Jump to content
The Immortal Ranger

Neutrality Signs?

Recommended Posts

So this is an idea based on WWI-WWII Hospital Ships. Most people wouldn't fire on them due to the red cross on the side. So this is my Idea:

 

Should there be somewhat of an established neutrality sign to put on the side of a ship to say it isn't part of any side in a current conflict?

 

Ex: Two major powers are fighting over some planets with a lot of rare materials in the same solar system. The solar system is also directly in the middle of a major trading route, and merchant ships are being fired on continuously due to both sides thinking they where part of the other. So here is a solution: A trading ship could put a symbol on the side to show it is not part of either side and to not fire. 

 

This is just an idea, but I would love to see what the community thinks. 

 

Much Love, Immortal

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could work If enough ppl follow such.... rule/behavior.

 

Then again others will abuse it to ambush ppl and we may end with ppl shooting such ships nonetheless because it would be too dangerous not to. 

 

My guess is that it won't work because of abuses, but I may be wrong ofc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try but just like real life, some group will put the symbol on military resupply ships etc. 

 

It would be nice but I doubt it would work. We have a similar issue with people who want to document wars without getting shot at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be at all efficient there would need to be a greater power to enforce it / punish those who shoot at neutral ship or pretend to be neutral ship. Big organization's might agree on such rules in some areas, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Falstaf said:

We have a similar issue with people who want to document wars without getting shot at. 

Good point. 

Though it's slightly different because those would be always the same ppl, but such a neutral sign could be used by anyone. Thus making it way more dangerous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lethys said:

Thus making it way more dangerous

True, its different because we can assume the press being consistently the same people/ships.

I agree I think such a sign would potentially be a lot more dangerous.

 

If I was a warlord I would blow up them convoys. 

Why take the chance? Why let traders pass with goods to a planet and potentially weaken my position of power in the conflict? There are many good reasons to respect a "red cross" but there are just as many good reasons not to respect it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kuritho said:

I have an idea:

Make the symbol the most extreme colours (255,0,0 ; 0,255,0 ; 0,0,255) in a triangular formation, with the tips being coloured like so.

That will make targeting their ships nice and easy. Thx  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a potential issue with execution of the idea.

 

It is painting symbols. On ships. We do not seem to talk about livery or or color pattern but something even less visible on a ship. We are not talking about more slow paced warfare on the ground where the target may be in good visual range.

We talk about space where engaging or spotting distance may be vastly higher with space often being the background.

 

In addition to the potential ineffectiveness comes aforementioned abuse, potentially, and people (some) being wary of this.

 

So what might make vastly more sense or be more effective in more encounters without or in addition to a fitting symbol?

 

The right ID tags or group affiliations you can or may see or scan for later on. Perhaps without the need for visual confirmation.

 

So what do you think about that? Easier to verify and spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably its better to organize Neutrals in Organizations like the https://community.dualthegame.com/organization/inter-neutral-assembly  And try to negotiate Non-aggression terms with the parties at war. For Tranquility I am already negotiating non-aggression treaties and what i noticed is that there is always a mutual reason that can bring you together and form such a treaty. Just need to have something to offer as neutral. But on the other hand, if you don't have anything at all to offer as organization, what is the purpose of the organization anyway?

 

Anyway, if anyone is interested in non-aggresion or other treaties with Tranquility just give me a poke on discord.

 

Greetz AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know if it will be possible to have symbols on ships, NQ have said they'd like to implement "painting" of voxels, but there's no ETA on that (source is January 2018 AMA).

 

The possibility of deception is huge, however. If you're in visual range of another ship, you're probably within weapons range. Attack decisions will probably be made long before that.

 

We don't know how scanning will work, or at what range ships will show up on your scanners and/or minimap.

We don't know if the game will identify ships for us, by displaying "name tags" above ships.

We don't know if it will be possible to "spoof" ship transponder tags so that you can "look like someone else" on a radar screen.

 

Neutral ships may be recognized by certain orgs, but not by others, so YMMV. I doubt anyone will trust a neutral if it's armed, and if it isn't, pirates and bandits will love the heads-up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest the only reason people don't just fire on red cross ships is it's 'not cool'. It just makes your country look bad.

 

If someone did make a red cross type org then the same would apply. Anyone who has an inkling of consideration for their reputation wouldn't shoot it or pretend to be it. It's a war crime. Only the scummiest of scum would try something like that.

 

And if scummy scum want to impersonate neutral fleets then so be it. It's a good strategy, albeit dirty. Plus it's a challenge for players to use their reasoning skills.

 

I don't think anything needs to be added here. Just get everyone together and say: "hey guys I'm making neutral org X don't shoot me plox we have voxels as shown in image Y on our hull "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Veld said:

To be honest the only reason people don't just fire on red cross ships is it's 'not cool'. It just makes your country look bad.

 

If someone did make a red cross type org then the same would apply. Anyone who has an inkling of consideration for their reputation wouldn't shoot it or pretend to be it. It's a war crime. Only the scummiest of scum would try something like that.

and that only applies because the red cross is a service which saves live no matter from which nationality, you might have a hope of being respected as neutral organization if you perform a similar service, but i doubt that this will be possible in DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, vylqun said:

and that only applies because the red cross is a service which saves live no matter from which nationality

It's true that firing at the red cross is a rather extreme example of scumbaggery. But acts of aggression to pretty much any organisation or nation that openly declares themselves as neutral is still technically scumbaggery.

 

The question is can you get away with it or not: risk or reward. Pretty much everyone (apart from themselves) thought the communist Chinese were dodgy af. Thing is they had enough power to get away with annexing Tibet and they knew everyone hated them already. But still as a powerful nation they had to have the justification of Tibet being 'muh territory'.

 

America couldn't get away with something like that because they're too 'muh freedom'. They need subtle justifications to attack people like pearl harbor, those damn commies, 911 or those damn middle eastern dictators.

 

Same can be said for DU. Your org has its own 'muh <insert reason to screw each other over here>'. Or maybe it doesn't. Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NanoDot said:

We don't know if it will be possible to have symbols on ships, NQ have said they'd like to implement "painting" of voxels, but there's no ETA on that (source is January 2018 AMA).

 

 

You can 'paint' by using different colored materials. Its not a perfect solution but it is one way to achieve a result :)

(and no Im not breaking any NDA, you can see people doing that in several of the released building vids.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Veld said:

It's true that firing at the red cross is a rather extreme example of scumbaggery. But acts of aggression to pretty much any organisation or nation that openly declares themselves as neutral is still technically scumbaggery.

 

The question is can you get away with it or not: risk or reward. Pretty much everyone (apart from themselves) thought the communist Chinese were dodgy af. Thing is they had enough power to get away with annexing Tibet and they knew everyone hated them already. But still as a powerful nation they had to have the justification of Tibet being 'muh territory'.

 

America couldn't get away with something like that because they're too 'muh freedom'. They need subtle justifications to attack people like pearl harbor, those damn commies, 911 or those damn middle eastern dictators.

 

Same can be said for DU. Your org has its own 'muh <insert reason to screw each other over here>'. Or maybe it doesn't. Who knows.

You're brave to talk like that. I take my hat off to that honesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alsan Teamaro said:

You're brave to talk like that. I take my hat off to that honesty.

It's the internet. I have nothing to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Veld said:

It's the internet. I have nothing to lose.

Even so, because the most comfortable and rested would be the politically correct speech. So thanks, for a little more of fresh air. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alsan Teamaro said:

Even so, because the most comfortable and rested would be the politically correct speech. So thanks, for a little more of fresh air. 

"Politically Correct"..... stupidest modern phrase ever.... its either correct or it isn't - politics tends to make things incorrect by default.... food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this Idea, I would love to see stuff like Hospital ships, Deep Space Refueling vessels, General Rescue, etc..... But it would be difficult for many reasons,  which have already been mentioned. But, still could be possible. I believe that usually this type of thing is agreed upon, and enforced by the UN, in the form of war crimes, in the real world.

 

Here is my idea on one way this could be done in DU:

 

1.) First the solo Player and/or Org would have to register their single ship with all Orgs they want to safely provide services too. Registration should include at the very least.... The Pilot's name, Registration number of that specific ship, a picture of that specific ship, a list of that ship Weapons load-out, and the function or purpose of the ship. This would be a good starting point to identify ships and their pilots, and build a database.

 

2.) The Pilot should also have to follow strict universal protocols when encountering participating Orgs. For example, if a neutral ship is approached by a participating Org, they have to always identify themselves with name and registration number when asked, NO EXCEPTIONS. Also, their symbol and Registration Number must be clearly visible on the outside of the ship. If the pilots info does not match-up, then they must turn around immediately or be fired upon.

 

3.) Orgs should have very strict enforcement for anyone who abuses this privilege. Until the Player/Org resolves the matter, Orgs should refuse to do business and/or stop working on projects with them , exclude them from selling on markets in Org territories, expelled them from playing in any DICE type games/ tournaments, exclude them from any Org events/Expo's, or in an extreme case Orgs attack that Org/Player until they get the message. Those are just examples, but you get the idea.

 

I think this would be a good starting point, but I would recommend keeping things simple, no need to over complicate it. That would probably create other problems. I know no system is perfect, but if enforced by Org's, and discouraging abusers with very harsh punishments, would be enough to deter all but the most persistent of meatheads. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume many organizations / players would not really bother utilizing or always checking some database for specific details - when it perhaps could be easier.

 

As for consequences (3.) I kind of agree.

 

I think it boils down to this: Can they get away with it? Multiple times?

 

Broken down it could boil down to "risk vs reward". If no one enforces anything, many would stop caring about your neutral affiliations. Some people respect groups for their ideas by default or automatically, others would perhaps only refrain engaging if they have to fear retribution or problems of any kind.

 

E.g. some respect the group's ideas and do not mind or interfere, others would need fear to not engage or interfere.

 

----------------------------------------

 

In today's world, it is somewhat easier with international pacts, agreements and supra-national entities going beyond individual nations. But this does not exist in DU so far - it may perhaps do so on paper in the lore (UMF, etc) but in the end, players need to force consequences and no "paper entity in the lore" can do this if no player backs it up, assuming humanoid NPCs will still not be a thing way later.

 

Perhaps we may never see something akin to the "UN" in DU filled by players, but I can very much imagine general expectations or pacts or agreements between big and / or known organizations who slowly shape regulations, laws and expectations in many areas of space. And if you engage certain neutral people, ships or projects you may indeed have to expect the wrath of many people in many areas. I think that will end up being a notable deterrent for random acts of violence or unneeded destruction targeting said "neutral group".

 

Time will tell.

 

But in the end, just wagging the finger and saying "But, but, you can't do that, we're neutral / the Alioth Red Cross / the press!" will not be enough at one point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see any role for "neutral" orgs in DU.

 

The most often cited example in this thread is the "Red Cross", but they would have no purpose in DU, because DU has no need for field hospitals, refugee support or care of prisoners, etc. In MMO's, all players can heal themselves with medpacks, so there's no need to provide "doctors" and specialised medical care to a civilian population that lacks those skills.

 

There's no distinction in MMO's between military and civilian targets, there's only "the enemy". When orgs go to war, all members of the opposing group are targets, because they're all directly involved in fighting or supporting the fighters. The opposing org is the equivalent of an army, all members are seen as military personnel.

 

No org in DU is going to allow a 3rd party to heal their enemy or provide rez nodes, etc. Anyone trying that will be attacked without mercy, because it's not a "neutral" action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also not mentioned yet is that historically spies also hid and did their work within nuetral covoys....  so that's another reason why neutral convoys could come under attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But are you then not attacking a third party just because "It's not us"? Now this would severely depend on who or what party the "neutral convoy" would be, but at the same time it could be an unaffiliated party in the conflict ("neutral") and you'd just open up another keg of powder or front. The point is you don't necessarily have to mind people passing by. If they involve themselves, the situation can change of course.

 

And truth be told, the red cross example may not make sense in DU. But there's maybe a better or more fitting one.

 

pressvest.jpg

The press

 

 

There's news organizations. Let's shift away from red cross and perhaps argue with "the press" as it would be more relevant to gameplay. Granted, I have no clue how this would or should be treated, it would severely depend on all involved actors and the situation. I can see factions get pissed if people literally shove themselves into conflicts or areas trying to use "I'm with the press / news org" as "free pass" to get anywhere or up close to certain fights and whatnot. And not everyone would acknowledge every news outfit or grant them certain rights, I think.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...