Perhaps, you want to read this thread too: We need to talk about losing
We do not need to fight over opinions, but to give others insight into how we perceive it.
Only if others understand you, they can help you to see things you didn't see before.
First let's have a look at the real world rules like in real world aircraft regulations.
And don't forget that there are 2 ways which are both equally good:
We do not need to fight over opinions, but to give others insight into how we perceive it.
Only if others understand you, they can help you to see things you didn't see before.
Assume some "lunatic" inventor builds a car flying at Mach-2 (with a flying-saucer warp-drive, so no inertia) and the air-force is not happy about it requiring tons of regulations which overkill the capacity of the lunatic individual.
Ok, that's why we have to play StarMade, KSP, SE, … instead of building real world aircrafts ourselves …
In the real world we have a golden rule "You are getting done to yourself as you do to others" which is over-extended by governments (youtube is full of examples):
Some go·ver·n·ments hides facts and wants us to believe.
From this context, how should ingame faction politics be if we don't want the same crap as IRL?Ok, that's why we have to play StarMade, KSP, SE, … instead of building real world aircrafts ourselves …
In the real world we have a golden rule "You are getting done to yourself as you do to others" which is over-extended by governments (youtube is full of examples):
"You get legally shot down for doing nothing but not following a hyper-complex protocol".
-> only big companies are free.
"You need to surrender to ambushes if they disguise themselves as police officers".
-> police officers which don't follow protocol still get protected by an overwhelming force.
Re·ligi·on wants us to believe what others say.-> only big companies are free.
"You need to surrender to ambushes if they disguise themselves as police officers".
-> police officers which don't follow protocol still get protected by an overwhelming force.
Some go·ver·n·ments hides facts and wants us to believe.
Maybe you are so strong, that you don't need to care about them.
If you are too strong, you might pay a fee for the distortion you cause in security.
If you fly through neutral space, they want you to be able to do limited damage only.
.If you are too strong, you might pay a fee for the distortion you cause in security.
If you fly through neutral space, they want you to be able to do limited damage only.
Every free human is able to do damage, but how much is a good balance between freedom&security?
IRL, freedom is required for security and security is required for freedom.
How can we make it better than in and in the real world?IRL, freedom is required for security and security is required for freedom.
No-traffic zones need to conveniently provide you with a way around them (non-blocking).
Perhaps you can use a small transport to meet your local contact or the local contact can take you with him (as he is not bound to the no-traffic rules as a local himself - if he is, it's "trapping in a cage").
Trapping someone in a cage is equal to excluding him from the rest of populated and unpopulated but inhabitable space. It is violent as it violates freedom.
Forbidding contact between 2 entities by no-traffic zones is violent too - a no-traffic zone needs the appreciation of everyone inside and protect the "right to travel" by other means.
The "right to travel" and it's importance:
As I understand it, there is a difference between a fighter and a warrior:Perhaps you can use a small transport to meet your local contact or the local contact can take you with him (as he is not bound to the no-traffic rules as a local himself - if he is, it's "trapping in a cage").
Trapping someone in a cage is equal to excluding him from the rest of populated and unpopulated but inhabitable space. It is violent as it violates freedom.
Forbidding contact between 2 entities by no-traffic zones is violent too - a no-traffic zone needs the appreciation of everyone inside and protect the "right to travel" by other means.
The "right to travel" and it's importance:
You can throw someone out with proportionate violence, but should never trap someone in.
Reminder: There is no freedom without security and no security without freedom.
Today, IRL, peoples might live 4 hours apart from each other (job, search for a place to live) and it's more and more important to think about the "right to travel" / "the right to visit certain places"Reminder: There is no freedom without security and no security without freedom.
Former fights in contests, for fun, freedom/security or prohibits wars by keeping order.
Fighters can also help to defend in war-times, but once they start acting aggressively they become warriors.
As I understand it, fighters try to choose the right thing, warriors choose the lesser evil / bad.
Assuming above,
What we want in StarMade are not peoples/players who play warrior, but fighters.Fighters can also help to defend in war-times, but once they start acting aggressively they become warriors.
As I understand it, fighters try to choose the right thing, warriors choose the lesser evil / bad.
Assuming above,
Soldiers are warriors if their leaders are.
Mercenaries are warriors if they accept any quest and not just the legal ones.
Pirates/Outcasts are warriors when they start to steal what wasn't stolen before and use force against those never using force before. They might also do it for greed rather than neccessarity.
But maybe there are better words to describe this distinction between the righteous and the inhuman.Mercenaries are warriors if they accept any quest and not just the legal ones.
Pirates/Outcasts are warriors when they start to steal what wasn't stolen before and use force against those never using force before. They might also do it for greed rather than neccessarity.
EDIT: I mean the majority with "we" and those who opt for a peaceful environment.
Is there no objective/subjective "we" like "thou/you" and "thee/ye"?
Fighters which contest new resources, but not fight a war against the accumulated resources.
Also every player should have a guaranteed basic income and basic protection against contest-winners so that they don't need to start all over again.
To archive this, I think about making ships without weapons immune (not their turrets), but when their shield is down, they lose all cargo - only your home-area is safe.
And you need fighters to keep your cargo secure in hostile space. Perhaps you can hire or fly with mercenaries to give your fleet a basic defensive strength (edit…) to provide challenges with the balance of basic income and basic fleet strength and default NPCs.
This may not cover all exploits and I do not wish to discuss every possible one here, but it is "a thought I wanted to share".
If you like it, we can make a suggestion for it, but remember this is General Discussion and about "the right to travel in peace".
Is there no objective/subjective "we" like "thou/you" and "thee/ye"?
Fighters which contest new resources, but not fight a war against the accumulated resources.
Also every player should have a guaranteed basic income and basic protection against contest-winners so that they don't need to start all over again.
To archive this, I think about making ships without weapons immune (not their turrets), but when their shield is down, they lose all cargo - only your home-area is safe.
Sure, there are exploits, but it's not the right place to discuss them or their solutions here.
You might lose some cargo, fighters and defence-turrets, but not your precious weapon-less mothership's main body.
And you need fighters to keep your cargo secure in hostile space. Perhaps you can hire or fly with mercenaries to give your fleet a basic defensive strength (edit…) to provide challenges with the balance of basic income and basic fleet strength and default NPCs.
This may not cover all exploits and I do not wish to discuss every possible one here, but it is "a thought I wanted to share".
If you like it, we can make a suggestion for it, but remember this is General Discussion and about "the right to travel in peace".
And don't forget that there are 2 ways which are both equally good:
- Result orientated/Focus (or left-brained):
- Tell a goal you want and how to archive that goal
- Creative/Random (or right-brained):
- Share an idea/feature you like and what can be archived with it
- Wait for a reply and agree/like/useful/creative ratings
- Maybe share an updated idea or reply to the reply.
- Receive or put a link where to continue the discussion if more replys follow.
Last edited: