Nox2020
Commander
Just thinking about this is making me grin at work. That’s not an easy thing for me to accomplish. :grin:
Question about criminal actions inside of Test
- Thread starter Heartwood
- Start date
While I can't speak for anybody else or for how the system will eventually work, I do have a few possible plans in mind. 1st, I plan on gaining as much positive reputation points as possible, especially with the Banu & UEE. When needed, I'm thinking of acting as a fence for pirate TEST members by meeting up with them outside of UEE or Banu systems & then selling their cargo around the Banu space for them as long as the stolen merchandice was not acquired in Banu space or from Banu sources. Thus these items would be effectively laundered. Of course, for all of this effort, I would also make a fair profit in the process. Hopefully this will work out for all of us, but until everything is fully set in asteroid, anything can happen.
EpilepticCricket
Space Marshal
We can all sit around and theorycraft all day, but honestly, no one knows how the system will work. It will probably be a combination of systems that, like Montoya said, will get refined once the system gets tested enough.
I do suspect that there will be org control tools that can at least auto-kick members that fall below a certain reputation rank, or if a member commits a crime that's "bad enough" (if crimes are classified like felonies, misdemeanors, infractions, etc) they'll be kicked.
I do suspect that there will be org control tools that can at least auto-kick members that fall below a certain reputation rank, or if a member commits a crime that's "bad enough" (if crimes are classified like felonies, misdemeanors, infractions, etc) they'll be kicked.
I will refresh this thread with a thought model of what can happen, to prepare and pre discuss. Even though it may change, we can build a case around "what simply has to work"
The org-mind model:
Each org will gain "experience"/"influence" by each members action. The leader may be able to introduce a rule set, helping out with automatism.
--> This translates into a set of rules, branding a member as a criminal after he/she reached a certain status and thus blocking entry into parts of the org(systems)
--> The other side: if a player does lawful stuff and becomes "too good", he might be auto rejected at certain places and cannot interact with the pirate org
This way, each player's repupation has it's own consequences and reflects upon the org in such a way, that there is interactivity between org and player based on reputation.
= If Test has 150 000 000 members and builds up different branches with some pirates and smugglers inbetween, the overall rep will be influenced by each member.
= If Montoya sets the org to lawful neutral, he may get a warning when the overall rep gets too high or low and may be able to set stronger rules, which auto block certain actions.
With this model, there could be a reasonable flexibility inside each org. If rule sets would be left out, each members action can and will change the overall rep without Montoya being able to quickly react. That is why i think, automated tools need to be a thing.
-----
The case of being polarised / too good or too bad:
Player P (irate) wants to be in Test. He/she wants to be a badass pirate with very low moral. If Test as an org will have a flexible rep setting, this may very well result in Player P not being able to conduct certain missions or be granted certain missions, based on his/her affilitaion with the org.
So what will happen then? @Black Sunder said, that we could have different alt orgs, to circumvent these sort of scenarios. This would however mean, that Player P has to leave Test main org and join Test alt Pirates. They then should have their own sub forum, which is invite only and have to struggle with the big problem: "Are we allowed to screw our main org members?" Cause at some point, this will happen.
-----
Experience will be gained, models will be presented and adjusted, players may change behaviour defined by what is considered "fun" which in itself can easily shift, depending on game system balance and so on.
I am very curious to see, how Test will evolve.
The org-mind model:
Each org will gain "experience"/"influence" by each members action. The leader may be able to introduce a rule set, helping out with automatism.
--> This translates into a set of rules, branding a member as a criminal after he/she reached a certain status and thus blocking entry into parts of the org(systems)
--> The other side: if a player does lawful stuff and becomes "too good", he might be auto rejected at certain places and cannot interact with the pirate org
This way, each player's repupation has it's own consequences and reflects upon the org in such a way, that there is interactivity between org and player based on reputation.
= If Test has 150 000 000 members and builds up different branches with some pirates and smugglers inbetween, the overall rep will be influenced by each member.
= If Montoya sets the org to lawful neutral, he may get a warning when the overall rep gets too high or low and may be able to set stronger rules, which auto block certain actions.
With this model, there could be a reasonable flexibility inside each org. If rule sets would be left out, each members action can and will change the overall rep without Montoya being able to quickly react. That is why i think, automated tools need to be a thing.
-----
The case of being polarised / too good or too bad:
Player P (irate) wants to be in Test. He/she wants to be a badass pirate with very low moral. If Test as an org will have a flexible rep setting, this may very well result in Player P not being able to conduct certain missions or be granted certain missions, based on his/her affilitaion with the org.
So what will happen then? @Black Sunder said, that we could have different alt orgs, to circumvent these sort of scenarios. This would however mean, that Player P has to leave Test main org and join Test alt Pirates. They then should have their own sub forum, which is invite only and have to struggle with the big problem: "Are we allowed to screw our main org members?" Cause at some point, this will happen.
-----
Experience will be gained, models will be presented and adjusted, players may change behaviour defined by what is considered "fun" which in itself can easily shift, depending on game system balance and so on.
I am very curious to see, how Test will evolve.
I am sticking with "legal" stuff. Security/Military. I get the appeal that piracy has but is not my jam. When it comes to the impact within the Org, in game consequences are expected and must be obviously also equivalent to the infraction by the player. And yes the Org should suffer the burn of that also, if not what is the point of being part of an Org at all? I really dig players that go all out pirate and smuggling and join Orgs that encourage that. I am on a different team of course and I will try to blow them outta the sky. Thats why I have been ... Insisting ... So much on starting a culture of security/military focus within the Org. So we can start to have a niche/place for those interested, other members have done an AWESOME job with mining and similar endeavors.
There are countries that have national airlines which serve you alcoholic drinks, but will arrest you if you arrive drunk in their country. And yes, it’s happened recently.
haha, thats one way to weed out the trouble makers.
"Would sir care for a complementary sherry?"
"Well, one can't hurt, can it?"
"I can't possible comment, sir. Bottoms up don't drop the soap"
"What was that last bit, stewardess?!"
"Don't slop and soak, sir, sherry is very hard to clean out of the airline seats."
This is how my mining and salvaging career starts a few months after the game goes live.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VETLdQzJCM
Last edited: