who could see the values it maintains for each member. There should be different rights for viewing and changing the code since, for example, some organizations might believe in open information and allow all members to know what code affects them, but still restrict changing the script to very few.

That's exactly the same thing as the lp store proposal in the other thread. Thing is, with such a scripts it's easy to abuse them if they are not properly written (and a spai will definitely abuse this to hell). Every automation you implement is one branch of gameplay less. I do think though, that there has to be some kind of rep system.

[Ben Fargo]

That's exactly the same thing as the lp store proposal in the other thread. Thing is, with such a scripts it's easy to abuse them if they are not properly written (and a spai will definitely abuse this to hell). Every automation you implement is one branch of gameplay less. I do think though, that there has to be some kind of rep system.

 

I agree people will try and sometimes succeed to take advantage of these scripts.  There would  be risks as well as advantages to using them.  However, while they would definitely change gameplay, I see them as increasing it, not reducing it.  As long as these are player-written scripts and organizations can pick which, if any, they use, then the scripts provide more opportunities to make choices that have consequences in the game.   Players would choose whether or not they wanted to be members of an organization that used scripts.  Leaders of organizations that were too large for them to evaluate each member personally would choose between using a script and delegating some of their power to certain subordinates.  If they use a script, they would choose between writing it themselves or thrusting someone else to do it.  Since this is a science fiction game, choosing when it is appropriate to depend on software to make decisions seems to be a valid theme for it.  

 

Some people find the challenge of writing the best scripts they can as interesting as some people find developing the strategy that lets them win in combat.  Other people do not.  Allowing these scripts would change the game for everyone, whether they choose to write them or not, so it is  a decision that does affect how much the game appeals to different kinds of people.

[Anaximander]

I agree people will try and sometimes succeed to take advantage of these scripts.  There would  be risks as well as advantages to using them.  However, while they would definitely change gameplay, I see them as increasing it, not reducing it.  As long as these are player-written scripts and organizations can pick which, if any, they use, then the scripts provide more opportunities to make choices that have consequences in the game.   Players would choose whether or not they wanted to be members of an organization that used scripts.  Leaders of organizations that were too large for them to evaluate each member personally would choose between using a script and delegating some of their power to certain subordinates.  If they use a script, they would choose between writing it themselves or thrusting someone else to do it.  Since this is a science fiction game, choosing when it is appropriate to depend on software to make decisions seems to be a valid theme for it.  

 

Some people find the challenge of writing the best scripts they can as interesting as some people find developing the strategy that lets them win in combat.  Other people do not.  Allowing these scripts would change the game for everyone, whether they choose to write them or not, so it is  a decision that does affect how much the game appeals to different kinds of people.

Thing is, scripts demand people for them to be ran. Having a hardcoded mechanism like a Loyalty Point reward system for doing organisation based contracts, is something that is catalogued by the server's database directly, thus can't be tampered with and doesn't need a player to be "ran".

 

Scripts are meant for modding how a construct's parts function in the game, they are not meant for us to make our own BitCoin encryption. Because they are scripts, not a real coding language to begin with. They are an extension of C++, not its core body.

 

The Loyalty Points part I suggested? That is going to be ran server-side? That's coded in C++, it's part of the main game. It's a gameplay feature, similar to mining or contracts or piloting manually. And it can be as complex as the Devs can allow the Loyalty Points system to be.

 

To get something out of the way (that I mentioned on the other thread as well), this Loyalty Points system? It will be ran, with or without NQ's implementation in the game, NQ's implementation, will simply create a dynamic questing system in the game, with Loyalty Points being a faction's currency, that it can't be used to interstellar marketplaces (but can't be rigged for local vending machines for gear in exchange for LPs).

 

I get what you mean with your idea of complexity, but you need to understand that the scripts NQ plans for, are not meant for writing pieces of the game engine, but they are more a form of macro-commands from WoW.

 

You can, for example, do a manual barrel roll, or, have it scripted to be performed with pitch-perfect accuracy. That's what scripts are. They are macro-keystrokes. Key-binds? They are technically speaking , scripts. 

 

But what you ask for is something that can only be ran on the server's part, so it can keep track of the numbers.

 

I am going to make a suggestion for LPs in a thread of my own, since it is too overly complex to explain in a thread like this -- and quite off topic to begin with.