Jump to content

Coup d'etat


Levell

Recommended Posts

I sure hope so, we can't have mutiny without the ability to overthrow some seats of authority ;)

 

 

The authority of government (in my opinion although this may be different depending on where you live) should be determined by the will of the people, and if the people don't like their government anymore there's nothing really stopping them from disbanding from an org and fighting to take back the goods they lost by leaving. 

 

 

I don't think it will be possible (or very fair) to directly take over an organization without some metagaming involved (spying with lots of alts) however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question. I would think in a dictator like situation and the tags, no. Just have to recreate the org. But in a board of directors type scinerio yes.

 

 

Interesting concept I think would be cool to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could convert the ownership of anything owned by the previous org over to a new one, through whatever means available, with the person you want to mutiny against not being in said org. For a board of directors, you could have it so certain people have a tag and if a x/y majority vote to kick another one of them out, they do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old post I lost in a nutshell:

 

You can always essentially "unseat" someone and remove them from power in some fashion - if nothing else works you can take a majority in an organization and make it again. All "fed up" with "the person in power" then recreate it in another org and possibly take assets with them or something, or making them again.

 

What power is left if but a few or none remain?

 

Or you try to wage some kind of resistance war as rebels where you try to gain ground or force change with violence.

 

For you (closet-)rebels out there, random motivational scene:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it not be best to leave these kinds of things (ie. what kind of government structure an organisation or an alliance wants to have) to the organisations and alliances? Some may be more democratic, electing their leaders. Others may be a more anarchistic, be a full monarchy, or simply have a dictator like rule. Wouldn't it be better to have this kind of choice and options for people, rather than structuring an artificial system that says "this is how you manage your group".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Volkier said:

Would it not be best to leave these kinds of things (ie. what kind of government structure an organisation or an alliance wants to have) to the organisations and alliances? Some may be more democratic, electing their leaders. Others may be a more anarchistic, be a full monarchy, or simply have a dictator like rule. Wouldn't it be better to have this kind of choice and options for people, rather than structuring an artificial system that says "this is how you manage your group".

I don't think this was ever about a structuring system.  From everything we've seen, you will configure your org however you please. 

 

With RDMS, theres someone in control of the tags, for things like assets and whos in what position.  This thread is about the ability from those within the group to somehow sieze power of said group. Which means the RDMS tags.

Even stealing a ship will be pointless if RDMS tags can be configured remotely, or set in such a way access is dependent on some external factor, like membership in a corp. I could just revoke your access and leave you dead in the water. (Get the gun maw, I smell city slickers!) I can see the argument for having hackable RDMS tags in some manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DevisDevine said:

I don't think this was ever about a structuring system.  From everything we've seen, you will configure your org however you please. 

 

With RDMS, theres someone in control of the tags, for things like assets and whos in what position.  This thread is about the ability from those within the group to somehow sieze power of said group. Which means the RDMS tags.

Even stealing a ship will be pointless if RDMS tags can be configured remotely, or set in such a way access is dependent on some external factor, like membership in a corp. I could just revoke your access and leave you dead in the water. (Get the gun maw, I smell city slickers!) I can see the argument for having hackable RDMS tags in some manner. 

 

But wouldn't that be configurable from the ship - for that specific ship? Or any construct (ie. base / warehouse)? I mean it makes every sense that it will be the case, rather than some 'central command' somewhere. Not only is the idea of someone having full control over a tag of every single construct in a massive alliance an insane and outright near impossible concept to implement, but it just seems like a needlessly painful and difficult way of doing something, that creates the very problems you describe above. Obviously someone can mess around with your tags to prevent you from stealing any more constructs from your alliance - as an example - which would make sense of course (you've been found to be rebelling against your overlord, and your overlord decided to revoke your automatic access to their shit), but I don't think a system that will "automatically grant access of everything you build, to your entire corp / alliance" would make it into the game. You would likely have the ability to set the access of your constructs to specific friends, corp, alliance or w/e - and someone hijacking your ship would (or at least should) be able to change that in the ship's / base's console. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Volkier said:

 

But wouldn't that be configurable from the ship - for that specific ship? Or any construct (ie. base / warehouse)? I mean it makes every sense that it will be the case, rather than some 'central command' somewhere. Not only is the idea of someone having full control over a tag of every single construct in a massive alliance an insane and outright near impossible concept to implement, but it just seems like a needlessly painful and difficult way of doing something, that creates the very problems you describe above. Obviously someone can mess around with your tags to prevent you from stealing any more constructs from your alliance - as an example - which would make sense of course (you've been found to be rebelling against your overlord, and your overlord decided to revoke your automatic access to their shit), but I don't think a system that will "automatically grant access of everything you build, to your entire corp / alliance" would make it into the game. You would likely have the ability to set the access of your constructs to specific friends, corp, alliance or w/e - and someone hijacking your ship would (or at least should) be able to change that in the ship's / base's console. 

 

I didnt mean for it to sound like an automatic thing.  Stuff you build isn't what I was refering too, you have control over that RDMS tag system.  I meant alliance assets, ships donated to or built by the alliance. 

 

Since we dont have the RDMS system to play with we can be sure of the specific details. But I suspect the general way of doing it is you will be assigned an RDMS tag by your alliance. Maggot, Maggot with Potential, Fly, Irridiated Fly, Mutated Fly, Half-man/Half-fly, poor excuse for a man, etc.  Whatever, Just some sort of tier system. 

Then, on alliance assets you set access based on those tiers. So Maggots arent allowed in this area, but anyone thats a Fly or above can. And you have to be a poor excuse for a man or better to fly an alliance ship. 

So without those tags you loose access, and since those are alliance org tags, it makes sense they can be revoked, thus removing your access to the construct that required it. 

 

Now you could impliment limitations on how quickly those tag changes take effect, but that only solves you being stranded dead in the water.  Afterall, you stole that ship fair and square. I think looking into ways of implimenting RDMS hijacking adds depth to the gameplay. So instead of just blowing up thr Melinium Falcon, I steal it and use it to attack you and lead my rebelion. 

 

This flows up to the alliance as well.  For simplicity, lets say your alliance was like a dictatorship with 1 leader. 1 guy holds the power to do as he pleases, which would mean control of the RDMS tag system for assets. Well 95% of the people are sick of him and want a new leader.  IRL this is somewhat sime, they kill him, removing him from power, taking control of all assets he controlled. Now there may be a few loyalist who keep hold of some assets and resist, but the rebel leader has physical control over most assets, thus owns it.  

Now sure, were not just dealing with with a barrel or fuel or an AK-47. Ships have some intelligence in their software and can resist as well. But adding in a means to crack an RDMS tag is like allowing you a means to hack a gavernment server for data. And it brings RDMS from some external metagame feature that breaks immeraion to a fully intergrated feature in the universe.  

 

And that would let you have coups and overthrow Hitler or just dump all his tea in the harbor so the fishies can have some Earl Grey to live forever like the captian. 

 

 

I feel I missed something completly but its early and Ive rambled eneough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DevisDevine said:

 

I didnt mean for it to sound like an automatic thing.  Stuff you build isn't what I was refering too, you have control over that RDMS tag system.  I meant alliance assets, ships donated to or built by the alliance. 

 

Since we dont have the RDMS system to play with we can be sure of the specific details. But I suspect the general way of doing it is you will be assigned an RDMS tag by your alliance. Maggot, Maggot with Potential, Fly, Irridiated Fly, Mutated Fly, Half-man/Half-fly, poor excuse for a man, etc.  Whatever, Just some sort of tier system. 

Then, on alliance assets you set access based on those tiers. So Maggots arent allowed in this area, but anyone thats a Fly or above can. And you have to be a poor excuse for a man or better to fly an alliance ship. 

So without those tags you loose access, and since those are alliance org tags, it makes sense they can be revoked, thus removing your access to the construct that required it. 

 

Now you could impliment limitations on how quickly those tag changes take effect, but that only solves you being stranded dead in the water.  Afterall, you stole that ship fair and square. I think looking into ways of implimenting RDMS hijacking adds depth to the gameplay. So instead of just blowing up thr Melinium Falcon, I steal it and use it to attack you and lead my rebelion. 

 

This flows up to the alliance as well.  For simplicity, lets say your alliance was like a dictatorship with 1 leader. 1 guy holds the power to do as he pleases, which would mean control of the RDMS tag system for assets. Well 95% of the people are sick of him and want a new leader.  IRL this is somewhat sime, they kill him, removing him from power, taking control of all assets he controlled. Now there may be a few loyalist who keep hold of some assets and resist, but the rebel leader has physical control over most assets, thus owns it.  

Now sure, were not just dealing with with a barrel or fuel or an AK-47. Ships have some intelligence in their software and can resist as well. But adding in a means to crack an RDMS tag is like allowing you a means to hack a gavernment server for data. And it brings RDMS from some external metagame feature that breaks immeraion to a fully intergrated feature in the universe.  

 

And that would let you have coups and overthrow Hitler or just dump all his tea in the harbor so the fishies can have some Earl Grey to live forever like the captian. 

 

 

I feel I missed something completly but its early and Ive rambled eneough.

 

 

Ok, so what I was saying (or suggesting?) is that every construct would have it's own 'tag acceptance' setting so to speak. In other words, if you want to 'donate a ship / base' to an alliance, you set the construct to the "insert alliance tag of this rank here" as designated control of the said ship / base. If you were an officer in that alliance - as an example - and wanted to 'overthrow' them, you would go into that ship and edit that setting to "insert your corp / your player / number of players" as designated control of the said ship / base. Alliance removing your tag will no longer affect it. You've commandeered the construct with your group of rebels (or several constructs if several officers perform an organised mutiny and hijack a number of assets before anyone 'revokes their tags').

 

Now I do believe we are on the same page so far - so what you are talking about is basically those without enough "rank" to simply change the ownership systems in a ship. Which in my humble opinion is a GOOD thing. You could still actively 'steal' the alliance ship - albeit following the rules that anyone else in PvP areas would in order to achieve the same feat (ie. steal a ship or overtake a station). You would also have the advantage of already being "on the inside", but not having "commander codes", would need to actually work for it. And you'd likely need a whole load of people with lots of preparation and careful planning to pull it off - again, a GOOD thing. One "double agent" should still be able to cripple a ship - you know, plant charges, shut down modules etc. - but not single handedly "change ownership" of a structure without holding some form of rank over it. 

 

Now what that would involve, I don't know yet - but NQ did say that stealing constructs is part of gameplay that they will eventually like to see (to my knowledge at least - correct me if I'm wrong), and how they will implement it is something we'll have to wait and see. I'm guessing it would have something to do with the core of the ship, and/or other systems on board. Albeit, however they do implement it, I don't think there needs to be any additional system designed specifically for "insider alliance takeovers" - as the model for stealing ships would already exist, and "being on the inside", in my opinion, is already a solid enough advantage. Which is what I was trying to say I guess - and I have a habit of not making sense :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Any revolt against a tyrannical state/leader, other things being equal, is ipso facto a libertarian move. This is all the more true because even a revolution that fails … gives the people a training ground and a tradition of revolution that may later develop into a revolution more extensively and clearly founded on libertarian motives. If cherished in later tradition, a revolution will decrease the awe in which the constituted authority is held by the populace, and in that way will increase the chance of a later revolt against tyranny.

Link to comment
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...