Treaties progress update

Hi everyone,

The devs have made excellent progress on treaties over the last couple of weeks. We’re hoping to be able to release the first version in a patch towards the end of next week!

If you’re curious to know more about how treaties will work, check out the wiki page we’ve put together. There are no screenshots of the UI yet, but the rest of the details are there.

https://wiki.outscape.net/Treaties

As soon as we have a confirmed date for the patch we’ll let you know.

See you next week :slight_smile:

14 Likes

This looks like a very good first step Joe thank you and the Dev(s) involved!

3 Likes

I like what you have here, maybe there should be a cool down time after a treaty has been void, give both parties time to know the treaty is no longer valid. I can see some people exploiting this to their advantage.

2 Likes

Agree. However as long as its clear this is a treaty of Safe Passage ONLY with the implication of more far reaching treaties later its not too bad.

But if you offer this then be sure as you can your partner is not a deceptive little… "£$%^^&&!!!

Maybe a treaty violation causes it to decay with every further violation doubling the speed it decays would work? To allow for some defence for players getting invaded by a trickster under this treaty who are at work or otherwise AFK?

There needs to be a price to pay when breaking a non-aggression treaty. I agree that you should be able to backstab, but it can’t just be a ‘free’ option. I think at the very least a trust rating linked to your profile (when that comes).
Also when ending a non-aggression treaty you should have a 24 hour cooldown where it is still in effect to give both parties chance to reposition, sothat the cancel treaty option can’t be used as a workaround for reputation penalties etc.

1 Like

Great first step and very much needed.

The devs are or should be well aware of all the other stuff we would like to see at this point as it’s been a well discussed topic. This is just the base to build off of.

4 Likes

This is a great first step, as well as layering in some possible alliance based stuff I can see here in the wiki.

This is going to help a lot.

Also, I do want to point out, that people will be able to PM in the game now. You just accept their treaty, and you can PM with someone, then end the treaty. So yeah, some nice work arounds as well.

1 Like

I’m happy this is a first step so that alliance members can coordinate and work together. It will be quite a lot of work to setup initially, but hopefully once done, our lives will be much easier.

2 Likes

This is MMO, this is how you create tensions, if the game assigned a penalty, say 1 day where you cant attack them that creates an artificial barrier… We want uproar and reprisal based on cancelling a treaty or moving directly to a war footing.

If players are sent a treaty to accept with additional message, which could form additional conditions such as dont approach my system or move beyond the agreed co-ordinates… such breaches would require an immediate ability to cancel a treaty and attack without penalty… so its best there be no in game mechanic… just let diplomacy unfold on its own.

On the whole its a good first step…

1 Like

@joe when setting someone to NAP, we may want to apply the NAP even if they dont accept it. At least if you dont want to make a mistake on a big player, you might want a NAP applying to them… lol

So the status should show the treaty and its status but dont auto cancel/remove them.

@joe will the NAP ships in your orbit be classed as guards and be attacked by others entering your orbit… or will they be classed as neutral and ignored.

By the same token will ally fleets count as guards?

Final question you NAP two players and thay are not NAP themselves… will they attack each other? or not be classed as guards? if they enter your planet orbit

I think what’s necessary here is within the responsibility of the player himself. We have to “accept” the fact that the initial setup is going to take some time to accomplish, just in terms of assigning a Nap to our own existing coalition members. We as leaders of coalitions need to provide guidance to our respective teams on NAP’s outside of the coalition. As one person may say person A is great, but it might violate terms of a truce elsewhere. Let’s just get step 1 in place with coalition members and help prepare our “teams” for the possibilities as they come up. This IS NOT a full alliance system, it’s just a step to move us in that direction. I don’t want ANYTHING “automatic”. Send it, if they accept great, if they don’t the player needs to take responsibility for “contacting” the person to find out why.

I think its is most definitely a great first step. YAY :slight_smile:

1 Like

Moving forward, I would recommend treaties be a series of check-boxes rather than a set list of specific treaty types. e.g., check any of the following:
Treaty Conditions:
__ Ships do not fire on each other
__ Planetary defenses do not fire on ships
__ Can send resources to each other’s ships
__ Can send resources to each other’s planets
__ You break all treaties with _________
Treaty Breaks if:
__ Any ship is manually attacked
__ Any planet is manually attacked
__ You accept any treaty with _________

Automatic breaking is an important part too. The game needs automation if it’s going to survive the fact that people who can play 16 hours a day will thump anyone who can’t.

1 Like

I agree with this, however, it maybe useful to alliance members to preserve agreements such as this inside a note attached to the treaty that can be easily seen by all members involved. The kinds of things players will come up with on their own requires a more free form system and I would appreciate a reputation being conmected to this system when it becomes better developed.

A mutual protection pact is difficult to program to conclude that yes, all members are performing their roles properly, but players ABC and D should all be able to sign the same non-aggression pact (NAP) and to know when someone breaks it. Some kind of rule needs to be applied to the system about what happens when 1 member breaks it and what happens when 1 player declines the multiple party NAP.

Hey It’s nice to see this is moving forward. It’s a great way to solidify the “community” aspect of the game.

I like the suggestions mentioned here, especially the automatic breaking of a treaty. I think the reasons for this are pretty obvious.

Something I noticed, there is hinting of “shared visibility”. I think this would be a mistake to have this feature even possible in the game. Trust in your partners should come from the individual players and not from the game.

This adds greatly to the “diplomacy” play of the game.

Sharing visible maps fits very easily into diplomacy and alliances and all the rest. Not sure what you’re getting at here.

2 Likes

It fits too easily and would go a long way to degrade the game by removing one of the biggest aspects of battles both real and simulated, the “Fog of War”.

Timely and accurate intelligence is the holly grail of all strategists. Giving shared visibility hands this out on a silver platter. This would also disproportionately benefit large alliances over smaller alliances, who are already greatly disadvantaged. Unaligned players would be moved to irrelevance; which is dangerous for long term viability of the game.

There is also no real world precedent for such openness. Even alliances that share intelligence put their information through filters; often for very good reason. Any stories of great betrayals in the earlier alphas? There are even real world examples of information being filtered between commanders (imitation game?).

Ultimately being able to direct fleets and coordinate allies is what separates mice from Leaders. Removing this aspect would make trite much of the skills it takes to coordinate a group of players.

1 Like

Well, last I checked once you left a system and went out of scanner range, you didn’t even remember the system was there. So we’re probably a ways from shared visibility anyhow.

1 Like

Yeah, I am going to just have to stop you right about there.

This isn’t the real would, and line of sight is a quality of life thing. Not everyone is going to be hardcore players, people are going to need help. Line of sight also helps with a whole host of logistics issues. If this were the real world we would have people sitting at listening posts for months just to hear a snippet of information that may help.

Furthermore I have screen shots. I can just screen shot and give to someone, this mechanics, again, is a quality of life thing. Also, there will be groups that use third party programs to map systems, people, and movements.

Timely and accurate intelligence in a game like this is going to be cloaking into a system and reporting what you see, talking to another player and gleaning information, spies in guilds, etc.

Also, LoS is not going to make individual players irrelevant, I mean that is honestly ridiculous. Solo players are solo players. There is a solo player right now, that rivals some of the smaller alliances, and medium alliances, by himself.

I also want to say that LoS by no means stops people from being leaders, just because you have LoS doesn’t mean you have any idea what to send, what might be needed, logistics, who has what where. Coordination is only helped by LoS, it isn’t the end all be all. We have coordinated massive battles so far using third party programs and screen shots. LoS, again, would only be a quality of life adjustment. Which they should do.

3 Likes