We need to talk about the "right to travel in peace"

[NeonSturm]

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.

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):

"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.
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?

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.

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?

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:

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"
​

As I understand it, there is a difference between a fighter and a warrior:

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,

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.
​

What we want in StarMade are not peoples/players who play warrior, but fighters.

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.

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:

1. Result orientated/Focus (or left-brained):
   • Tell a goal you want and how to archive that goal
2. Creative/Random (or right-brained):
   • Share an idea/feature you like and what can be archived with it

1. Wait for a reply and agree/like/useful/creative ratings
2. Maybe share an updated idea or reply to the reply.
3. Receive or put a link where to continue the discussion if more replys follow.

 

[Crashmaster]

Ya gotta fight for your right, no entitlement in space, safety in superior numbers, stay off my lawn, vvild, vvild vaccum etc.

 

[NeonSturm]

Crashmaster
The problem are not those who hit you,
the problem are those who support them without knowing and turning against you for a lie from who they believe.
EDIT: changed trust into believe​

 

[Brokengauge]

This is all something best set up per server, as I don't want any of...that...on me, but at the same time I understand where you're coming from. It's just...whatever game this is, isn't starmade. Why go to all the trouble of making a fully realized and interactive universe, only to set up limitations and complex rules dictating and forcing ppl to do certain things, in certain areas.

 

[NeonSturm]

Brokengauge
You don't need rules on PvP servers or in low-security.
This are rules for high-sec and med-sec and maybe for default factions which spawn in the universe.​

 

[Crashmaster]

Only if others understand you, they can help you to see things you didn't see before.

Crashmaster
The problem are not those who hit you,
the problem are those who support them without knowing and turning against you for a lie from who they trust.​

I don't understand you at all. Par for course tho.

 

[Brokengauge]

NeonSturm are you talking about NPC interactions then?

This all seems really micro-managy to me, and I feel goes against the "frontier" aspect of starmade to begin with. Not to nention, these types of things that get implemented IRL have to be enforced by people, and likewise are the types of things that must be enforced by players or NPC's, and not added game mechanics.

You know what always frustrated me playing games? When I'm not allowed to pull my gun out and just start taking ppl down because I'm in a "peaceful" area. Example of a game that lets me engage in this sort of behavior? Fallout new vegas. I wasn't "allowed" to take my guns into the tops casino. My answer to that was 2 rounds into the head of everyone I saw in a white suit. I enjoy this kind of freedom, and these suggestions make me feel stifled and claustrophobic just reading them lol.

Just to emphasize: I'm not trying to say bad about you, or even your motivation for this kind of system. I just think it's completely against what starmade is meant to be.

 

[NeonSturm]

Crashmaster
I think this applies to the real-life AND the game (some exceptions for PvP-servers/areas ofc).
Admins/Moderators might ban you even if you played according to rules because you attacked a troll who was attacking you or because the admin/mod only saw a little piece of chat and not the whole. In the real life, the moderators is the law enforcement.

Brokengauge
I don't think about SM as "pure frontier". It is a survival game and a building game and a fighting game - not just one category.

If NPC-factions are immersive, they should try to resemble the real world, thus rules should carry over if the server-owner/players want that.
If you shoot the guards at a casino IRL, you get punished by law enforcement, in a game, it's the moderators banning you from a creative server or a NPC-faction sending the military after you.

You might not like the "peaceful area" idea, but it's a difference if you interact with NPC-puppets or real peoples which joined the server for showing the stuff they built.​

 

[Brokengauge]

NeonSturm exactly. If I'm in a communal area, or someone else's area then I better be on my best behavior. If I'm not, then I should get banned. There's no need for these features, except as an RP act.

 

[NeonSturm]

There's no need for these features, except as an RP act.

Did you think I wrote a suggest? It's General Discussion
It is not completely off-topic as "player's right to travel in peace" and "human right to travel [in peace]" overlap.

Sorry if it looks rude, but I don't want this topic to go derail based on a miss-understanding.
Lack of reading comprehension and short memory are both annoyingly common (especially in foreign threads).​

 

[Brokengauge]

NeonSturm It doesn't matter if it's just in "general discussion" if the topic is, "i think the game needs to implement this...". However, since it IS in "general discussion" then you obviously want people to discuss it. Here I am, discussing it. How am I de-railing anything, when I am talking about the very topic you brought up.

Also, I am still unclear if you think this needs to be a game mechanic, or simply a frame of mind, or an agreement between players. I disagree with this being part of the game mechanic (like invulnerable but unarmed cargo vessels) which go against the established core game mechanics, however anything that can be implemented simply as an agreement between players on a server (much as how IRL operates) then I have absolutely no issue with it.

I only continue to discuss it because it is an interesting topic, one in which I disagree with the original post's conclusion.

Also, please do not imply that because I do not agree with you that it obviously means I don't pay attention and/or have a short memory span. You do not know me, just like I do not know you, and will continue to avoid making such implications.

Also, if I HAVE misunderstood you, could you possibly point out how? The only other responder on this thread seems like they don't have a clue where you're coming from at all.

 

[NeonSturm]

This all seems really micro-managy to me, and I feel goes against the "frontier" aspect of starmade to begin with. Not to nention, these types of things that get implemented IRL have to be enforced by people, and likewise are the types of things that must be enforced by players or NPC's, and not added game mechanics.

You know what always frustrated me playing games? When I'm not allowed to pull my gun out and just start taking ppl down because I'm in a "peaceful" area.

There's no need for these features, except as an RP act.

I understand now (I read your second sentence like "that suggestion shouldn't make it in". It was not because you disagree, but because it was in harmony with your previous post's content to interpret it like this).
I hope you accept the time I spent into this reply as an adequate apology

Also, I am still unclear if you think this needs to be a game mechanic, or simply a frame of mind, or an agreement between players. I disagree with this being part of the game mechanic (like invulnerable but unarmed cargo vessels) which go against the established core game mechanics, however anything that can be implemented simply as an agreement between players on a server (much as how IRL operates) then I have absolutely no issue with it.

Firstly, I think it needs to be a frame of mind because there is only frustration from what we have IRL now.
I think games are great to promote that type of wisdom because peoples actually are interested into learning games but not enough into learning politics as far as I observed (because for example "BRD Deutschland GMBH" makes it too frustrating by laws which except each other in a chaotic way with no clear line unclear interdependency and non-intuitive regulations hidden on page 13 or law-on-demand actions which never get into curt, etc).
Games have something that real life does not have:

The freedom to choose your server/rules as you are not hold back by family bounds or language barriers, etc.
And you can have an admin-dictator which never hurts peoples for real which makes setting-up rules a lot easier.
​

Secondly I think that peoples-enforced does work IRL where peoples have to learn the laws of their community, but not in games where peoples stick around for just a few month and not even full-time. Additionally each server has "different laws".
– That's just "overkill" which might explain the amount of trolls in multiplayer-games.

Don't get me wrong tough - perhaps we can archive just that with logic/regex and a community content module and let schema can fix other things. But maybe we need more interaction between logic and UI which is a separate and more general issue.


I do not want to force it upon the community, but I want a legal standard which server-owners just need to check/uncheck like a game-option. And I prefer to have a reminder for players when they do such an illegal action.

I do not want the game to enforce legality via default game mechanics because pirates exist ingame as IRL.
Enabling it globally on a server also prevents PvP in only triple-minus sectors (like -1-1-1 but not -1-1+1) which is not what I desire.​

 

[kulbolen]

after reading all this, im not really sure what the voting options really even mean...

if this is to be player created, driven, and enforced. sounds great for rp purposes. but i highly doubt it would ever be "effective" based on the way the game environment operates.

 

[Brokengauge]

NeonSturm no problem. I just wanted to know where exactly you were coming from, and you've now made that clear. Thank you!

 

[NeonSturm]

if this is to be player created, driven, and enforced. sounds great for rp purposes. but i highly doubt it would ever be "effective" based on the way the game environment operates.

Exactly.
We need something (may it schema's work or community-reg'ai) to support new players.
And regai doesn't work if you can't display a message and a red-warning-alert before someone is using his weapons on a target, thus we need mod-hooks first.
Ofcourse you can script (your own SM launcher) but this isn't very accessible/safe except for the admin.​

 

[Master_Artificer]

I cant vote this post funny in the poll up top.

 

[NeonSturm]

I cant vote this post funny in the poll up top.

Fixed ​

 

[Master_Artificer]

Fixed ​

Thx fam

 

[NaStral]

What your proposing if it were something to be added by the devs would need to be something you could turn on or off in the server configs. Applying this to the entire game without a way to undo it would be a terrible mistake.

 

[NeonSturm]

What your proposing if it were something to be added by the devs would need to be something you could turn on or off in the server configs. Applying this to the entire game without a way to undo it would be a terrible mistake.

I never meant it should be imposed. I see it as a tool available to use.

Maybe you can do something like:
/rights travel_in_peace +from+0+0+0 +to+16+16+16 -enemies +ally +faction +neutral
/rights_enabled +0+4+8 → -enemies +ally +faction +neutral
/rights_where +0+4+8 → +from+0+0+0 +to+16+16+16 (1 boxes, xxx1 entities entered)​