open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Idea: Treaties
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.14 08:10:00 - [1]
 

We could use with a revamp of the corp/alliance standings.

Treaties is a way to do this. It would be similar to the contract system in some ways.

You would in essence file a Treaty.

Treaties could be used for:

Free Passage Treaty:

Allowing passage in a solar system, constellation or region in 0.0. Basically a limited form of NAP confined only to a single system, constellation or region.

Non Aggression Treaty:

More broad than the FPT this would allow a NAP throughout the galaxy.

Mutual Assistance Treaty:

A MAT is a bit more involved than a NAP. You not only are agreeing not to shoot at one another but are also agreeing to come to each others assistance.

If someone war declares one of the MAT members then the other MAT members are required to declare war on the aggressor as well.

Mining Rights Treaty:

The MRT allows for mining in a single belt, single system, constellation, or region. It can only be made by the Sovereign of the system towards another entity.

It allows one to mine, but not necessarily refine in the state area.

It further could be refined to differentiate between ice, moon mining and ore, and even particular ore or moon minerals.

A NAT or MAT is required for a MRT.

Refining Rights Treaty:

The RRT allows for the placing of a POS in a single moon, single system, constellation or region within the domain of a sovereign. It is made to someone of the sovereign's choosing. This POS is authorized to operate a refining array, corp hangar, and defenses. Size of the POS could be limited as part of the RRT ( for example small tower only, medium tower or less, or large tower or less. )

Must have a NAT or MAT to make a RRT.

Construction Rights Treaty

This formed when a NAT or MAT is already in force allows the erection of a POS with the express purpose of having Assembly Arrays within the Sovereign's domain. It can be for a single moon, system, constellation or region.


Filing Cost for a Treaty:

Shouldn't make it to prohibited and the cost could be paid by one party or the other, or split by both.

10 million to file a treaty sounds reasonable. This goes to an NPC corporation or entity.

Duration for a Treaty:

Treaties would last for a specified amount of time I would suggest 1 Month, 3 Months, 6 months or 1 year.

Note if the Sovereign changes any previous Treaties are invalidated and well I'd suggest making a treaty with the new Sovereign as quick as possible.

Ongoing cost of a treaty:

A treaty could have an amount of isk set by the participants in order to maintain the treaty. Usually not used in NATs and MATs but certainly common in other treaties. Payment could be weekly, bi monthly or monthly.

It could be set up to depend on the number of POSs covered by the treaty, number of people in a corp or alliance signing the treaty etc. It is also possible that they might set the cost to 0 ( don't laugh you could though I'm sure most won't )

Penalty for Breaking a Treaty:

This is an agreed upon penalty for breaking the treaty . ( Letting a treaty expire is not breaking it....).

Most often the penalty would be an ISK penalty paid to the other party. Such penalties would be to offset the losses incurred by said party.

In a treaty like a MAT it would be broken for instance if for example Party A declared war on Party B and then Party C who has a MAT with Party B doesn't declare war on Party A. In most other cases if you attack the individual or structures while the treaty is in effect you break it.

Auron Shadowbane
Pelennor Swarm
G00DFELLAS
Posted - 2007.03.14 11:41:00 - [2]
 

erm... so basically you want to charge people for haveing a limited number of pre-forms for diplomacy?

tbh I dont like it. so much hassle for nothing.

maybe some sort of free-form contract between alliances where you can type a text and then both parties (leaders/votes) have to agree on it. then everyone with the apporpriate rights can see the text (maybe make it 3 or so security levels).

more than that is not needed as long as we dont can conquer/siege npcs

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.14 15:19:00 - [3]
 

Actually those were just some example treaties I thought up.

There could be other treaties too,

like Trade Treaties where the party agrees to deliver so much goods each week or month in exchange for isk. Etc.

like a Privateer license for hunting folks in a particular system, constellation or region under the sovereigns flag. They would of course have to adopt the sovereign's standings to one or more individuals, as the treaty could be limited to only a single corp or alliance they could hunt.

I wouldn't put a limit on the number of treaties a corp/alliance could handle.

The goal mainly is to give some ingame tools for treaties other than just word of mouth. It also would help provide an ISK sink, even if just a minor one. Would give ingame means to help support things many already do in game, helping to streamline the process and perhaps make it more user friendly to those with less time on their hands.

Making it freeform you couldn't have any penalties. Also given that freeform contracts seem to have no legitimate purpose other than to scam, I don't see the need for a freeform contract, I certainly wouldn't accept one.

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.16 05:22:00 - [4]
 

Some more ideas:

You could replace the current war declaration system with a series of War Treaties.

In this you could make war limited or broad ( for example you could limit it to a single system, constellation, or region or go galaxy wide ), and could also establish some goal for the war, such as taking x station, or x system, constellation or region.

You would still need to pay concord to allow the war though if war is a galaxy wide war, or included war in any region patrolled by Concord.

Kinda got this war treaty idea from comments made in a thread Jenny Spitfire made in General Discussions.

Auron Shadowbane
Pelennor Swarm
G00DFELLAS
Posted - 2007.03.16 22:18:00 - [5]
 

you say you wouldnt allow freeform treaties but basically all the piece trieties are just freeforms with a preset text.

or do you mean to force people by game mechanics to follow them? how do you want to enforce a pieve treaty? dissallow ppl to activate their guns on each other?


only usefull thing I can think of would be if the systhem would automate standing sets and docking right sets. So if 2 parties sign a piece contract they automatically are set blue to each other. you shurely need more USE for the players :).


the war things on the other hand are a usefull thing cause they affect the NPC world around the players.

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.17 06:25:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Auron Shadowbane
you say you wouldnt allow freeform treaties but basically all the piece trieties are just freeforms with a preset text.

or do you mean to force people by game mechanics to follow them? how do you want to enforce a pieve treaty? dissallow ppl to activate their guns on each other?


only usefull thing I can think of would be if the systhem would automate standing sets and docking right sets. So if 2 parties sign a piece contract they automatically are set blue to each other. you shurely need more USE for the players :).


the war things on the other hand are a usefull thing cause they affect the NPC world around the players.



There are no freeform treaties basically you have a word of mouth agreement in game with no tools for enforcement.

Yes my idea was that the game would assign certain things automatically as part of the treaties.

In a NAT and MAT it would auto set standings to the sides appropriately. I know it would take some coding but also in the case of a limited coverage FPT ideally it would show those folks properly blue to you in the right areas.

In the case someone breaks it. Well the first step would be fore example in a NAT, a screen would appear "You are about to break the Non Agression Treaty with ????, Are you sure you wish to proceed?"

If you proceed then you have broken the NAT, that brings us to the treaty penalties. Say when it was agreed upon it was agreed that upon violation the violator had to pay X amount of isk. The game would then take that amount and give to the victim placing the violator into negative ISK if necessary.

Then it would also mail the CEO of both corps ( or Executor or designated person for each alliance ). It would inform them of the violation. It would be similar to a kill mail, stating system, perpetrator, victim, ships involved etc. (Possibly sent to directors of a corp too). They could then take further actions ( lets face it we all get some rogue agents from time to time ). After informed the victim's corp could within 24 hours or so end the NAP with the reason being the violation. (Though of course they could work together and work it out if they wanted).

That's kinda my idea how things would work :).

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.03.20 13:41:00 - [7]
 

This seems like a good idea I think.

A way to in game regulate treaties other than just word of mouth.

If done right could add a lot to the game.

You know Oveur's recent blog mentioned wanting players to be the police in low sec. Perhaps treaties would be a way to allow that, the various legal institutes (Supreme Court, Republic Justice, etc) might could offer treaties allowing the players to patrol the areas for a cost. As duly authorized agents they could respond to criminal activity in the area against the sovereign or citizens.

Ferreus Malukar
Union Deutscher Freelancer
Posted - 2007.03.20 13:50:00 - [8]
 

In fact I thought in the beginning that such things already exist! Shocked

It's about time they get implemented because the current diplomatic system is still too marginal IMHO.
For example there is not real alternative for essentials like a mining rights- or free passage treaty.

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.20 18:35:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Ferreus Malukar
In fact I thought in the beginning that such things already exist! Shocked

It's about time they get implemented because the current diplomatic system is still too marginal IMHO.
For example there is not real alternative for essentials like a mining rights- or free passage treaty.


That's what my idea here is about, giving us the tools to help us regulate agreements and such :). It would probably help the devs by cutting down on petitions. It would also help to prevent misunderstandings I think :).

Thanks for your support :)

I appreciate Mecinia's words too, I'll have to go read Oveur's blog, I've not read that one yet.


Mai Shiranui
Ninjitsu Heavy Industries
Posted - 2007.03.20 18:43:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Mai Shiranui on 20/03/2007 18:39:37
You guys might want to look at item 13 on this thread: Here

There's a passport idea that to take the place of haivng to set standings to allow people to enter your territory.

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.21 17:02:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Mai Shiranui
Edited by: Mai Shiranui on 20/03/2007 18:39:37
You guys might want to look at item 13 on this thread: Here

There's a passport idea that to take the place of haivng to set standings to allow people to enter your territory.


Just read that. It is a much simpler idea than this.

With this system of treaties would could easily simulate the passport. At the same time you could impose fines and penalties for transactions of the treaty if the individual is caught using my treaty idea ( cargo scanner....they find ore your not suppose to have...fine as agreed upon in the treaty, or the treaty is broke and you better start running.)

I think that passport idea is okay, but this is a much more comprehensive idea, that can help accomadate different arrangements, differentiate what you have permission to do in the system.

In all I think my proposal is a bit more dynamic.


dragonofearth
Posted - 2007.03.21 19:46:00 - [12]
 

Have you ever study history remember WW1 it started because countries had a mutual treaty. Saying you get attack i will help. The small country of surbia started the whole thing with the assassination. Austria hungry got mad went to war. Germany follwed causer of said treaty. Britain and Russia followed France, and thus WW1 began The mutual treaty could potently cause WW1 in Eve ( good or bad you decide)

Sarf
Spacelane Logistics
Posted - 2007.03.21 22:50:00 - [13]
 

I kind of like the idea that if a large alliance has sverenty, they could sell access to there space.

A treatise between a person / corp and there alliance. the contract has a time limit from activation and the isk are held in escrow until the time expires.

if you buy a treatise and then get attacked by the other side there should be a penalty. i was thinking that a penalty amount could be entered. If either side breaks it the penalty gets paid.

So i buy a mining treatise (also includes rat killing in that belt) and go mineing. If i hunt rats, or shoot the issuing alliances players it breaks, i am now no longer friendly, but have my normal standings to that alliance. and i lose my isk i paid, and i also have to pay the penalty amount.

If i am out mining and have it all paid up and someone from the alliance comes along and shoots me. then i get my isk back, and i get the penalty amount also.

thoughts ?

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.23 06:23:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: dragonofearth
Have you ever study history remember WW1 it started because countries had a mutual treaty. Saying you get attack i will help. The small country of surbia started the whole thing with the assassination. Austria hungry got mad went to war. Germany follwed causer of said treaty. Britain and Russia followed France, and thus WW1 began The mutual treaty could potently cause WW1 in Eve ( good or bad you decide)


It wouldn't be automatic in EVE.

Say A and B had a MAT. C declares war on A. B would also get an alert that C had declared war on A. They would then have the option of honoring the MAT or not. Of course if they don't they would suffer whatever penalties would be assessed in the penalty phase.



Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.23 06:27:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Sarf
I kind of like the idea that if a large alliance has sverenty, they could sell access to there space.

A treatise between a person / corp and there alliance. the contract has a time limit from activation and the isk are held in escrow until the time expires.

if you buy a treatise and then get attacked by the other side there should be a penalty. i was thinking that a penalty amount could be entered. If either side breaks it the penalty gets paid.

So i buy a mining treatise (also includes rat killing in that belt) and go mineing. If i hunt rats, or shoot the issuing alliances players it breaks, i am now no longer friendly, but have my normal standings to that alliance. and i lose my isk i paid, and i also have to pay the penalty amount.

If i am out mining and have it all paid up and someone from the alliance comes along and shoots me. then i get my isk back, and i get the penalty amount also.

thoughts ?


You could set it up that way.

I was thinking the penalty part would be set up well enough that within game parameters the two signers could agree a multitude of penalties....from isk, to stations, etc.

But in essence you do understand what I was trying to achieve.

Say alliance A gives mining rights to B.

If B is following the tenants of the rights and not violating them and someone in alliance A attacks him then alliance A would be assessed the penalty.

If however B is violating the terms of the mining treaty. Say he's mining in the wrong belt or something, or mining the wrong ore, and is caught by alliance A, then he would have to pay the penalty to A. That penalty could include and probably would in most cases standings resetting.

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.25 08:20:00 - [16]
 

Up you go :)

More discussion?

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.03.25 09:05:00 - [17]
 

To me this seems like a more dynamic version of the standings system, which honestly I'm all for since the current political situation has got us with some interesting problems of standing.

It would be really great if we could set up our standings with a system like this so within certain regions people would show blue to us, whereas in others they might even be considered hostiles.

It would be even better if one entity could sign a treaty that was regionally limited with many others, and automatically give appropriate standings to those parties - allowing people to more effective run NRDS and free trade zones.

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.27 11:40:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: James Duar
To me this seems like a more dynamic version of the standings system, which honestly I'm all for since the current political situation has got us with some interesting problems of standing.

It would be really great if we could set up our standings with a system like this so within certain regions people would show blue to us, whereas in others they might even be considered hostiles.

It would be even better if one entity could sign a treaty that was regionally limited with many others, and automatically give appropriate standings to those parties - allowing people to more effective run NRDS and free trade zones.


I agree and that is my hopes with this idea :)

I like the idea of having mulitple party treaties too :), would be a bit more complicated but would certainly be worthwhile I think :)

Thanks for you support :)

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.03.30 07:21:00 - [19]
 

Let's have some more discussion :).

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.04.03 16:55:00 - [20]
 

I wish more folks would express support :), I do think this is a very good idea for a system :).

I actually think this is better than my jump rig idea which has more responses :(.

Anyway a bump for the patch day to get more discussion :).

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.04.14 09:27:00 - [21]
 

Bump for another round :)


Aneroi
Amarr
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2007.04.14 09:51:00 - [22]
 

its a good system its just that its the second (or maybe first) thread on this today ( http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=506361 ) so I think that someone should lock their thread and move it all to one. it seems to be basically the same idea. this also means that CCP should look into this!

/signed

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.04.14 09:55:00 - [23]
 

This thread has been here a month...I just bumped it today due to the convo in COAD....

Aneroi
Amarr
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2007.04.14 10:22:00 - [24]
 

oh sorry I didn't see that well the part about the interest for it is still true

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.04.14 10:55:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Cailais on 14/04/2007 10:51:21
I like a lot of Bienurdau's concepts here, and I fully admit stealing the overall 'idea' and merging it with Jimer Lins 'economic warfare post' (see my link under my sig for more details on that). While all three posts are a little rough around the edges I think there's a broad consensus that we could do with some more 'pvp' options than just blasters.

Its a mistake to think that miners, industrialists and others don't want to engage in 'pvp' - its just they don't always want to do it behind the wheel of a Battleship.

Striking at your enemy through "non-kinetic" attacks can be very very effective. Consider the infamous GHSC heist, what made it great pvp wasn't that the CEO got blown up, or the millions of isk stolen: it was that GHSC applied both kinetic (blasters) and non-kinetic (day light robbery) effects at the same time.

Trade deals, treaties, blockades, sanctions, peace agreements (the list is endless) all adding to the rich tapestry of pvp if backed up with in game mechanics.

C.



Aversin
Gallente
Alcatraz Inc.
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2007.04.28 13:35:00 - [26]
 

I really like this idea, mainly because it would allow for standings to be based on location with the free passage agreement.

Example, corp x is allowed in constellation b (in that area they show as blue) corp x is not allowed anywhere else (in areas other than constellation b standings are neutral or hostile)

CHAOS100
The Ankou
Raiden.
Posted - 2007.06.02 10:14:00 - [27]
 

I skimmed through it; basically all I have to say is I prefer the sandbox ability of eve and I do not like to be restricted by game mechanics to do what I want. If you want to make a treaty like that then enforce it yourself and actually talk to the people via diplomats to get it sorted. Diplomacy **** is an interesting part of the game... causes tension, and etc.

Kill Sasuke
Posted - 2007.06.02 16:53:00 - [28]
 

This is just puting oral agreements into writing. The players still has the option of inforcing penalty or let it slide. Which is what it all come down to.

Bienurdau Hywoaf
Minmatar
Matari Holo News Network
Posted - 2007.06.02 17:49:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Kill Sasuke
This is just puting oral agreements into writing. The players still has the option of inforcing penalty or let it slide. Which is what it all come down to.


:) Yep you could give an option to enforce penalty or not as well :).


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only