Moderator's Note

[DynamicRanger]

You didn't propose a commodity, Rubber Chicken. The ones I suggested aren't more important, they are simply things that could potentially fill the role of regulated goods that players could buy, transport and sell. Will you or will you not concede that the words and information contained in books are more important than the physical books themselves? The loose category of "suppressed information" is not a commodity and can't really be modeled with the kind of systems that determine the value and risk of transporting things that physically occupy space in a cargo hold, such as the pages of books.

Again, smugglers are criminals from the perspective of the people that ban things and the people that enforce those bans--there is no way around this. The people that conducted the American Revolution were criminals to the British and unapologetic smugglers. The people behind the Iron Curtain that gave the Soviet Union the last nudge it needed to collapse like the mildewed house of cards it was, were all criminals.

However, in this proposal, there isn't a single word to confine your motivations as a player or character. You are still boxing a straw man, Rubber Chicken. What do you mean by "...high-risk smuggling has to be taken from the role of pirate, crook, (or whatever you want to call it)..." when I said no such thing, YOU DID. I didn't type a single word about the moral, ethical or political character of any potential players, characters or activities.

Please don't respond until you have read and understood the definitions of these words: crime, criminal, smuggling and commodity. I beg you to look them up and stop loading them with dramatic and emotional content that I've gone to great pains not to evoke.

[DaveK]

Oh and by the way Dave it's not "info that's right for people to have.", it's "info that everybody has an inalienable RIGHT to have." Lots of people live in countries that are heavily blockaded by their governments to have access to anything but websites that particular regime approves of, and not everybody has a clue on how to bypass these blocks without being caught and severely punished.

Actually I copied and pasted the phrase you used in your post and that was what I was responding to:

"intellectual info that's right for people to have in spite of what some backwards government says"

But all I'm trying to say is that throughout history people feel that their view is the (often only) right view; Ireland's freedom fighters (the IRA) are UK's terrorists. Another example - some religions (and some secular groups and cults and just everyday people) deeply believe that the western world is losing its way and that our right to 'freedom of speech' is wrong if it is unconstrained and should be curtailed (as it actually is in several countries including the US and UK where freedom of speech is apparently enshrined as one of our inalienable rights).

Even inalienable rights only tend to be inalienable to groups who believe that they are. Hopefully everyone believes in a basic core of inalienable rights like a right to life, freedom, food, air, water, education . . . However, some inalienable rights are not accepted universally like an inalienable right to own a house and be healthy (seemingly regardless of lifestyle choices) and amass wealth (regardless to the impact on the rest of society)

Philosophers (and people as well ) have struggled with these issues every since they had time to think beyond where their next meal was coming from, how to survive winter and avoid the predators lurking in the long grass.

And then there's the whole different issue of an individuals fundamental rights balanced against society's rights and the rights of people in other societies. Damming a river that flows through several countries near its source has an enormous negative impact on countries downstream - as does polluting the river

interesting though all this is, I would still like to hear what players think of the idea of smuggling being introduced as a new high risk/ high reward career option

[Marvin]

This thread has morphed away from science fiction (space) and into politics.

[Rubber Chicken]

According to Webster's New World Dictionary - Pocket Edition. (Sorry it's the best I have.)

Crime - noun. - 1). an act committed or omitted or omitted in violation of a law 2). a sin

Criminal - adjective. - 1). having the nature of crime 2). relating to or guilty of crime 3) - noun - a person guilty of crime

Smuggling - transitive verb. - suffixes: -gled, -gling. 1). to bring into or take out of a country secretly or illegally 2). to bring, take, etc. secretly -- intransitive verb: to practice smuggling 3) noun. - smuggler.

Commodity - noun. - plural suffix: -ties 1). any useful thing 2). anything bought and sold 3). staple products, as of agriculture (for example)


The definition of 'crime' and 'criminal' you wish to convey to me seem to imply that those who are in power are the ones who dictate what is and is not criminal regardless of whether it is actually THEY and their 'laws' that are criminal. In this, it seems that by applying the 'It's all relative.' argument then, "Might makes right." ...Basically the whole reason justified revolutions get started in the first place. My point is reinforced.

By the second definition of 'smuggling' I smuggle my wallet with me every time I walk down the street, and therefore am a smuggler by default. After all, I inform no one of it's presence on my person nor of the contents within as I travel. - Hence secretly.
I understand that definition #1 is the one you want to make as your point, but as you and I well know if (hypothetically) I were to cross the Canadian border with commodities (I'll get to that.) that The U.S.A. and Canada both agree are LEGAL to transport, but with intent (key word 'intent') to pass said commodities to someone who will be sending them on to a jurisdiction that has deemed them illegal, Then I am engaged in the act of smuggling.

But that's partially beside the point.....

The definition for commodities speaks for itself. ANYTHING that can be bought or sold...

Yes, I will concede that the information is the important part, and the medium upon which the commodit(ies) are transported often times does not warrant usage of an entire cargo bay. However to say that this is not something that can be correctly modeled is incorrect. All you need to do is consider the factors involved in delivering said information. Where does it originate from? Who (faction or government) is willing to pay for it? Is it a direct delivery, a relayed hand-off, or a happenstance encounter where you just happened to have the goods?

Ya know what? I think you're on to something. Not only can this be a system where a player buys goods like data chips (perhaps with an additional 'bootlegger's stash compartment' added to the inventory screen), but with a bit of modification, the transport passenger contract system could be used as 'deliver information' mulit-sector contracts as well.

------------

As far as to why I am against drugs and alcohol.... you know what? ...You're Right. We go around in ships with guns risking our virtual lives every time we play. So by that logic, then there is absolutely no moral wrongdoing of any sort in being a part of the supply chain that sell the virtual citizens of Evochron the means to their own potential self destruction. After all we're not putting a gun to their head and besides, addiction = profit.

Now I'm sure at this point that you may be thinking, "But Rubber Chicken, you yourself said that video games are merely a form of 'art', so how can you say this has any effect on reality at all? In the grand scheme of things, it has no effect on anything."

And I will say to you that "Whether art - regardless of whether done well or poorly - has any effect on reality, I will have to concede the jury is still out on that one..." I have my own thoughts on that but it's another discussion altogether.

Seriously though. If this was put to a vote, I'm very sure my view would be unpopular and you would definitely win. That said however if this was a battle of wits and logic, the best you could hope for is a stalemate. Well at least you've faired better than many others have...

Do what you want. Push for the commodities you want. I actually have no problem with an expanded economy and perhaps a smuggling system of some sort. I just happen to like the fact that EM doesn't have all that much (currently) that can be considered as risqué material. And really why should it? Sometimes games can be [PG]-rated and still give grown adults a lot of good experiences playing them. I don't want to see EM lose that charm.

[DynamicRanger]

I think Rubber Chicken and I have both made our points pretty clear at this point and I'm ready to agree to disagree on the specific issues.

Flash mentioned fines, a great way to implement risk that I hadn't even thought of. Would fines for smuggling be a good way to make the activity risky?

There are a lot of ways fines could go wrong:
- Fixed fines probably couldn't be balanced that well between new and more experienced pilots
- Fines that are derived from the value of the goods in question would be very tricky to implement because the value of those goods is relative, so I'd shy away from this model, because it's less likely to actually end up in the game any time soon
- A flat percentage of a player's total cash might be the best way, but it still doesn't scale all that well--for a 25% penalty, the remainder of $100million ($75million) is still enough to buy any equipment, refuel the ship, pay crew, etc., whereas losing 25% of $10000 is crippling

I'm not at all against fines as an enforcement mechanism, I just didn't think of it when I was drafting the topic and I can't think of a really elegant way to implement it now. I sort of just assumed that jettisoning your cargo to survive was a fine in itself. My main contribution to the idea of fines right now, is that an easier way to scale the fine to fit the crime would be similar to the size of the interdiction force that shows up if you are caught: for each cargo hold with contraband in it (regardless of the amount) you're liable for the next tier of fines. Maybe 10% of your total cash for the first hold, an additional 5% for each additional hold? Interestingly, if the fines are drawn from your cash, it might be worth the effort for a smuggler to "launder" their money by buying big ticket items and stashing them, so they have relatively low cash, but high assets.

[DynamicRanger]

An important question I have for the community is how actually selling contraband could be implemented. Buying contraband goods would be a simple matter in systems where they are legal; they'd be bought and sold like any other commodity in the docking inventory console. If a pilot manages to sneak past, run through, or defeat the blockade and dock at a station where the good is illegal, should they be able to sell the contraband with the same interface as every other commodity? Should they have to enter the station and deal through unofficial channels? I think it's an interesting idea, but it may be beyond the scope of a simpler black market implementation.

[Marvin]

The penalty should always be confiscation of the smuggler's ship and equipment. That way, the loss is more likely to be linked to the pilot's rank.

[DynamicRanger]

How would that work, exactly? If you're caught smuggling, do you have a chance to fight or evade the cops? In either case, when you're finally caught, do you have to rely on your remaining assets to buy a new ship and equip it or is the profile simply reset to default, with the starting ship, equipment and assets? That seems pretty harsh, so the possible rewards would have to be immense, at least a 100-fold price differential.

[Edited on 7-31-2013 by DynamicRanger]

[Rubber Chicken]

I think Rubber Chicken and I have both made our points pretty clear at this point and I'm ready to agree to disagree on the specific issues.

Truce. I'll be sure to focus on the discussion of making the mechanics of the system work (as I'm not against the possibility of having such system), if I believe I have an idea that might be useful.

[Rubber Chicken]

... perhaps the cops could employ modified Rage missiles that affect inertial maneuvering as well and tractor beams.

If the conditions of 1). The missile hit and engines/thrusters are disabled to less than 10%, and 2). the police ship keeps the tractor beam on you for a long enough period of time, then, you're busted.

[DynamicRanger]

Like slapping the cuffs on your ship. It makes sense and would make for interesting combat: as the fugitive, you'd have to balance taking out enemies' disabling missiles, keeping them busy with gunfire while staying out of tractor beam range, and hopefully making a run for the station, or simply getting to a safe distance. Presumably, the authorities would still be ready to drop the hammer when you left the station, so you'd have to think ahead, too.

It sounds like a very tricky situation, so the risks and rewards would have to be commensurate with the challenge: why be a smuggler if you risk your ship in combat (whether by destruction or arrest) with enemies specially equipped for the task, unless smuggling was close to, if not the most lucrative activity? What other tasks in the game carry the risk of losing your ship and rank as Marvin described, other than the risk of being destroyed and having to reload a save game in any encounter with hostiles?

[Rubber Chicken]

Agreed very tricky. Maybe it can be expanded on though.

Another penalty I thought of could be 'probation' of sorts. Get caught and leave the system during a period of time sends a team of bounty hunters after you, plus in multiplayer, offers special opportunities for players to take lucrative kill contracts on the offender. For gated systems, jumpgates out could cease to function for the player for a period of time, or simply reroute to the gate closest to the center of the system.

[DynamicRanger]

There's at least two big problems I can think of with this more developed police mechanic:

1.) If the function and execution of the policing system is too developed, you run the risk of having to essentially code a new game within EM, instead of supplementing the existing trade elements.

2.) If smuggling caries such heavy penalties should a pilot be caught, why doesn't destroying hostile ships evoke the same (or greater) scale of punishments?

There should definitely be great risk of dying in combat, having expensive cargo seized, losing a lot of money to fines, or some combination, but more permanent (to your savegame, given that nothing is more permanent than dying in the game world) punishments like Marvin suggested seem a little over the top.

As for gates and the default (gated) systems being more or less secure, I think it would make sense for some systems to have patrol ships orbiting some or all of the local gates. The decision to ride a gate directly into the heart of a system, or find another gate shortcut, or even take the long way would be a strategic decision. If you've been caught it would make a lot of sense for an otherwise safe gate to have a patrol ship guard it for a time. If you're scanned by the patrol ship around the gate, then it would cease to function for you until you had defeated the police force, left sensor range, or dropped your cargo and paid the fine.

Long-term consequences of being caught smuggling may as well be tied to the existing reputation system. If you are caught smuggling, your rep suffers with all local factions, perhaps equally, or perhaps more with the Navy faction than the other factions. This might seem weird at first, considering that some of the factions are "outsiders" of a fashion and (if my suggestion is implemented) the police force is a Navy detachment. However, every faction benefits from not dealing with known smugglers. Linking the reputation/criminal record consequences to the existing system of faction reputation simplifies the systems involved and makes them easier to integrate into EM as it exists now.

Which leads me to a big concern I have for all these ideas: I (or whoever gets behind the concept) don't want to have to pitch a host of new, complicated game mechanics that will take more coding effort than they're worth for Vice to actually experiment with them. If I had to pick, I'd much rather get the forest of a more intricate economy, than the trees of an elaborate policing system, persistent criminal records with specific factions, new equipment and game assets, permanent meta-game punishments, etc.. Basically, if something seems like it could be randomly generated and layered into the game with relative ease, I'm all for it. If it requires a lot of new assets or has to be proactively balanced (i.e. you have to imagine every possible scenario and plan for it specifically) then I think it's unrealistic to hope it will make it into an update, or even a sequel.

[DaveK]

I think Rubber Chicken and I have both made our points pretty clear at this point and I'm ready to agree to disagree on the specific issues.

Flash mentioned fines, a great way to implement risk that I hadn't even thought of. Would fines for smuggling be a good way to make the activity risky?

There are a lot of ways fines could go wrong:
- Fixed fines probably couldn't be balanced that well between new and more experienced pilots
- Fines that are derived from the value of the goods in question would be very tricky to implement because the value of those goods is relative, so I'd shy away from this model, because it's less likely to actually end up in the game any time soon
- A flat percentage of a player's total cash might be the best way, but it still doesn't scale all that well--for a 25% penalty, the remainder of $100million ($75million) is still enough to buy any equipment, refuel the ship, pay crew, etc., whereas losing 25% of $10000 is crippling

The game is already set up so that the more $$$ you have the more expensive building stations and buying station licenses is. I'm typically charged a billion for a licence. Perhaps the fine could be the cost of a licence in the system - that would sting everyone in proportion to their wealth. If that's too harsh then the cost of a trade station.

If you can't pay your fine the system could confiscate equipment to the value you owe. That way you would still have your ship, even if some gear was lost.



ps I'm glad to hear of the truce!

[DynamicRanger]

That's a great idea, DaveK! The scaling for fines may already be pretty well coded into the game as it is, and gradually "dismantling" a player's ship if they can't pay ensures that the punishment is a smooth gradient all the way down to your ship frame, if you're really broke. You still run into the problem of the authorities valuing your ship's components (their price varies wildly). But still, it avoids the problem of either suddenly having to start the game over, or just shrugging off the consequences.

[DynamicRanger]

I'd like to hammer out the details of detection.

What I'm imagining now is that about half of the trade points (mostly coreward) will have a lone patrol ship with a C2 (or possibly C1) cargo scanner, giving it a detection radius of 1000m or 500m. At space stations, the patrol ship will orbit so that it passes over each station entrance in a predictable pattern. At planetside trade points, the patrol ship will circle the periphery of the city at about 5000m altitude.

The ship will be visually distinct from other ships at a distance, perhaps with a blinking light on the fuselage. The model and equipment will be inversely proportional to the economic rating of the system (following the general economic inversion typical of the black market trade pattern). So Sapphire's trade points will have well equipped and dangerous police forces, whereas Emerald will have weaker and fewer patrol ships, Deneb will have none and Lambda will have medium strength patrol ships.

If a ship (whether piloted by a player or NPC) is detected with contraband goods, the patrol ship will become hostile and summon more ships, depending on the number of cargo holds with illegal goods. The summoned ships will be comparable to the patrol ship and jump in quite close to the offending ship, perhaps 2000m or less. If the offender drops their cargo, they are fined, suffer a hit to their local reputation and are otherwise none the worse for wear. Vice willing, if a player is detected with smuggled goods, but isn't destroyed in combat or drops the contraband, they may be the subject of kill contracts--especially if they killed the police ships sent to stop them.

It's a pretty basic outline, but I want to make sure I haven't made any problematic assumptions or missed something important in the basic system.

[Vice]

I like the framework of several key points you describe in your posts, particularly in how they would expand the existing basic template of hunting a ship down that is carrying contraband and destroying them. Another aspect I'd like to hear from you on is how you would like to see such events, options, and requirements relayed to the player in the game. That is, how the information should be presented (if in text form) via the contract section of the inventory console, target MFD, pop up alert dialogues, message log entries, or through some other mechanism(s). Both so it is easily understandable for the player and so they can keep track of changing conditions (if/when applicable).

[DynamicRanger]

A lot of the basic mechanics of contraband could be communicated through the text descriptions of illegal goods. For instance, if a given good tends to be legal to buy and sell on planets, but illegal to sell in space, then the basic description of the good itself would naturally include that information. When buying an illegal good, a confirmation box (basically the same as the confirmation box for selling goods) will pop up, informing you that that good is illegal at many ports and getting caught with it is dangerous.

The easiest way for a player to know which goods are contraband in their current location--without requiring extensive changes or additions to the existing UI--would be a short list in the system information page of the inventory console. While this list wouldn't be the whole story (not every trading post in a given system will have the same bans or enforcement), players would immediately know that the listed goods are risky to transport and sell. Whether or not a given system's gates are patrolled might also be included in system info, although it would probably be too late for that if you'd already moved contraband through the gate.

If the patrol ships are part of the Navy, then they would be largely indistinguishable from other Navy faction-aligned ships, except for their location (near trade ports), behavior (circular patrols) and ID lights on the fuselage. They would appear on the HUD just like any other Navy ship. If the patrols are part of their own faction then their faction ID would be a dead giveaway. Patrol ships would be yellow (neutral), regardless of their faction until they detect contraband. They would refuse trade requests.

If a player is caught with contraband, they are issued a verbal warning to jettison the offending cargo bays. The verbal warning will be clear: "You are transporting illegal cargo. Jettison all illegal cargo and pay the required [percentage based on amount of contraband]% fine or you will be fired upon." After a few seconds' time the patrol ship will become hostile, attack and/or summon more ships. If the player jettisons the contraband at any time during the fight, the hostile ships become yellow and the player is debited the fine. The payment confirmation and amount of the fine are displayed in the chat list.

If the smuggling system implemented requires players merely to safely dock with stations to sell contraband, and not to enter the station or other additional tasks, then the only impediment is the risk of being caught by authorities. The difference between a trade station where a good is illegal and one where it is legal, if both are unguarded, is that the good in question can be bought and sold at the station where it is legal, but only sold at the one where it is illegal. So, it should be pretty easy to tell at a glance--as long as you didn't jump too close or too far from your trade sale destination--the kind of immediate risk you're looking at for smuggling.

The detection capabilities of patrol ships wouldn't be directly stated, except in descriptions of contracts that involve avoiding detection (goods or people smuggling contracts), which clearly state that the patrol ships are equipped with C1 (500m) or C2 (1000m) cargo scanners. The target range list and single target MFD would be invaluable in tracking your range from patrols. Working against smugglers, the cargo scanner would be an essential tool for contracts, like a mining beam for mining contracts.

For anti-smuggling contracts, they'd be much the same as they are now, except that targets would be carrying goods that are contraband at the issuing station. The smuggler would either jettison the goods (requiring new AI behavior) or simply leave it behind when destroyed. This presents the player with an interesting choice: leave the goods to be confiscated or disposed of, or pick up the goods which would be worth a great deal at the station they just left.

A system of illegal goods also makes a simple smuggling contract possible. Like other transport contracts, the player will have a cargo hold filled with the contraband in question and given a waypoint to drop it off at. The challenge in these contracts will be very early on: attempting to leave the station undetected. This would be made clear in the contract description: "Don't get caught on your way out of the station! If you're scanned, payment will be refused."

Smuggling people is also a contract possibility. Clearly labeled taxi jobs in the crew management console will point out the destination, and that the passenger must not be detected by authorities.

Overall, I think most of the relevant information can be communicated in situ, through contract descriptions, goods descriptions, the system info pane and, should a player be caught with contraband, direct communication from enforcement ships. An additional IMG quest contract could send a player on an interdiction contract (and playfully suggest the risks and rewards of retrieving the leftover cargo), but I doubt that would be necessary to communicate the risks of smuggling, and the particular skills and techniques necessary to interdict illegal goods.

[Marvin]

Another aspect I'd like to hear from you on is how you would like to see such events, options, and requirements relayed to the player in the game.

What's wrong with using the same subroutine as is used for distress messages?

[DynamicRanger]

I was thinking the same thing about the distress signals. Periodically (every 4 beacons or so) a smuggling related message could be transmitted, announcing either heavy smuggling activity in a given area (numerous, high-paying interdiction contracts), or loose enforcement (few if any trade ports in a given area will have patrols). Like distress signals, the special conditions would last for specific duration, so deciding to follow the trail would be a tough strategic decision, depending on your location.

[DynamicRanger]

I took the objections of Rubber Chicken and others to heart and I've been trying to come up with alternatives for the more contentious contraband goods I proposed.

I think a suitable replacement for narcotics would be unlicensed pharmaceuticals. As an illegal good, pharmaceuticals mirror an existing black market (unlike cupcakes, thankfully) and would fulfill the same role in the illegal economy I've proposed--that is, they would be cheaper and easier to produce and more often legal in space than on the surface of planets. The morality of illegally transporting them is brighter, but still essentially gray: those who smuggle unlicensed pharmaceuticals may be trying to make medicine available through cheaper channels, or they may be moving un-inspected, possibly unsafe medicine purely for personal gain.

Thematically, there is overlap with the existing trade good 'Meds', so making Meds a regulated trade good would fulfill basically the same function. If a new trade good is made to fill this role (can't think of a good name for it--Unlicensed Pharmaceuticals is too long), then it would be illegal in warzones. If the existing Meds good is regulated and made smugglable, then it would probably be legal to sell in warzones, due to high demand like firearms and organs.

[Marvin]

I never bothered to check, but I suspect most of the items currently listed as being in short supply and, therefore, carried by smugglers (who are never marked as red until you fire on them ... which, I think, is correct ... else, there is no need to use a scanner) can be found nearby. Perhaps if Vice decides to include a black market subroutine, those items could be adjusted to reflect a real shortage in the applicable star system. Even water could be considered contraband in certain, very dry star systems.

[DynamicRanger]

Goods that are usually legal being conditionally and temporarily illegal, that's a really interesting idea. In my thinking, I focused mostly on goods that would have general and more or less fixed legality patterns, but I suppose there's nothing to prevent randomized bans. In the case of shortages in a given system, bans may be applied across the board (indicating a state of emergency rationing) or just at outbound gates to maintain a surplus within the system--in the latter case, only patrols around gates would consider the goods in question to be contraband.

[Marvin]

Then again, because gated systems are easy to reach, there should be fewer black market items. The real black market would be among those star systems which are out in the boondocks ... leastwise, until some enterprising clan comes along and starts building trade stations, energy stations, processing facilities, etc.

[DynamicRanger]

Do you mean more goods are illegal at easy to reach systems, or fewer goods are illegal? It seems logical that the well traveled systems would have more and better enforcement, due in part to the prevalence of gates and the relative ease of enforcement they provide. So, the big payoffs for smugglers would be moving contraband from remote systems to the well established ones.

I'll admit ignorance when it comes to (apparently) most of the game world: I haven't spent much if any time exploring the various locations off the beaten path. I don't have the patience for it, especially considering that hidden planets' and systems' coordinates are probably their most unique features. I appreciate the appeal of discovery, but it's not really my cup of tea. In any case, I suspect that most hidden trade ports would have loose, if any, anti-smuggling enforcement. Perhaps player contracts would be the sole source of contraband enforcement, even if those trading posts have de jure bans on certain goods.