Jump to content
BliitzTheFox

Community site org hierarchy

Recommended Posts

On the community site, we should have the ability to make orgs that are members of orgs. Numbers of members is calculated by adding up the total number of members of each org.

To my knowledge this will be possible in game and then we could more accurately represent larger organizations. For instance, Cinderfall Syndicate would include all cinderfall organizations and staff, rather than relying on players to join multiple orgs, they are automatically added to the count of both when they join a cinderfall organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would make identification of your allies and extended contacts alot easier than most games. Eve is one such example. You need to overhaul your overview to make sure you have your standings properly set up, so you don't pew an extended contract contact (or any other similar example)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is no any difference between organisations (technical and visual), all this multi-org system is real mess.

 

I would say, there is much better to create types of organisations with different abilities and opportunities.

 

It can be Clan/Guild/Corparation (main direction for game), aliance, fan group, religion, business company and other.

So every type of organisation have limits and opportunities.

 

If this is business group, there could be some free opportunities by default, abilities to use other members stuff without risks and pay.

If this is religion, it can be just display in player info, or maybe members can have unique logo.

If that is clan, then all members can use equipment and infrastructure as their own (by default, and if not limited).

If that is aliance, very similar as clan, but need to be allowed to use other members equipment. Also defence systems friendly.

 

Ofc this is very basic samples, these org systems could be designed much better and contain more things. But main idea, they must be different technically.

 

P.S: Leader/Owner need to have opportunity to set limits.

 

____________

 

Visual automatic sorting is cool, but it does not change anything. Problem is deeper, IMO.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is no any difference between organisations (technical and visual), all this multi-org system is real mess.

 

I would say, there is much better to create types of organisations with different abilities and opportunities.

 

It can be Clan/Guild/Corparation (main direction for game), aliance, fan group, religion, business company and other.

So every type of organisation have limits and opportunities.

 

If this is business group, there could be some free opportunities by default, abilities to use other members stuff without risks and pay.

If this is religion, it can be just display in player info, or maybe members can have unique logo.

If that is clan, then all members can use equipment and infrastructure as their own (by default, and if not limited).

If that is aliance, very similar as clan, but need to be allowed to use other members equipment. Also defence systems friendly.

 

Ofc this is very basic samples, these org systems could be designed much better and contain more things. But main idea, they must be different technically.

 

P.S: Leader/Owner need to have opportunity to set limits.

 

____________

 

Visual automatic sorting is cool, but it does not change anything. Problem is deeper, IMO.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

 

If anything, I think this just makes things more limited and complicated. When the game launches there will be templates for all these types of organizations, but the nice thing is, RDMS frees us from conforming to any existing organization type. You can even come up with an entirely new form a government that's never been attempted before.

 

Adding a hierarchy of organizations just adds more freedom for org leaders. Nations and alliances are going to need this functionality sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my knowledge this will be possible in game and then we could more accurately represent larger organizations.

 

Completely right, "[...] organization are not only made of players, they can also be a collection of other organizations." as stated by Alexandre Moufarek in the Dual Universe crowfunding video.

 

If the feature will be available ingame, it should follow on the website as well at some point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they used something similar to a API system, wouldn't that upload and sync with a website that is pre determined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they used something similar to a API system, wouldn't that upload and sync with a website that is pre determined?

 

When you go to create an organisation the website warns you that all the organisations will end up in the game - I'd wager that they're going to use something like that down the line.

 

I would say, there is much better to create types of organisations with different abilities and opportunities.

 

Noooooo. The whole point in giving them the vague name of "organisation" (as opposed to company, guild, corporation or nation) is that they can be anything we want them to be. Want to be a mining company? Fine. A religious order that worships the idea of blasting out into the unknown to discover as much as possible? Fine. A group to set up monthly gatherings of the 3D mega-chess game you've created in secret in a building somewhere in Alioth's megacity? Fine. Creating abilities for organisations just limits their purposes and further shoehorns people into making them synonymous with "company" or "government".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is exactly what I wrote. This is a mess. Thousands of organizations, all in one category, all-in-one. Who is who? Where religions? Where alliances? Where political structures? Where fan clubs? MESS!

 

Or maybe you find fan club, join it because you like something. But in next day this fan club (some members) raid your base because they can use your data and spawn on your base freely. We can speak about RDMS, yeah, but if (! if !) that system will cover a lot, it will be extremely complicated, which mean many players will ignore it.

Yes, this could be accidently done or sabotaged (which is fine for gameplay). But then your defense just ignore targets, because they are "Fan Club" which is equal to alliance or clan. Simple example, there could be many different cases of abuse of the system.

 

More than 95% (yes, forum members are a very very very very small minority) of players won't read forums and deeply learn this system. For the majority, it always will be "Clans", not any forum fantasy structures.

Open lists of "Religions", "Political Structures", "Fan Clubs" and other will open doors for these majority because it will be easier to understand what is what. If I'm a new player and want to join to any political system, I can easy to find all open political systems and join them. Player friendly system.

 

Limited opportunities are way to reduce the amount of abuse (and this is very important for new players). Want to create political structure, you create it. You get all tools necessary for that activity. Sorry, but I find really silly if "Clan" has same opportunities as random "Fan Club" or "Religion" (like in the example above, especially since anyone can join these last groups). 

 

The whole system requires massive global control. 

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is exactly what I wrote. This is a mess. Thousands of organizations, all in one category, all-in-one. Who is who? Where religions? Where alliances? Where political structures? Where fan clubs? MESS!

 

Or maybe you find fan club, join it because you like something. But in next day this fan club (some members) raid your base because they can use your data and spawn on your base freely. We can speak about RDMS, yeah, but if (! if !) that system will cover a lot, it will be extremely complicated, which mean many players will ignore it.

Yes, this could be accidently done or sabotaged (which is fine for gameplay). But then your defense just ignore targets, because they are "Fan Club" which is equal to alliance or clan. Simple example, there could be many different cases of abuse of the system.

 

More than 95% (yes, forum members are a very very very very small minority) of players won't read forums and deeply learn this system. For the majority, it always will be "Clans", not any forum fantasy structures.

Open lists of "Religions", "Political Structures", "Fan Clubs" and other will open doors for these majority because it will be easier to understand what is what. If I'm a new player and want to join to any political system, I can easy to find all open political systems and join them. Player friendly system.

 

Limited opportunities are way to reduce the amount of abuse (and this is very important for new players). Want to create political structure, you create it. You get all tools necessary for that activity. Sorry, but I find really silly if "Clan" has same opportunities as random "Fan Club" or "Religion" (like in the example above, especially since anyone can join these last groups).

 

The whole system requires massive global control.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Well that's EXACTLY what the rdms system does: certain people get access to certain things within that org. You don't want the fan club of the alliance have critical data access? Don't give it to them.

 

Yes people are lazy and yes people will probably won't dig in deep in the rdms when it's too complicated. But that's THEIR fault, can't blame the system. If they want Tu run a successful org, alliance or whatever they HAVE to look into that rdms. That's part of running a big org or alliance. There will be predefined settings for the Edna you can choose if you just want to start quick.

 

I don't think such a distinction is something we need badly on the community website, though it would be nice to maintain some kind of order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's EXACTLY what the rdms system does: certain people get access to certain things within that org. You don't want the fan club of the alliance have critical data access? Don't give it to them.

 

Yes people are lazy and yes people will probably won't dig in deep in the rdms when it's too complicated. But that's THEIR fault, can't blame the system. If they want Tu run a successful org, alliance or whatever they HAVE to look into that rdms. That's part of running a big org or alliance. There will be predefined settings for the Edna you can choose if you just want to start quick.

 

I don't think such a distinction is something we need badly on the community website, though it would be nice to maintain some kind of order

If Devs will take position "their fault", project will fail with 100% guarantee. Clever players do not make massive income, I bet majority of active forumers will use DACs mostly. "Stupid" players (not learn a lot about games) make massive part of income. So Devs must care about these "Stupid" players more than about us, actually.

 

By the RDMS, I don't know how exactly it will work, but (example):

 

I have 3 own spawns modules, I want to make 1 open for half organizations, 1 for clan, 1 for everyone. So I need to set every module. This mean "RDMS" need to be learned by every single player (who join org), not just by "to run a successful org". 

 

And we come back to the beginning. If system overcomplicated, it will push players away from learning. As it won't be learned very well, it will be abused by others a lot. As soon players become abused, they leave the game. Players leave the game, project loses money. And this could be the way to a failure of the whole game. 

 

 

 

So what I see (as bad o even worst scenario). You can learn RDMS well and control a piece of land under your control. But you have not a lot to control within the organization. I mean, you can't control other players activities in org. You can't force somebody not to join 100500 organizations and very carefully check RDMS all the time. If you make a project with few players together (and we speak about random players), you always under risk from these players (how well they manage RDMS and their fan clubs).

 

I don't know how well RDMS will work, I don't know what will be with these abuses in the game, but I would like to discuss any possible problem (as for gameplay, as for game success) before it happens, than to run like "headless chicken" later (not to be ready to problem).

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Devs will take position "their fault", project will fail with 100% guarantee. Clever players do not make massive income, I bet majority of active forumers will use DACs mostly. "Stupid" players (not learn a lot about games) make massive part of income. So Devs must care about these "Stupid" players more than about us, actually.

 

By the RDMS, I don't know how exactly it will work, but (example):

 

I have 3 own spawns modules, I want to make 1 open for half organizations, 1 for clan, 1 for everyone. So I need to set every module. This mean "RDMS" need to be learned by every single player (who join org), not just by "to run a successful org".

 

And we come back to the beginning. If system overcomplicated, it will push players away from learning. As it won't be learned very well, it will be abused by others a lot. As soon players become abused, they leave the game. Players leave the game, project loses money. And this could be the way to a failure of the whole game.

 

 

 

So what I see (as bad o even worst scenario). You can learn RDMS well and control a piece of land under your control. But you have not a lot to control within the organization. I mean, you can't control other players activities in org. You can't force somebody not to join 100500 organizations and very carefully check RDMS all the time. If you make a project with few players together (and we speak about random players), you always under risk from these players (how well they manage RDMS and their fan clubs).

 

I don't know how well RDMS will work, I don't know what will be with these abuses in the game, but I would like to discuss any possible problem (as for gameplay, as for game success) before it happens, than to run like "headless chicken" later (not to be ready to problem).

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Hum, no. Everyone has to pay (=income for NQ), except the lifetime subs. It doesn't matter if someone uses DACs or pays, if there are 658000 players, NQ will get every month those 658000 * sub as income. Even more than that - DACs are more expensive.

 

No need to adress those special snowflakes. They can use a predefined org setup to get going fast. No need for the members to learn the rdms because they just can't open a door or a chest if they don't have the rights to do so.

 

You only set up rdms once, then you just give a new player the role you want. Just like in eve only better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the discussion got a bit off-track near the end there, but we at the Syndicate (being a collective alliance of many organizations) would of course support this function IF time allows for it. As with anything, the game is the top priority, and anything that may sidetrack development will have to take a backseat.

 

All I would really like to see is this feature implemented in-game at some point. I personally don't think the community site requires it, and although it would be nice to have, the time and effort it would take away from game development really isn't worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...