Will might as well get on the clan / group bandwagon. Without further ado welcome to the Drifters. I've never been one to rule over people or command them to do my bidding. I've also never been one to be ruled over or commanded as well. But I'm not going about forcing myself to be a lone wolf of some kind. That is where the Drifters are. A group of free minded people agreeing to work together but are not made to fill some key role. We do have a few base guidelines. Just so we don't end up in all out war with others. 1. Don't attack or steal from another Drifter. 2. Don't attack clan/groups/corps the Drifters have peace with. 3. If you can help another Drifter out. 4. You don't have to help any other Drifter if you feel it's not in your best interest. 5. Nothing is for free 6. You make a deal you keep a deal. Well that's all I have off the top of my head. Only the top two are the key ones. If you found a corp, group or clan we don't have peace with. Do what ever you want, but don't get in over your head. This isn't some grand army to call for when you get in trouble. Welcome to the Drifters, To each their own.
How it started. The Drifters started as a group of solo explorers. While not directly working with each other still talked with each other and supply information sometimes as that was the only thing that could be most of the time. Since they spent most of their time far away from each other or anyone else exploring the outer reaches of space. Being far from each other and far from any help, each one had to master survival and building on their own. The harsh conditions of living like this, caused the Drifters skills and knowledge to be highly sought after by corp's and clans alike. Due to the constant asking The first Drifters joined up just long enough to for The Drifters. As a way to keep the corp's and clans recruitment monkey off their backs. As time went on and the number of Drifters slowly grew. The Title of a Drifter was becoming more a mark of skill, as those that didn't have the skill to be a Drifter normally died in short order. The ones that did are the Drifters we have today.
As the Head of DSC, I would like to offer you a peace agreement with my corp, and a safe harbor agreement.
DSC agrees to safe passage thru my territory, safe conduct for all on your ship and in your fleet from the members of my organization regardless of location, safe harbor at all non-sensitive DSC ports, port access rights for trading, provided you pay whatever tariff that is set at that port, and a mutual non-aggression pact. You will also agree not to mine or harvest any resources in my territory, not to sell charts of DSC space, nor to develop any permanent structures within DSC territory without prior approval. You will also agree to inform me of any valuable finds that you may come across while in DSC space. You will also be granted salvage rights within DSC territory, excepting specially marked wrecks. You also agree to share any salvage you find in DSC space with DSC on the basis of an even 50/50 split. You may have first pick of all salvage, and any overages on the 50/50 split for non-currency items made be made whole with any standard currency on a straight value basis at your discretion. You agree to have a 3rd party chosen unanimously by both of the corp leaders arbitrate any disputes between your members and mine.
I don't see those terms working out, as they end up being very one sided. Also next to imposable to enforce. You have to bare in mind your more likely set foot on something that we're already working on. Unless you plan to keep your corp in a very small section of space? All Drifter ships, station and base location will not be attacked by any ship, station or member of the DSC. Same goes for Drifter for the DSC. Space junk is space junk and have no control of where it drifts. We can check for past owners and rely location of derelict ship that be longed to your corp, be for salvage operations being unless risk loosing the wreck or poses a danger. Space junk already marked by your corp for salvage will be left alone unless under contract to salvage the marked wreck. Map information is free trade information and terms for keeping the detail secret would have to be worked out per Drifter not as the whole. Relaying information about object in your section of space would only be done so if a Drifter is contracted to do so, other wise all information gather by any Drifter is theirs and theirs alone. Unless they choose share other wise.
I kind of like the idea about a lose bond of people working together. Salvager, hauler, miner.... no general just believe in community and trade. You do me a favor i'll do you one for free...... I would say sign me in...... but, only if you are NOT doing any one sided agreements with said individual up there
@ObjectZero did you realize? How he talks about his org? No "our territory", "inform us" "we" or the like..... DSC sounds to me like a little dictatorship. My history and personal likings prevent me from staying neutral on this kind of behavior...... to many bad experiences. One top rule them all is not the best idea as time has proven, nor is making agreements with people like that
@Arrclyde well having a lose group is the only way to set up a nomadic group. I can't rule over people with an iron fist (not my style anyways). That's the reason we only have a base guidelines not core rules. Space is a large place and there is lots of space for gray areas and I'm not about to right a bunch of rules or hold a bunch of peoples hands. I've run Drifter band in other games. What's funny people get the idea that the people in the Drifters don't ever talk or gather up. But since information is so cheap to trade for they talk a lot. It also due to the harsh support your self guide line most Drifters are force to deal with just on their own.
@Arrclyde : Well, yes. That's how I ran my group before, and it was quite popular. Go read my corp thread where I talk about alliance structure and tell me I just want to be some petty dictator. Trust me, you get into a group, and leaders and followers naturally emerge. If you have a problem with this, you probably won't get along with any group. Additionally, the terms I have offered were specifically designed to be generous towards the Drifters. I won't be the only one claiming and exerting control over star systems to create a territory, so these agreements will become important if you are going to play in peace on any sort of server set with a large player base. Also, the entire point of a treaty/agreement is to make demands, and to hear the demands of the other party. If my terms are not enough, what more could the Drifters want? I can't really offer them anything that they would be interested in other than travel, port, and salvage rights. If you have a problem with this, I would suggest refraining from any sort of diplomatic contact. If you don't think it is possible to gain control of space in a game like this, I would suggest looking at minerbumping.com for an example of REAL megalomaniacal corp dictator. That guy maintains territorial control in the Highsec of EVE, a place that is specifically designed by the EVE devs to be unconquerable/neutral space. This proves while game mechanics are convenient for delineating territory ownership, the are not absolutely necessary. Furthermore if you look at my first post in my corp thread, you will see the first rule of DSC is that I am in charge of it. This was never hidden, so I fail to see how the fact the corp that I am creating and building is under my creative control is some sort of problem. I firmly believe that @ObjectZero will exercise similar control over his own corp/clan, otherwise it will not be a coherent organization. Trust me, I have run online player groups for over 6 years, it just doesn't work for long without a strong personality at the center of it whether or not the group is informal and loosely bound, or formal and tightly bound. Especially considering that running an online player group is a lot of time consuming work in RL.
@Brokenshakles I don't know what gives you this idea, but actually i have been in many types of groups. Mostly and lately the once that are more dedicated to the people than to the game it self. And i have seen people rise to be the leader. And i spoke up when it was purely to set a point, nothing helpful to the group or helping with the issues in game just to show who is the boss. That went to the point where i just left the group. Oh you can't imagine how much "drama" that caused and how certain people try to ruin my reputation. I stayed alone for quiet a while, but after i got like a ton of messages "if you make a clan/guild/whatever, we will join" and "since you are gone it even got worse" i decided to make one. And actually so many people left the original group that it was officially called a crisis and "this has never happened before". Some even said i talked people into leaving just to destroy the original group, which was not true at all. After the new group was formed we settled some good successes over our original group. But leading is not for me even though those people told me i do a good job. After failing to give the lead to some else (through vote, i won even though i didn't intend to) i left everybody the choice to do what ever they want to do, because i took a break. End of story: most are back to the original group which probably exists around 10 years now. Even i did. I never took part in any discussion around "drama" between people and the leadership again. When people ask i just tell them that i have been through all this and now i am retired...... But there might be people who fear my POWER, and they know what i am capable off. It is not about the games, it is always about the people. And when ever there are people acting like asshats, or leaders trying to abuse their imaginary "power" to get things done to their liking and NOT for the better of all members, count on me! I'll be there. You clearly didn't read all of the text he wrote. As it stands it sounds that he is not a fan of a strictly hierarchic organized groups. Like Master Gibbs said "they are more guidelines than rules....." It is not about "exercise control over his corp"..... reread the second paragraph. Not every group has to follow the same ruleset. Some get along pretty well without someone in the needs to "rule them all over".
That's not what I mean by a strong personality. Also, @ObjectZero saying that his org is relaxed and without a lot of hard and fast rules is still ObjectZero exercising creative control, and therefore authority, over his group. If he does not maintain control over the direction of the culture of his group, then it could go in a direction other than laid back and relaxed. It seems pardoxical, but I think we both know that making sure a group has a certain culture, whether that culture be laid back or regimented, takes force of will on the part of the group organizer. As far as my terms go, I am not trying to rule over anyone here, but treaties will make both positive demands and concessions on both ends. In addition, I'm trying to write a template for future treaties in the process, that can be used by everyone. So in the end I would expect to experience both ends of this arrangement depending on the time and place.
Ok if that is the case, i must have misread his idea. I personally thought of it as a lose bond of players, callin' themselves "Drifters". Charismatic people will rise to be respected people within adn outside of that bond, people working against those guideline will be outlaws and disrespected/hunted down and left to die. But nobody has control or authority in any way shape or form. Because authority means that you WILL tell somebody to do or stop doing certain things at a certain point. In a lose bond the group itself takes actions according their guidelines, no authority needed. @ObjectZero If you think of "the Drifters" as i understood it i will be happy to be part of it. When the game launches and i am able to find a nice planet to build my Spaceport on a desert planet, i'll grand every drifter a place with no fees for landing in exchange for goods like weapons, ammo and fuel. I wouldn't need to have rise fees from other drifters since they will most likely leave enough money/trading goods in my bars on "Lost man's harbor" We might negotiate about mid and large scale mining and harvesting on that planet i am sitting on. Same rules, no catch. Just give something in return except a bunch of holes all over my little desert planet. And don't let those sandworms go extinct, still need them for "Tequila with worm..... parts"
@Arrclyde , please remember I am trying to create a backdrop for players such as yourself to adventure through. Blocks in space is fun, but I think it would be more interesting for players of your persuasion if there were large factions to buy from and sell to, and maybe accept contracts from. I'm still interested in having some sort of agreement with the drifters, but recent conversations have convinced me that it is something that needs to be handled delicately.
i am kind of on the fence with large orgs, especially player run/controlled ones. Because "with great power comes great responsibility" dosen't seam to apply with those unless they are somehow controlled or governed by the game itself or the developer/moderator. 80-90% big player orgs just say "i'll take the power..... F*** responsibility!!!!111". I prefer to stay away from those big corps. Then i have a great chance not to get caught in their intrigues which will cost me my ship, my goods or even my virtual life for no damn reasons as for the pure **** and giggles of it. Thanks, but no thanks.
There is a difference between being involved in said intrigue, and just being a traveler watching it. Remember, adventure is someone else being cold, wet, miserable, alone, away from home, and in danger's way. Mind sharing stories about your experiences? I am interested in hearing more.
I just wonder, you say you play EVE and thus make such a comment. Single people are always get caught in such things, it's called collateral damage. IF they are not completely invisible that is. Oh and i have see that in more than one games happening. In fact, i have only a handful of good stories i can tell, that i have found about eve. Setting up traps and sneaking into an org isn't something i find a good thing. The most memorable thing i can remember is a station given to a server wide known "carebaer" for his efforts to stick to the weak and lonely players in the universe. But i've probably read a thousand stories where big corps, bullying players and smaller corps in every shape and form imaginable, which pretty much is the same experience i did make in EVE. And after you complain about the toxic, elitist community you get to hear "why didn't you say so that you are new" even though you did and got to hear "tough luck noob, shouldn't undock with anything you can't afford to lose" which basicly means "don't undock or even dare to play this game at all." I have seen much scum from EVE spilled out on other games and i am glad other games don't cater to this kind of destructive gameplay (like Star Citizen for ex). Sure, they are not all bad. But those who are can stay where they are now, and gamedevelpoper are better off to make their game as different as possible from the one EVE has. Don't get me wrong. I don't feel left out or even miserable about my test on EVE. That is clearly not the game i want to spend time and money on. So i just let those kids play like they want. But that doesn't mean that other games should become more like EVE. I know there are EVE-Fanboys out there who disagree, but missing out on a huge part of players isn't exactly a good game. And in this case: it just survived because of the lack of competition for good spacesims last decade.
Right, and I would like to contribute to some competition. EVE has many good points, but the emphasis on rampant sociopathy is not one of them. However, in order to have an interesting setting, there has to be some conflict somewhere, or there is no story for the setting. I would like the EvE aspect of one world player setting with a vast number of players and star systems, but I would want structures in place to curb the worst abuses of the genre. A moderated EvE-like mechanics if you will. PvP would take place mostly in the context of properly declared wars on the large scale, and bounty hunting and piracy on the small scale. The biggest change would be the lack of absolutely effective warp scrambling devices, this element leads too much to unfair ambush tactics, and is the cause of most ship losses. That combined with a lack of gates means that running from battle would be a viable option for people who do not want to engage in PvP, instead of getting gank just being something that happens on a regular basis.
And if there is no conflict, we just make our own right? It isn't ok to force someone else into something that i might enjoy, plus this forcing mostly happens (98% of the time) when the one that forces the other KNOWS he can't lose. And you are right, that is one point, EVE is doing a bad job about. The one think most people fail to see is: there doesn't have to be a player conflict as the only meaning. Dangerous environments and AI makes up for good conflict too. You can see this in SC-forums these days a lot "PvP is more difficult", "PvE doesn't make for good conflict" and all this childish whining... The only problem those people seem to have is that in conflict with NPCs they can't brag, they can't cause drama, and noone cares if they are asshats. They say "what is the difference between getting bet up by a player or an NPC?" Well not much, but that applies the same way around: What is the difference if you fight a player or are put up against equally matched NPCs? Those people just argue because they want easy prey and people to cause drama, period. If they are real PvPers, i mean REAL PVPers, then they wouldn't care who does what as long as they get their EVEN match and EQUAL opponents in an environment which all together make up for a real challenge. But those people just want easy prey and picking fights when they can either outnumber the opposite side or bringing the bigger guns. And no matter what those degenerated people tell ya kids: ganking is NO form of PvP at all. It is blandly being a coward on the wide internet where nobody really knows you. The point i have to agree with you though is that the game should make different things as hard and nearly impossible when it comes to ruining other peoples fun. But on the same way it should always grant all players all sorts of different options. In this case, if you don't want to fight and you are being engaged by someone who just wants to attack you, there should always be a way to hide or run away. In no point it will be a good idea to implement a way when you get into a fight you have no other option as to die or succeed. Remember, if you fight and the other runs away you have won the fight.
Can we get from "bad game mechanics" back to the drifter theme? I would still like to know if i did understand @ObjectZero just right about his concept or if i have been completely wrong with my understanding of the matter. I mean when he comes on tonight sometime.
