Jump to content
The Immortal Ranger

Neutrality Signs?

Recommended Posts

@Warden
Good points
I wouldn't rely on a database. I would suggest that pilots providing neutral services put all their info publicly, the Forums, Twitter, Discord, introduce yourself to Org channels. Pilots should also advertise themselves and there services in the actually game as well, where ever possible. That way anybody can easily look them you. If Org's want to make a database, that would be handle internally. But, the neutral pilot would be able to be identified regardless. Hey, I just thought of another thing, maybe even add contact info as well, so the pilot can be reached directly if need be.

 

I also, wouldn't rely on UN type alliances, they are too unstable. That's why I suggested that the pilot should register on a Org by Org bases, with all the people and or Orgs they choose to provide services too. If any Org or player doesn't want them, then the pilot knows to avoid that group at their own risk, and can depend on protection from Orgs they do associate with.

 

your right that some players will have a kill on sight attitude toward everything no matter what. That's a risk no matter what you do, or how you choose to play DU. But, that is there loss for rejecting potential friends and allies, and making themselves an antagonist in the game.

 

 

 

@NanoDot
Well, what happens when you're in a situation where you're low, or ran out of Medpacks? Do you spend hours traveling to a market in friendly Org territory to get more, or just travel 5 minutes to that Medical ship thats right in front of you?

 

In the context of DU, medical ships can do more then be a supply line for medpacks. You forget about Resurrection nodes? JC mentioned in a video that you can set permissions on Resurrection nodes similar to other elements in the game. So imagine a medical Ship that provides a place for players in deep space to go, if another Resurrection Node is unavailable. I've consider making a medical frigate that travels in deep space.

 

This isn't a hardcore military campaign orientated game. from what I've observed, most Orgs are Gaming Guilds, peaceful Nations, or for profit Corporations. So I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of Orgs that will welcome services from neutral pilots/groups even in wartime. It might even give an advantage to those Org to have that extra supply line of help.

 


 @CoreVamore

True, but spies can be anything soldiers, merchants, miners, builders, etc.... so that's kind of a moot point. Do you think people will attack all merchants because a merchant can be spy?

 

 

 

Providing Neutral services is definitely risky business, but I do believe it can be a fun and viable type of gameplay. I encourage players to just "DU It", if its really something they want to do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can not mimic reality because DU is a very different kind of world : nobody really dies, nobody really suffers. There's no moral conflict, no limit to what a player can consider as fun.

 

He shoots at a medical facility ? Well, there's no dying people nor children inside, just voxel exploding in the void.

 

So neutrality won't be respected in the game every time an organisation thinks this is a fun thing to shoot at neutral people. Neutrality will only be respected if they have funnier thing to do elsewhere.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, supermega said:

True, but spies can be anything soldiers, merchants, miners, builders, etc.... so that's kind of a moot point. Do you think people will attack all merchants because a merchant can be spy?

Its not a moot point at all, its another reason why a neutral entity could come under attack. And yes I've seen merchants attacked as they were spies lol - still doesn't invalidate my point however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point :)  I also think neutrality will be respected if the stackes of attacking are greater then the gains for leaving the neutral unharmed.  I think the best sign you can have is one that says killing me wont bring you good, visiting/trading/contacting me will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:

Good point :)  I also think neutrality will be respected if the stackes of attacking are greater then the gains for leaving the neutral unharmed.  I think the best sign you can have is one that says killing me wont bring you good, visiting/trading/contacting me will

Yeah, just making them understand that harming neutrals is like having "Abby Normal" inside the head, because of the predictable consequences.

 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24-5-2018 at 3:47 PM, Immortal Prospect said:

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

 

Sure. But keep in mind there's never any magic guarantees. In life itself the Red Cross and its alternate services get shot at, get kidnapped, get ransomed and so forth. 

 

A sandbox is what people make of it. Personal perspective, if on a battlefield I were to encounter someone who puts up a flag of neutrality I'd include him in the target list by default. There's just too much meta and tactics possible to warrant the risk. Plus, there's also the part of storytelling. 

 

Even if an organisation would be party to some type of accord, conditions of war, combat and other types of conflict would quite simply go over any such stipulations. Just common sense. 

Share this post


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

Personal perspective, if on a battlefield I were to encounter someone who puts up a flag of neutrality I'd include him in the target list by default. There's just too much meta and tactics possible to warrant the risk.

 

I've seen the underlying argument a few times here so far, if my memory doesn't fool me right now. And of course I must admit that:
 

1) the abstract risk is there and that

2) it all heavily depends on the situation, all involved actors, the circumstances, etc

 

But at the same time I can imagine situations where there's absolutely little to no threat involved just having a "third (neutral) party" drive by or be in the area temporarily to do whatever they do.

 

My point or appeal is that you later on may not have to automatically shoot anyone else not on your side (a third party) due to potential risks. There isn't always a real threat in any encounter or situation. Say you have someone wave their neutral or white flag. They are at a distance, not running over to you. What threat or risk is there? Them working for some hostile side and telling them how many you are? They're further away and perhaps do not move closer to you, but keep distance themselves. By that point they see what they can see. If you engage them it won't change much or perhaps they see more of you, making it "worse", potentially. By the time you both acknowledge each other, they could already transmit said information or just your general presence is my point.

 

Again, it all depends on the situation and all that jazz in the end, no doubt, but my key point is you don't have to always shoot anything not on your side and supposedly neutral in some conflict or area, just passing by or minding their own business. Chances are they are indeed neutral or do not want to get involved in combat.

 

You can of course also engage (yes, I know, depends on who, when, situation, etc :) ) any third or neutral party because they can be a potential risk or threat, but that will likely not net you any flowers in the long run.

 

I would never underestimate public perception or reputation, assuming you do care about it at least a bit on the larger scale. I have seen countless examples where very reckless factions raided or engaged or tortured anyone and their mothers in games and that brought people against them in alliances, pacts, coalitions, etc.

 

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

 

But it's quite fascinating, isn't it?

 

Think about it. Any decision or action you take or do not take can have lasting effects. I think that is causality in a nutshell. Will engaging that third party in a situation be helpful? Are they spies? Could engaging them prevent them from relaying more information, assuming you can destroy them locally?

 

What if it is a bad move and you pissed off the wrong people, leading to a huge decline in public opinion and new enemies? What if those ripples and decisions lead to, in a worst case, complete destruction of your organization (dissolved)? Or what if you did the "right thing" and guaranteed operational security at least for that particular operation or battle?

 

What if either decision (ignore or engage) doesn't lead to any notable result or change in the big picture?

Share this post


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

What if it is a bad move and you pissed off the wrong people, leading to a huge decline in public opinion and new enemies?

Of course, some players strive to reach that goal ! ;)

 

There's always those that want to be known as the "biggest badass" group on the server, who'll try to become the most "feared and hated", because surviving under those conditions is seen as the greatest achievement of skill in the game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warden said:

 

I've seen the underlying argument a few times here so far, if my memory doesn't fool me right now. And of course I must admit that:
 

1) the abstract risk is there and that

2) it all heavily depends on the situation, all involved actors, the circumstances, etc

 

But at the same time I can imagine situations where there's absolutely little to no threat involved just having a "third (neutral) party" drive by or be in the area temporarily to do whatever they do.

 

My point or appeal is that you later on may not have to automatically shoot anyone else not on your side (a third party) due to potential risks. There isn't always a real threat in any encounter or situation. Say you have someone wave their neutral or white flag. They are at a distance, not running over to you. What threat or risk is there? Them working for some hostile side and telling them how many you are? They're further away and perhaps do not move closer to you, but keep distance themselves. By that point they see what they can see. If you engage them it won't change much or perhaps they see more of you, making it "worse", potentially. By the time you both acknowledge each other, they could already transmit said information or just your general presence is my point.

 

Again, it all depends on the situation and all that jazz in the end, no doubt, but my key point is you don't have to always shoot anything not on your side and supposedly neutral in some conflict or area, just passing by or minding their own business. Chances are they are indeed neutral or do not want to get involved in combat.

 

You can of course also engage (yes, I know, depends on who, when, situation, etc :) ) any third or neutral party because they can be a potential risk or threat, but that will likely not net you any flowers in the long run.

 

I would never underestimate public perception or reputation, assuming you do care about it at least a bit on the larger scale. I have seen countless examples where very reckless factions raided or engaged or tortured anyone and their mothers in games and that brought people against them in alliances, pacts, coalitions, etc.

 

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

 

But it's quite fascinating, isn't it?

 

Think about it. Any decision or action you take or do not take can have lasting effects. I think that is causality in a nutshell. Will engaging that third party in a situation be helpful? Are they spies? Could engaging them prevent them from relaying more information, assuming you can destroy them locally?

 

What if it is a bad move and you pissed off the wrong people, leading to a huge decline in public opinion and new enemies? What if those ripples and decisions lead to, in a worst case, complete destruction of your organization (dissolved)? Or what if you did the "right thing" and guaranteed operational security at least for that particular operation or battle?

 

What if either decision (ignore or engage) doesn't lead to any notable result or change in the big picture?

It makes for meaningful choices and storytelling. Which is exactly what makes the sandbox work and grow. Choices, actions, consequences. We all take part in exactly this. 

 

But it also because of these reasons that no sandbox should ever have arbitrary mechanical concepts that "pause" or "limit" it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

Well i could imagine that an attack on a neutral will likely be retaliated by a lets say mercenary organization for the right price.

Which might then be wiped out by the same group that attacked the neutral in the first place ;)

 

Ahhhh the fun of a sandbox :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this was an interesting read and I'm sorry I didn't inject myself earlier when the conversation was more active.

 

As the founder of what I can only presume is DU's first rescue focused service organization (Eyes and Ears), I've been debating this internally myself. 

 

I hope to keep things simple. Our main focus is on people who are stranded from all semblance of civilization and are unable to continue, maybe they're out of fuel, crashed into a rock and destroyed their engines, or some other multitude of problems that can occur in the great void. Whatever the reason, they are stuck and respawning is just not a desirable form of recourse. They call us, we find them, and bring them home, and that is my purpose in a nutshell.

 

In situations where two sides are engaged, I have always thought it best to stand back from the situation and wait until both sides disengage before doing anything. This would be fine if it were just man on man engagements, but with multiple players and multiple constructs, my purpose seems less relevant.

 

A group of people can be far more resourceful if they put their heads and resources together than just a single person and whatever they happen to have brought along with them. I've found that in the real world, you can have all the resources of survival around you, but if you're not smart enough to know how to use them then it wouldn't matter how big your group is.

 

These groups of combatants most likely have organizations behind them that know of the situation and are ready to deal with it, thus nullifying the necessity to present ourselves on a large battlefield.

 

I would hope our neutrality and purpose would act as a better shield against those who would think it fit to stymie our progress, but as many have said before when another human is involved, you just won't truly know the outcome until the first shot is fired, or you return home safely.

 

This uncertainty, of course, would provide a great reason to hire an armed escort. In the best of times, I would hope to never have to invest in weapons to protect my crews and assets, although it might prove foolish to do so. At most I would only hope to need light weaponry to discourage any lone pirate or petty thief while leaving the more hefty weapons to my escorts, but of course, pirates never travel alone.

 

As far as retaliation would ever go, the worst result would simply wouldn't render our services to an aggressor (and/or their org) and possibly any associates. If those associates of that person/organization just so happen to utilize our services, we might hope that they could turn the screws to pressure the aggressor to make reparations, but that would be all a shot in the dark.

 

 

With the alliances I hope to make with my organization around an effective mass of suppliers, crafters, coders, haulers, and various other purpose-built organizations to act as a mini-coalition of sorts to further dissuade any harmful or destructive interaction. With my plans to spread all throughout the universe as the community expands the game world, I'd most likely end up with multiple organizations that serve the same purpose, but just happen to work in different parts of the universe.  As someone best put it earlier, don't attack us since you might find great use out of our service, or do attack and be locked out of many other services and shunned the community.

 

Indeed, a real balancing act. I hope there's a safety net.

 

I'd also like to add, if you want to get in touch with me regarding my organization, you can PM me here, or find me in the unofficial community discord @DarkHorizon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a sandbox. It is what you make of it. It's like a pressure vat filled with behavioural and social psychology soup. 

 

So while I encourage the effort, bear in mind that there will be people who will use that flag for nefarious purposes, who will ransom it, kill it :) 

 

What drives the sandbox is creating and sharing stories, experiences, perspectives. It's the balancing act in all aspects which does exactly that, people's choices matter tremendously. 

 

So, kudos, all the best. Fly happy, but be wary :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, virtuozzo said:

It is a sandbox. It is what you make of it. It's like a pressure vat filled with behavioural and social psychology soup. 

 

So while I encourage the effort, bear in mind that there will be people who will use that flag for nefarious purposes, who will ransom it, kill it

 

A good point. A comparable scenario:

 

In DayZ on a private shard with RP elements and player factions (that you prolly don't see as much or distinctive on your average public server), you basically had this overrun or lost province of a nation ravaged by zombies, where various people and factions try to get by, from government / military remnants or loose units to average people, from locals to foreigners, to crime people or outright terrorists, raiders, savages and anything in-between and perhaps not mentioned.

 

In some reports I received some people put on cop uniforms (or soldier uniforms) and held people up or spread terror. That particular group simply did what they wanted within the ruleset: they held random people up if they wanted to, spread chaos or terror, fought other groups, had a "murder boner" for any state remnants and generally were a thorn in the side of many people. They didn't do it often, actually, rarely, but as someone playing a separated cop in that setting and rolling with military remnants, you can imagine how tricky your work or damage control can become if 'the enemy' starts to wear your colors or "flags" and tricks or abuses others with those.

 

Long story short, if it can be done, it will likely happen. In such games where there are in theory no real limits in what players will be able to do, I have to actually ask who really expects people to play along according to their expectations or moral compass with so many players and factions later interacting with each other.

 

There's always the more criminally or chaotic players and player factions in such games and DU would be no difference. It would be foolish to assume no one would potentially try it or actually DU it, but it would be pretty good to expect this and plan along or simply 'accept' the possibility. That's part of emergent gameplay. Maybe it'll happen randomly or rarely. Maybe some group starts to actively or constantly try to do it. Then, you might have several options, including trying to apply pressure on them to change their ways, get them blacklisted in other groups due to such crimes, etc.

 

A living and breathing world - where anything within the technical parameters or social frame of the game could happen or not. But most of that depends on the players, if not all.

 

In short: (Some) people will simply play dirty or try anything to achieve some goal, annoy or trick others. That's just how it is.

Share this post


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

 

A good point. A comparable scenario:

 

In DayZ on a private shard with RP elements and player factions (that you prolly don't see as much or distinctive on your average public server), you basically had this overrun or lost province of a nation ravaged by zombies, where various people and factions try to get by, from government / military remnants or loose units to average people, from locals to foreigners, to crime people or outright terrorists, raiders, savages and anything in-between and perhaps not mentioned.

 

In some reports I received some people put on cop uniforms (or soldier uniforms) and held people up or spread terror. That particular group simply did what they wanted within the ruleset: they held random people up if they wanted to, spread chaos or terror, fought other groups, had a "murder boner" for any state remnants and generally were a thorn in the side of many people. They didn't do it often, actually, rarely, but as someone playing a separated cop in that setting and rolling with military remnants, you can imagine how tricky your work or damage control can become if 'the enemy' starts to wear your colors or "flags" and tricks or abuses others with those.

 

Long story short, if it can be done, it will likely happen. In such games where there are in theory no real limits in what players will be able to do, I have to actually ask who really expects people to play along according to their expectations or moral compass with so many players and factions later interacting with each other.

 

There's always the more criminally or chaotic players and player factions in such games and DU would be no difference. It would be foolish to assume no one would potentially try it or actually DU it, but it would be pretty good to expect this and plan along or simply 'accept' the possibility. That's part of emergent gameplay. Maybe it'll happen randomly or rarely. Maybe some group starts to actively or constantly try to do it. Then, you might have several options, including trying to apply pressure on them to change their ways, get them blacklisted in other groups due to such crimes, etc.

 

A living and breathing world - where anything within the technical parameters or social frame of the game could happen or not. But most of that depends on the players, if not all.

 

In short: (Some) people will simply play dirty or try anything to achieve some goal, annoy or trick others. That's just how it is.

Never underestimate the level of organisation and preparation people will invest in for nefarious purposes. In truth, because a sandbox is a behavioural ecosystem there's strong stimuli for people to overcompensate in this. For some that will mean morality, for others shortcuts - which tends to present choices which can conflict with morality - of others or self. 

 

Only the very few seek the mud in all that. But a large segment will simply forego moral choices ... remember the gratification pull :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is only one reason neutrals are not shot and thats pacts and public opinion. The same as in reality. Nobody is safe as neutral unless a pact or temporary truce is called. The same is to be expected in DU and there is nothing wrong with that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a risk that we all take. Out in the real world, I'd bet that we would give our fellow human the benefit of the doubt, especially considering real life has pretty real consequences that are much more impactful than any single video game (losing a gargantuan amount of ISK is another story). 

 

In a video game, the lines are much more blurred since the tangible consequences are so far detached.

 

Fortune favors the bold, but it can also lead to their demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah agree on you on so many levels. I do think that we can make this work in DU, might take some organizing but in the end it should be possible to atleast have a neutral core with truces and agreements on not firing, and i think a rescue organization like yours fits that perfectly. Hope we can work together alot in perfect fun :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 9:47 AM, Immortal Prospect said:

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

 

 

I think it's a great idea, but something that players should develop themselves via ship design & painting of their ship (can you paint your ship?!). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end it will not be the paining or marks or signs but the goodwill of the people. That's also one of the reasons i'm trying to make arrangements for Tranquility and all interested parties to be able to fulfill the sanctuary position i would like it to be. And the Inter neutral Assembly is doing the same by organizing neutral factions for their safety. 

For DU and the sandbox feeling it should be good to have a large neutral faction, time will tell if that's gone be neutrality by goodwill of others or by overwhelming force.

Lets say i'll make sure my neutral cities and ships will be filled to the teeth with defenses, experience shows goodwill lasts till the next paycheck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only they stand neutral forever ( or they have ability or just can ... ) Aaron. Like today, this month, last year you are a good neutral Aaron the salvage man and the next year you choose enemy side and stab friendly believe org because enemy org stronger, wealthier than friendly org.

Those who still chose to be neutral until the very end usually dont end up very well, history of our world show it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed...indeed they let enemy walk in and walkout and not even build a dedicate army for war so who will bomb a nothing country :).

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...