## Zones

Post

### Re: Zones

#76
Cornflakes_91 wrote:so while a does not have direct control of the sub-zones they can apply their rules there because they own the super-zone
What if b and c refuses?
A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.

In magenta we trust
Post

### Re: Zones

#77
Basmannen wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:so while a does not have direct control of the sub-zones they can apply their rules there because they own the super-zone
What if b and c refuses?
a enforces their ruling, with power.
whichever form this power might have
Post

### Re: Zones

#78
Cornflakes_91 wrote:a enforces their ruling, with power.
whichever form this power might have
And what is b or c has a bigger military than a?
A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.

In magenta we trust
Post

### Re: Zones

#79
Basmannen wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:a enforces their ruling, with power.
whichever form this power might have
And what is b or c has a bigger military than a?
when they move their military into the zones, the "ownership" of the ships gets applied and a looses superiority, so no ruling anymore
Post

### Re: Zones

#80
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Flatfingers wrote: [...]
inside every zone get all ownership points you have added up together and compared with the ownership points any other faction has in there...
Hierarchical laws. A.k.a. the Listov Substitution Principle of Legality. Seems pretty elegant to me, but I do know that Josh said somewhere (edit: and by somewhere, I mean he explicitly mentioned it in IRC) that "zones can't overlap", though I don't really know what exactly he means by this. But yes, elegant.

An obvious question is: "how can the system decide if two sets of laws conflict with each other or not?" A naive stab at this problem would be to think back to what Flatfingers proposed for contract systems, with positive and negative conditions - for a system of law, a position condition could relate to a "You must do this" law, and a negative condition could relate to "You can't do this" law. Every system of law would therefore be comprised of a set of positive or negative conditions. The challenge then is calculating whether conditions from different sets conflict with each other or not.
Last edited by ThymineC on Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post

### Re: Zones

#81
As Josh said in a dev log, zone ownership depends on the presence of a station.
If you want ownership of a zone, make sure only your station is standing.

Suppose you start building your station while the zone is owned by someone else. If they notice, they'll consider you trespassing, and will send out a force to remove you.
Suppose you enter their zone with a fleet (without the proper permits) they will send out a force to remove you.
You could fight them, you could leave the station standing while you're building yours, but IMO that shouldn't have no effect on ownership.

No need for a forced shared ownership, or anything like that. If you just want to make use of a zone, I'm sure you can strike a deal with the faction controlling it.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

### Re: Zones

#82
Katorone wrote:As Josh said in a dev log, zone ownership depends on the presence of a station.
If you want ownership of a zone, make sure only your station is standing.

Suppose you start building your station while the zone is owned by someone else. If they notice, they'll consider you trespassing, and will send out a force to remove you.
Suppose you enter their zone with a fleet (without the proper permits) they will send out a force to remove you.
You could fight them, you could leave the station standing while you're building yours, but IMO that shouldn't have no effect on ownership.

No need for a forced shared ownership, or anything like that. If you just want to make use of a zone, I'm sure you can strike a deal with the faction controlling it.
JoshParnell wrote:Zoning is more than just a naming convention, though. It's a conceptually-clear way to think about space. Zones can have names, zones can have intrinsic value, zones can have security ratings, and zones can have...owners! Yes. Now we're getting interesting. How do you own space? Well, by force. Zones are considered to be 'owned' by whoever has the strongest presence there. How is that presence measured? To be determined. Could be military force, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the total value of permanent structures. Set up the biggest space station in an asteroid field and it's considered to be controlled by you.
ownership is a kinda arbitary measurement, you may only create a zone with an station, but you can own it with mobile forces
Post

### Re: Zones

#83
Cornflakes_91 wrote: ownership is a kinda arbitary measurement, you may only create a zone with an station, but you can own it with mobile forces
That's actually unclear at this point. I mistook Josh's train of thought as gospel, that's my bad. But the reverse isn't true then either.

I'm not sure if having the biggest base or presence is the best solution though.
Imagine two factions playing a game of "who has the biggest space-peen", constantly out-building each other to gain control of a zone. By this time the resources to add a station module pale compared to the resources needed to fight each other and destroy each other's stations.
Presence can vary, meaning ownership can change a lot. If ownership allows you to put down the rules (which permits are needed, which taxes need to be paid), then this could get very confusing.

And what about sector ownership? Wouldn't the local government or military force have something to say in the matter?
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

### Re: Zones

#84
Katorone wrote: And what about sector ownership? Wouldn't the local government or military force have something to say in the matter?
they would most likely control the super-super-zone, the system where the asteroid field or whatever is in
Post

### Re: Zones

#85
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Katorone wrote: And what about sector ownership? Wouldn't the local government or military force have something to say in the matter?
they would most likely control the super-super-zone, the system where the asteroid field or whatever is in
Yes, but wouldn't they have a say on who gets to own/exploit resources in their sector?
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

### Re: Zones

#86
Katorone wrote: Yes, but wouldn't they have a say on who gets to own/exploit resources in their sector?
as they rule the zones they could apply some kind of force if something does not happen in their favour.
they could also apply some zone restricitons with the already discussed zone-allocation and apply force if not adhered to.
Post

### Re: Zones

#87
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Katorone wrote: Yes, but wouldn't they have a say on who gets to own/exploit resources in their sector?
as they rule the zones they could apply some kind of force if something does not happen in their favour.
they could also apply some zone restricitons with the already discussed zone-allocation and apply force if not adhered to.
That's making things very complicated.
Corporation A is fighting Corporation B for control of a zone. Corporation A wins.
Faction X owns the sector and doesn't like Corporation A a lot, so it sends out forces to claim the zone from Corporation A. Faction X wins and now owns the zone.
Corporation B wants the zone back, so declares war on faction X.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

### Re: Zones

#88
Katorone wrote: That's making things very complicated.
Corporation A is fighting Corporation B for control of a zone. Corporation A wins.
Faction X owns the sector and doesn't like Corporation A a lot, so it sends out forces to claim the zone from Corporation A. Faction X wins and now owns the zone.
Corporation B wants the zone back, so declares war on faction X.
Thats politics.
Post

### Re: Zones

#89
Cornflakes_91 wrote: Thats politics.
That's a thing to get the final word in without really contributing.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

### Re: Zones

#90
Katorone wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote: Thats politics.
That's a thing to get the final word in without really contributing.
i mean, isnt that actually something we'd want?
a changing universe defined by the relations of factions to each other?

### Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests