Alliances / Non-Agression Pacts (NAP)

[Robert_Brightstar]

How are alliances/NAPs currently handled.  Is there an option for this.  Does one join an organization or is it just a verbal agreement or what? 

[Hotwingz]

How are alliances/NAPs currently handled. Is there an option for this. Does one join an organization or is it just a verbal agreement or what?

As far as I know these are verbal agreements. It seems unlikely that the game will enforce formal agreements. You can link up orgs though if I understand it correctly. The RDMS comes into play with those things.

 

You might make an alliance but the game wont prevent you from attacking people in said alliance. Outside the safezone it is FFA.

 

Perhaps there will be a declaration of war function, but I'm not sure what that would bring to the game.

[Aesras]

Right now its all assumption but I don't think there will be option for an alliance in game and it will be verbal only. But an incentive of maintaining a NAP between orgs might be the benefits one may reap from the alliance, whether it is access to markets, or better trading policies or use of other facilities there are many benefits one might have by being in a NAP with some other org if their goals align.

But Alliances are only there till they are worth it. We all know from EVE that alliances and friendships can be broken very fast.

[Villspor]

How are alliances/NAPs currently handled.  Is there an option for this.  Does one join an organization or is it just a verbal agreement or what? 

 

We have an Org for this kind of "Contracts" between Organisations: PROCON

If you like i can explain more details in a private conversation.

 

Cheers!

Villspor

[Vorengard]

I would imagine that one of the primary motivators in DU will be economic. That is to say that, since markets are all player run and controlled, if you are constantly attacking people you will lose the right to trade in their markets. For EVE players, imagine an entire organization being litteraly locked out of Jita. In DU, that's entirely possible, even likely.

 

Because of this, it would probably be in everyone's best interest to limit combat in most circumstances, or to certain cases only.

 

As a community, we should develop some codes of conduct for how people are expected to behave. This is really important given that 99% of the game will be a PvP zone. I really don't want DU to have a community like EVE, where the strong murder the weak with impunity constantly (speaking as one of those strong people's btw lol). In EVE you could escape that in many cases. In DU you won't be able to, and that could seriously hamper the game's growth.

[Lord_Void]

I would imagine that one of the primary motivators in DU will be economic. That is to say that, since markets are all player run and controlled, if you are constantly attacking people you will lose the right to trade in their markets. For EVE players, imagine an entire organization being litteraly locked out of Jita. In DU, that's entirely possible, even likely.

 

I'm not sure that this will really happen to that extent in game, for several reasons. It would probably be more like a group getting locked out of Dodixie, annoying but you can just go somewhere else. There may not even be a "Jita" of DU, since the game mechanics may promote a more sprawling market system, but if there were it would probably be run by a fairly neutral market group rather than a particular organization so they would be much less likely to lock anyone out than a sovereign nation org. Since the market owners live off of the market taxes they would want the most people trading there as possible. Secondly, even an org could not enter a market themselves, there would undoubtedly be shipping companies who could buy and sell on their behalf. 

 

 

 

Because of this, it would probably be in everyone's best interest to limit combat in most circumstances, or to certain cases only.

 

As a community, we should develop some codes of conduct for how people are expected to behave. This is really important given that 99% of the game will be a PvP zone. I really don't want DU to have a community like EVE, where the strong murder the weak with impunity constantly (speaking as one of those strong people's btw lol). In EVE you could escape that in many cases. In DU you won't be able to, and that could seriously hamper the game's growth.

 

Violence and destruction will probably be the driving force behind the economy, so it is best not to wish that away too much. 

 

There have been several initiatives to develop "community codes of conduct", but none of them have really gained momentum since they generally try to limit one form of gameplay or another and inevitably someone get's cast as the "bad guy". The meta will probably be less violent than EVE due to the size of space and the difficulty that combat entails in DU. Also, by not creating a High-sec, Low-sec, Null-sec distinction you won't get the congregation of certain types of people into certain areas.

[Lethys]

As a community, we should develop some codes of conduct for how people are expected to behave. This is really important given that 99% of the game will be a PvP zone. I really don't want DU to have a community like EVE, where the strong murder the weak with impunity constantly (speaking as one of those strong people's btw lol). In EVE you could escape that in many cases. In DU you won't be able to, and that could seriously hamper the game's growth.

So....who's gonna say what's good and bad? You? Who's gonna enforce it and punish players who don't follow that code? You? What would give you the right to do so?

 

Pathetic arguments imho. No one will make a general code for all players, many won't follow it (including me) and the most important point of it all: I definitely will play the game as I want to play it, not as you or some other random guy on the internet thinks it should be played.

 

Oh and btw: you CAN escape those situations in DU too, there will be memechanics for that (shields, timers, safe zones, ...)

[Cybrex]

Playing devils advocate here a bit.

 

There will be a community "Code of Conduct" it will just happen naturally and be unwritten as the games matures in to itself. I wouldn't waste any time typing or expressing said rules, as like I said, it will come about naturally. Specific rules that players want to abide by will come down from their own organizations (if they are apart of any). 

 

As far as NAPs go, for now I imagine it will be a simple verbal agreement, but I would like to see a contract system in DU where agreements can be made in game and signed by both parties. Both parties could then put up a collateral for the duration of the NAP, and if broken by either one before the contract has ran its course, said party loses whatever was put up as collateral. Simple, and binding.

[Hotwingz]

Personally I think the only place where some type of "code of conduct" belongs is on the forum.

 

Dont be a douche.

Shouldnt be more complicated than that.

[Lord_Void]

As far as NAPs go, for now I imagine it will be a simple verbal agreement, but I would like to see a contract system in DU where agreements can be made in game and signed by both parties. Both parties could then put up a collateral for the duration of the NAP, and if broken by either one before the contract has ran its course, said party loses whatever was put up as collateral. Simple, and binding.

 

 I really like that idea, and it should be pretty simple to implement too. The only problem would be that it might be difficult to balance the enforcement. For instance, if there is a NAP between two orgs, what counts as breaking it? If one member shoot a member of the other does that count? What if they both have hundreds or thousands of members? Could it not be that a spy infiltrated one to attack the other so as to trigger a breach of the treaty?

[Vorengard]

There may not even be a "Jita" of DU, since the game mechanics may promote a more sprawling market system, but if there were it would probably be run by a fairly neutral market group rather than a particular organization so they would be much less likely to lock anyone out than a sovereign nation org. Since the market owners live off of the market taxes they would want the most people trading there as possible. Secondly, even an org could not enter a market themselves, there would undoubtedly be shipping companies who could buy and sell on their behalf. 

 

 

Of course there will be a central trade hub at the Arkship, because it's the only place in the game where assets will be truly, irrevocably safe. I have no doubt that a single entity will attempt to gain a controlling interest in that space, and this will give them serous power. They don't even have to control most of the available area, they simply have to have the biggest market share.

 

Jita isn't Jita because it's special, it's Jita because of momentum. It's just harder to conduct business anywhere else, so people flock there, because convenience is king. Even more so in a video game. \

 

You are much more optimistic than I am. I never count on any group of people to be intrinsically good, least of all anyone in a video game. How many Chribbas are there in EVE? Exactly one, and everyone still banded together to kill all his stuff because reasons. No, trust the community to just work out well by itself is foolish. That's what CCP did, and it got us EVE, the most toxic community there is.... except maybe the people Rainbow 6 Siege lol

[Vorengard]

So....who's gonna say what's good and bad? You? Who's gonna enforce it and punish players who don't follow that code? You? What would give you the right to do so?

 

 

 

This is an absurd argument. Expectations do not require enforcement, I certainly wont be deciding who does what, and the idea that such an agreement ultimately limits freedom is baseless. I believe in creating a community that is enjoyable and doesn't ruin the game. This is critical in DU because there's huge potential for abuse and griefing, even worse so than EVE because the "safe zone" is so much more limited.

 

Or you can just abuse everyone all the time, as you clearly intend to do, and we can have another toxic mess of a community that ultimately kills the game like what's happening to EVE right now. Your choice.

 

 

 I definitely will play the game as I want to play it, not as you or some other random guy on the internet thinks it should be played.

 

 

The idea that "playing how you like to play" necessitates being a total dick to everyone is the reason EVE is a toxic wasteland. It's the reason the Rainbow 6 Siege community literally causes cancer. You can sit on your high horse of arrogance and selfishness, but in the end that kind of attitude will destroy the community, and by extension the game. "Not being a total dick" isn't a restriction of your freedom, and plot twist, MMOs need good communities to survive. This is what I'm looking for. 

[Vorengard]

Personally I think the only place where some type of "code of conduct" belongs is on the forum.

 

Dont be a douche.

Shouldnt be more complicated than that.

 

Who decides what it means to be a douche though? You? How do I know what you're standards are of you don't express them? That's what I'm asking about: What would most people consider to be unacceptable, and what is no big deal.

 

DU is going to require vastly more cooperation and community cohesion that any game before to be truly successful, and that requires some basic understanding of what constitutes abuse, and what's just me killing people because pretty splosions.

[Cybrex]

Lol, for you telling someone to get off their high horse, you sure are on a pretty tall one yourself. 

 

I'll play the game how I want to because it's a game. If that offends you, then I guess i'm just doing what makes me happy. 

[Warden]

I wouldn't assume the end of the world and a "toxic (and then) dying community" - you can't 'control' everyone nor press them into or through some unwritten code of conduct.

 

"Nature" itself will handle most things, or rather a complex system of action and reaction, cause and effect. With safe zones and whatnot there will already be relatively or very safe areas dotted around the galaxy or universe. In the end, a certain risk in not controlled or policed areas is part of it. My point is not everyone can be 'toxic' everywhere, thus I consider it to be fine.

 

In short my current recap would be: You have some points and perhaps some things should be looked at, but on the other hand there is no need to become that "The apocalypse is nigh!" guy with the sign on the street yet.

[Hotwingz]

Who decides what it means to be a douche though? You?

This is exactly why I said what I said.

Nobody has the divine morality to judge other people. Even the idea of wanting a code of conduct is assuming that you have superior judgement on acceptable behaviour. It is born out of a desire to limit and control behaviour you dont like. Unknowingly you want to be judge and jury on acceptable behaviour.

 

Me, I dont have any desire for that.

I dont want to see a carbon coby of EVE either but instead of asking for a CoC, I just treat other people with respect and hopefully by the time the game launches, we as a communuty have established a culture that is nice to newcomers.

 

Edit: just to be clear, that doesnt mean I endorse what is generally called griefing.

[Lethys]

Of course there will be a central trade hub at the Arkship, because it's the only place in the game where assets will be truly, irrevocably safe. I have no doubt that a single entity will attempt to gain a controlling interest in that space, and this will give them serous power. They don't even have to control most of the available area, they simply have to have the biggest market share.

 

Jita isn't Jita because it's special, it's Jita because of momentum. It's just harder to conduct business anywhere else, so people flock there, because convenience is king. Even more so in a video game. \

 

You are much more optimistic than I am. I never count on any group of people to be intrinsically good, least of all anyone in a video game. How many Chribbas are there in EVE? Exactly one, and everyone still banded together to kill all his stuff because reasons. No, trust the community to just work out well by itself is foolish. That's what CCP did, and it got us EVE, the most toxic community there is.... except maybe the people Rainbow 6 Siege lol

 

As the game evolves, there will be more than one safe zone. PLUS there will be big entities with space stations and ground bases with shields who will defend that shield and protect the users there.

 

This is an absurd argument. Expectations do not require enforcement, I certainly wont be deciding who does what, and the idea that such an agreement ultimately limits freedom is baseless. I believe in creating a community that is enjoyable and doesn't ruin the game. This is critical in DU because there's huge potential for abuse and griefing, even worse so than EVE because the "safe zone" is so much more limited.

 

Or you can just abuse everyone all the time, as you clearly intend to do, and we can have another toxic mess of a community that ultimately kills the game like what's happening to EVE right now. Your choice.

 

 

 

The idea that "playing how you like to play" necessitates being a total dick to everyone is the reason EVE is a toxic wasteland. It's the reason the Rainbow 6 Siege community literally causes cancer. You can sit on your high horse of arrogance and selfishness, but in the end that kind of attitude will destroy the community, and by extension the game. "Not being a total dick" isn't a restriction of your freedom, and plot twist, MMOs need good communities to survive. This is what I'm looking for. 

 

I just quote you there "Who decides what it means to be a douche though? You?" So using the same arguments, do we?

Only because I kill people and like pvp doesn't mean that this is "being a dick". You don't understand this playstyle - fine. just accept, that people like good fights and like to kill others. It all boils down to what is allowed by NQ and what isn't. 

 

So THEY get to decide what's bad and THOSE RULES are the only ones I will respect. If you want to have community rules, feel free to post them and enforce them. If you're strong enough (military wise) you can do it. But that involves killing others....

 

And besides: What cybrex said: some basic rules will be followed (even by me. sometimes at least). But no player can force another player to do as he likes. period

[Hotwingz]

the reason EVE is a toxic wasteland. It's the reason the Rainbow 6 Siege community literally causes cancer.

Comme on man.

You say you care about other people but you call an entire community toxic. And the rainbow 6 line...seriously?

 

Did you actually read that before posting?

Thats a real word with real life implications. My dad would have had something to respond on that statement and statistically other people in this community as well.

 

If you care about other people, avoiding such language would be a good first step.

[Robert_Brightstar]

Back to the topic of Alliances/NAP agreements.  I like the idea of setting up a contract agreement where terms can be clearly laid out as to what is acceptable and what constitutes breaking the agreement.  So many questions....I can't wait for Alpha to start so some of these questions can be hashed out already.

[Villspor]

Back to the topic of Alliances/NAP agreements.  I like the idea of setting up a contract agreement where terms can be clearly laid out as to what is acceptable and what constitutes breaking the agreement.  So many questions....I can't wait for Alpha to start so some of these questions can be hashed out already.

 

 

I like this Idea and as I mentioned above, we have an org for such kind of agreements, maybe we can create a draft together? Would be great

[Father]

Also, a lot of the political intrigue between orgs (that makes everything so much more exciting) would disappear if binding, non-player made agreements were a thing.

[Vorengard]

Back to the topic of Alliances/NAP agreements.  I like the idea of setting up a contract agreement where terms can be clearly laid out as to what is acceptable and what constitutes breaking the agreement.  So many questions....I can't wait for Alpha to start so some of these questions can be hashed out already.

 

How dare you try and set down expectations for behavior! You don't get to make those decisions, you GAME NAZI!

 

Ok, all kidding aside (sorry I just couldn't resist), I like this idea. It's precisely what I was trying to get at in my own post. But apparently that's just not ok for some people.

 

A community standard for what an NAP means would make that sort of negotiation so much easier, so we don't have to basically draw up legal documents every time we do diplomacy with another organization. EVE benefits a lot from this because I can go to another alliance and as for a Structure NAP and they'll know what I'm talking about right away, whereas you can propose something similar in other games and people get all confused. 

[Lethys]

How dare you try and set down expectations for behavior! You don't get to make those decisions, you GAME NAZI!

 

Ok, all kidding aside (sorry I just couldn't resist), I like this idea. It's precisely what I was trying to get at in my own post. But apparently that's just not ok for some people.

 

A community standard for what an NAP means would make that sort of negotiation so much easier, so we don't have to basically draw up legal documents every time we do diplomacy with another organization. EVE benefits a lot from this because I can go to another alliance and as for a Structure NAP and they'll know what I'm talking about right away, whereas you can propose something similar in other games and people get all confused. 

 

No, you wanted a COMMUNITY LAW, made by players, enforced by players (which you'd have to, because pirates).

 

What Robert said is exactly what EVE does with its contract system: set it up, define collateral, define rules and so on. So THAT is ok because it's game mechanics - not some random players choice