Saltberia "Prison"

[Vexus]

Insurance fraud: Player abusing a poor game mechanic to their benefit - so send them to prison, even though the whole reason the game mechanic is able to be abused is because the devs allowed it in the first place. Very unfortunate.

Mild griefing: Player team-killing or self-sabotaging within Empire/Kingdom faction. This one I see as legitimate to some degree. It depends on if anyone can join, or if they do indeed have people apply to join a faction and so on. Because part of the counter to large factions is that they are prone to insiding and betrayal from within their own ranks. So if they let anyone join, then you need some way to deal with the guy randomly using ships and crashing them into the station and so on. But if they have applications and qualify the people they allow to join, they should take the good with the bad. The only problem I have with this, is there is already a solution to dealing with bad faction members - just kick them from the faction. No prison required.

Another fair example would be someone blocking another ship in a neutral safe zone, by just cramming themselves or many ships around someone else. One issue I see with this is there are no checks and balances in the game. As such, there will be ways to frame innocent people for this kind of thing. But, for the sake of being able to deter this kind of thing, which almost cannot be helped in a physical game world that also has safe zones, it's a fair compromise.

Super-annoying piracy: Player... being annoying in stealing from others? To who? Who decides what is annoying? I can't really think of an example of super-annoying piracy. Seeing as piracy is probably already super-annoying to people. Maybe someone here can help out with an example. This suggests the devs are enticed to set some unknown, vague idea of how you're allowed to play - that no one else knows - because if you don't play as a nice pirate, then if you get caught you're sent to prison. If there are any kind of nuanced, arbitrary risks with piracy, then those pirates will no longer be pirates, they will just shoot and kill on sight and ignore your scrap because it's not worth having some random, flexible rule be decreed because you were 'super-annoying' in stealing from the other player. Just kill everything and loot the valuables in the wreck and move on.

 

[Geronimo553]

I feel pretty confident when I say piracy in general is going to be considered annoying and illegal. Neither Empire or Kingdom are going to tolerate it.

 

[Meetbolio]

I really hope nobody's going to tolerate it.

 

[Vexus]

I feel pretty confident when I say piracy in general is going to be considered annoying and illegal. Neither Empire or Kingdom are going to tolerate it.

The interesting part about something being illegal is that whomever possesses the superior application of force is the arbiter of what is illegal or not.

However, if someone can throw you in "Saltberia" because you pirated/stole from someone, but you cannot in turn throw another person in prison for not having stolen from someone, the system is flawed. Perhaps the pirate thinks that you not pirating or fighting is annoying and should be illegal. That is to say, "This valid gameplay style is not acceptable, but this other one is acceptable." Not as a social statement, but a literal statement by the devs who have enabled the capability of this game feature but then only allow punishment on a one-sided bias. As I pointed out before, the rush is in the chase, not in the getting caught. Standard combat mechanics deal with piracy just fine; just destroy them in combat.

After discussion I highly doubt the intention is to have universe police running around - players with the power to lock up the 'bad guys' anywhere. But we'll see how deep the rabbit hole goes if that's ever introduced.

 

[PopeUrban]

The idea of developers policing "insurance Fraud" "griefing" and "super annoying piracy" with ingame jail sentances bothers the hell out of me. This is administrative overreach.

Either actions are against the EULA and worth a ban or they're not. GTFO with this grey area bullshit.

If you don't want players undertaking an action, don't allow them to do that action within the rules of the game. Who is the arbiter of what's griefing and what's legitimate gameplay? Who decides what forms of piracy are "super annoying"? Why are you punishing players for abusing a mechanic that you released in a broken and abusable state?

Is my gameplay going to be interrupted because some developer feels like it? Because I've violated some subjective grey area? Do I need to ask for developer pemission before I dare inconvenience another players in a game where the primary content is inconveniencing other players?

Are you building a sandbox or aren't you? Do you have confidence in your underlying design or not? Are you expecting players to constantly cower under the hands of an interventionist god or do you want them to control and develop ownership over the simulation.

Do I need to ask for developer permission before I dare to inconvenience my enemies or raiding targets? if I have a clever idea do I need to check in with a developer to make sure it fits their "vision" of what the game should be rather than what the game is?

What kind of big brother BS is this?

Video games aren't machines of "should" they're machines of "can" and attempting to enforce codes of ingame behavior (as opposed to out of game behavior, like chat moderation) that the system itself does not enforce is a recipe for failure. Not only is it impossible to do effectively, it speaks to a lack of willingness for the developer to remain hands off and let the sandbox play out.

This mechanism shows me a developer more interested in imposing unquestionable judgement than creating systemic solutions. It is lazy design bound to create social problems, is vulnerable to developer bias and favoritism, and will result in schisms between the players and developers.

 

[Meetbolio]

We're simulating a universe to some extent, and it's not an American one.

 

[Amos.37]

PopeUrban, it just sounds like you're angry that the devs are trying to put in place a system that punishes people doing crimes.
Starbase is a sandbox mmo, which means it is developing a virtual society. Societies have laws. Breaking laws have consequences.
If you want to play as a pirate, then you're choosing to oppose the law, risking the consequences. This adds risk to piracy, kind of like, you know, actual piracy.

The devs have already said that you need to be physically caught breaking a law to be sent to Saltberia, which suggests you're not just teleported there if you're seen doing something illegal. You have to be physically caught. They haven't coded that if you break a law, you magically teleport to prison.
That's not interrupting gameplay if a policing force tries to catch you for breaking a law. At least no more interrupting than you've been to someone else for breaking a law in the first place by attacking/griefing/scamming other players.

If you want to play without hands-on developers, then play outside of developer faction territory. Seems kind of obvious to me.

If you're pirating in Empire/Kingdom space, and you're caught, then you could be sent to Saltberia. If you're outside patrolled space, then there's little chance of getting caught.
I don't see how this is 'Big Brother'esque' in anyway, but simply factions policing their territory, kind of like, you know, actual countries.

A sandbox doesn't mean that no laws exist. It means only the laws that players create exist. If you want to ignore those laws, then either play in areas where they can't be enforced, or risk the consequences of breaking them.
You can't just complain that a law is vague or you don't agree with it and thus escape consequence. Kind of like, you know, in a real society.

 

[Caddrel]

Allowing players to enforce their own will over other players, through physical & military force, is an inevitable consequence of a game like this.

However, people have this strange assumption that the "pirates" will be in the minority. They could very well be the majority, and they'll certainly be the majority in some places.

The question is what tools will the developers give players to have power over other players. Will the developers allow people to create their own version of apartheid, North Korea, or other regimes in-game, if that is the majority view of the playerbase? How far will the developers go to facilitate that? Where will the line be drawn?

Will people be only punished for breaking the concept of personal ownership of property? What if someone wants to create a new version of Saudi Arabia in-game? How about punishing players if they offend the ruling authority, whoever that might be depending on whose space they're in?

I don't really think this is territory the developers want to be straying into, but the concept of "Saltberia" hasn't been fleshed out yet. If it's only in space controlled by developers, then it will just be the developers punishing players. But if the developers want players to behave in a certain way, isn't that a question of game design?

 

[Vexus]

They haven't coded that if you break a law, you magically teleport to prison.

If you're pirating in Empire/Kingdom space, and you're caught, then you could be sent to Saltberia.

Although I mostly agree with what you're saying in the bulk of your post, these two points were funny and slightly contradictory. Saltberia likely being a moon extremely far away, there's no other way except being magically teleported there - if "you're caught" of course.

There is something to be said about no MMO ever getting it right when it comes to these systems. I'd also point out we haven't even gotten it right in real life. So when gamers who have had to suffer through past game devs' inane systems of laws - from instant-death-causing guards, to player-enforced voting, to more nuanced "if you're caught" systems that again, require roleplay to get anything out of it after the 'chase' (roleplaying is generally a negative - it means there's not enough content to do otherwise, so you're forced to just make stuff up to have fun), it is no surprise that there would be an angry reaction. These failure-prone systems are a sure sign the game will die sooner than later. It's scary.

The closest working system of enforcement has been EVE, though I'd call their security-zone system a dynamic safe zone, not a legal system with crimes and so on. So that aspect of EVE doesn't even apply here. They did have a player bounty system, which is fair enough, but that's not a crime or legal system. Just an economic layer on top of PvP. There's some use - though still sometimes flawed - in these systems in more controlled games. When I played CS:GO quite a lot for example, there is the option to kick someone. So if a hacker joined, there was some potential to kick them. However this was abused as people would join as 4 and teamkick the random 5th person, or the hacker would get friends and so they wouldn't get kicked. You might think it's better than nothing, however I cannot remember a time where it was ever used and made the game better. Regardless of the outcome, it was a poor option due to the game structure. In another anecdotal example, the game Foxhole, though now less prone to abuse I think, has a system where people can report you for violations and... it used to be - not sure so much now - that your team could vote to prevent you from driving a vehicle or shooting weapons or even kick you. I have fond memories of trying to play the game a different way and because I wasn't playing the way the organized groups were playing, they would rally to kick/temp ban/restrict me (and some members of my crew). Yet, down the line, the game meta evolved to use the same tactics we were pioneering at the time, go figure.

One of the main reasons these systems fail is because players find holes in the systems, then devs patch the holes, and players find new holes, and so on. The back and forth 'rabbit hole of poor game design' as I put it can be completely eliminated by simply removing the bad mechanic in the first place. That way the devs aren't always bashing their head against a problem that seems to never go away.

Computer gaming is a relatively new field, and MMOs are even more narrow a field. There's almost no room for error, and copying past failed game mechanics is not a good sign for the long term health of a new title. On the other hand, copying things that have worked is something humans have been doing for a really long time. New devs are young and have been building their career, not playing all these different games grinding against game mechanics in an attempt to extract fun from flawed systems. So getting feedback on what works and what does not is the focus; it doesn't come down to personal preference.

 

[PopeUrban]

PopeUrban, it just sounds like you're angry that the devs are trying to put in place a system that punishes people doing crimes.
Starbase is a sandbox mmo, which means it is developing a virtual society. Societies have laws. Breaking laws have consequences.
If you want to play as a pirate, then you're choosing to oppose the law, risking the consequences. This adds risk to piracy, kind of like, you know, actual piracy.

The devs have already said that you need to be physically caught breaking a law to be sent to Saltberia, which suggests you're not just teleported there if you're seen doing something illegal. You have to be physically caught. They haven't coded that if you break a law, you magically teleport to prison.
That's not interrupting gameplay if a policing force tries to catch you for breaking a law. At least no more interrupting than you've been to someone else for breaking a law in the first place by attacking/griefing/scamming other players.

If you want to play without hands-on developers, then play outside of developer faction territory. Seems kind of obvious to me.

If you're pirating in Empire/Kingdom space, and you're caught, then you could be sent to Saltberia. If you're outside patrolled space, then there's little chance of getting caught.
I don't see how this is 'Big Brother'esque' in anyway, but simply factions policing their territory, kind of like, you know, actual countries.

A sandbox doesn't mean that no laws exist. It means only the laws that players create exist. If you want to ignore those laws, then either play in areas where they can't be enforced, or risk the consequences of breaking them.
You can't just complain that a law is vague or you don't agree with it and thus escape consequence. Kind of like, you know, in a real society.

There is a HUGE difference between players within the means of an economy enforcing regulations and players with unlimited coffers and a special dev-only prison system enforcing regulations.

In theory any faction could attempt to establish such a prison system. In practice it's impossible for them to do so. They don't have an unlimited amount of resources to throw at the idea. They don't have the ability to just materialize a penal colony on some far flung moon and whatever mechanisms you'd need to ensure players that get sent there can't just up and leave immediately. Not only is this impossible for players to do to each other, its functionally impossible for developers to do to players without leveraging extreme amounts of resources and manpower that they simply materialize from nothing.

That's why this is a problem. Not because piracy is illegal and being punished. Direct intervention in this fashion is a problem specifically because it is being handed down by an invincible, unassailable, unconquerable foe, and is being arbitrated not by a predictable algorithm but by a live human being with inherent biases and emotions. Rules for NPC factions need be logical, predictable, and above all else, fair.

I don't have a problem with the rules working differently in empire/kingdom space. That's perfectly reasonable. Safe zones in that space are perfectly reasonable. I don't even have a problem with violating those rules resulting in a unique punishment only these permanent super factions can leverage.

What I have a problem with is that enforcement being selectively applied by the whims of a human in control of an unlimited amount of resources, arbitrating a ruleset with no clear rules. This leads directly to questions of bias in the application and arbitration of those rules. This is not so with a directly algorithmic system of defined rules. This is a system DESIGNED to be unevenly applied, but unevenly applied by rules that those in charge of such system can alter at any time because they feel like it, and enforced by means that offer an illusion of freedom.

Players operate in the sandbox with a bucket and a shovel, developers operate in the sandbox with a bulldozer and sticks of dynamite. This is why allowing developers to directly intervene in the sandbox is a bad idea. There should *always* be a clear line placed between the roles of developers and players. Developers build systems. Players use systems. Developers should not be using systems, and certainly not "playing" with systems they and they alone have access to that impact the natural function of the sandbox.

This isn't a simulation. A simulation would be allowing any player faction the same set of tools used to create, run, and condemn people to saltberia. This is god stomping around in the sandbox because they don't trust the rules of their own world. Our gods shouldn't be interfering the the affairs of mortals. They should be defining the rules and getting out of the way. if they've defined shitty rules its their responsibility to improve the rules, not start squishing mortals with their giant invincible thumbs.

 

[CalenLoki]

I'm impressed how much the idea of Saltberia evolved, based on very vague, self contradicting messages.

For me it's a place where players go when they used exploits that are too complex to prevent with game mechanics or algorithms. In situations where hard ban would be slightly too much, and leaving it be slightly to little.
I.e. abuse safe zone mechanics to box/block people.

I doubt efficient piracy will ever send you to saltberia.

 

[PopeUrban]

I'm impressed how much the idea of Saltberia evolved, based on very vague, self contradicting messages.

For me it's a place where players go when they used exploits that are too complex to prevent with game mechanics or algorithms. In situations where hard ban would be slightly too much, and leaving it be slightly to little.
I.e. abuse safe zone mechanics to box/block people.

I doubt efficient piracy will ever send you to saltberia.

The idea that this is common enough to justify an entire ingame moon and several custom ingame systems is silly. What you're describing is so excessively rare that it doesn't justify the effort, and is generally handled via account suspensions in the rare cases it comes up.

In any case where an exploit can't be prevented by systems the only two valid responses are to alter the system, or enforce it with suspensions and bans. Wasting a ton of time on a system that serves the same social function as a temporary account suspension, and is used for the same thing doesn't make sense.

This seems like developers want to roleplay space presidents but aren't happy with the amount of power they gave space presidents so they're inventing new toys only they get to play with. This isn't a disciplinary system. Its a power fantasy. The idea that it wouldn't work to give players the ability to send each other to jail interferes with their power fantasy and as such they create a set of special rules only they have access to.

 

[Amos.37]

The idea that this is common enough to justify an entire ingame moon and several custom ingame systems is silly. What you're describing is so excessively rare that it doesn't justify the effort, and is generally handled via account suspensions in the rare cases it comes up.

In any case where an exploit can't be prevented by systems the only two valid responses are to alter the system, or enforce it with suspensions and bans. Wasting a ton of time on a system that serves the same social function as a temporary account suspension, and is used for the same thing doesn't make sense.

This seems like developers want to roleplay space presidents but aren't happy with the amount of power they gave space presidents so they're inventing new toys only they get to play with. This isn't a disciplinary system. Its a power fantasy. The idea that it wouldn't work to give players the ability to send each other to jail interferes with their power fantasy and as such they create a set of special rules only they have access to.

What information are you basing off that developers will be in-game with unlimited resources and powers? At what point have they said they intend to give themselves unobtainable powers and permissions to use in-game, or be some unstoppable/unconquerable force, rather than just be involved in a player capacity?

And the fact that they are discussing the system with people on discord shows they are trying to establish a set of rules and reasoning. Developing the idea into an in-game system, as is their literal job.
Yes, it will take time to balance, and who knows, they might scrap it all together, but I get the feeling that your jumping to assumptions, that this system will be much more pervasive than the devs have stated, and are clearly very biased against it for whatever reasons you have.

And while I don't think players necessarily would devote resources to making a player faction prison, what's to stop them? You don't need infinite resources to build a structure in a remote location, just time and dedication.

 

[Otac]

I think bounty hunters are feasible

 

[Otac]

What information are you basing off that developers will be in-game with unlimited resources and powers? At what point have they said they intend to give themselves unobtainable powers and permissions to use in-game, or be some unstoppable/unconquerable force, rather than just be involved in a player capacity?

And the fact that they are discussing the system with people on discord shows they are trying to establish a set of rules and reasoning. Developing the idea into an in-game system, as is their literal job.
Yes, it will take time to balance, and who knows, they might scrap it all together, but I get the feeling that your jumping to assumptions, that this system will be much more pervasive than the devs have stated, and are clearly very biased against it for whatever reasons you have.

And while I don't think players necessarily would devote resources to making a player faction prison, what's to stop them? You don't need infinite resources to build a structure in a remote location, just time and dedication.

Right, the official just created two camps and gave them to the agents to manage, and did not say that they would interfere with the development of the game society with unlimited power and resources.

 

[alex slime]

A system like this only really exists in various mod communities as far as I know as like a role playing thing. Like Altus Life or Garrys mod servers, it really only works if people buy into the fantasy of being held against their will, otherwise like you can just log off?

Also it takes a ton of work on the part of the jailers, they gotta do the jailer roleplay, it's a whole totally not sexual thing that's very common but I dunno how you could like implement it officially, it would def have to be opt in like joining an RP server in WOW.

 

[PopeUrban]

What information are you basing off that developers will be in-game with unlimited resources and powers? At what point have they said they intend to give themselves unobtainable powers and permissions to use in-game, or be some unstoppable/unconquerable force, rather than just be involved in a player capacity?

And the fact that they are discussing the system with people on discord shows they are trying to establish a set of rules and reasoning. Developing the idea into an in-game system, as is their literal job.
Yes, it will take time to balance, and who knows, they might scrap it all together, but I get the feeling that your jumping to assumptions, that this system will be much more pervasive than the devs have stated, and are clearly very biased against it for whatever reasons you have.

And while I don't think players necessarily would devote resources to making a player faction prison, what's to stop them? You don't need infinite resources to build a structure in a remote location, just time and dedication.

It is being discussed as a means of punishing player behavior by systemic rather than player driven means. Systemic means don't require economic balancing. You can't have a system designed to police certain behaviors if that system is capable of going bankrupt. Nobody has to buy or build saltberia. it just exists because developers made it so. Nobody has to work to pay its enforcement agents, be they players or NPCS. That payment simply materializes because it has to, otherwise the system could go broke.

The ideas floated are troubling because the core concept is flawed. Building a fallible justice system with inconsistent enforcement to enforce built in systemic rules is flawed at its very core.

Either you have NPC law that is infallible and evenly enforced or you don't. Making it fallible also makes it vulnerable to corruption, bias, and favoritism. These are fun and interesting facets of gameplay when leveraged by players against other players because those players all play by the same rules. They are irresponsible treatment of customers when leveraged by developers against players because said developers don't play by the same rules as everyone else. You can't be part of a business and also say "I will treat some of my customers differently because I feel like it."

The fact that they want live developers to RP faction commanders is fine. Give people sweeping commands and *if they feel like it* they can carry them out. Suggesting player action is totally cool and fun and many will play along.

Imposing penalties on some players and not others, however, for the same offenses, in a manner that players don't have access to is not cool. Its developer overreach.

Not only that, for reasons I outlined earlier it is my personal opinion that the very concept of ingame prisons is stupid.

The fact that I can avoid this whole system is great and all but I'm still going to point out why I feel that as an idea it is entirely and wholly flawed from its core concept.

I think bounty hunters are feasible

You are wrong. As has been discussed at length on these very forums already, bounty hunting systems result in either a bounty not worth collecting, or the bounty hunter collecting their own bounty by means of a friend or alt. Tens of big league game developers have attempted to implement bounty hunting, all but one game has failed. The only one that worked involved the permanent death of the target character. Even a lengthy saltberia time out won't make this sufficiently troubling, especially in a game with no progression system. Buy another account, transfer all your assets to it, collect your own bounty, and les the original account rot in prison for a month while you carry on pirating in the fresh account in a bigger ship built with your own bounty. No need to grind up XP, level up, or do anything but trade yourself and blow up your own defenseless ship, or put handcuffs on yourself, or however it works. You're now the proud owner of not only everything you stole, but all the reward money paid for your crimes and can immediately commit more and better crimes within the hour.

 

[Geronimo553]

I think this something very useful to consider for in Starbase as well.

 

[Geronimo553]

Has anyone heard any updates about Saltberia recently?

 

[Cavilier210]

Has anyone heard any updates about Saltberia recently?

nope. Not for awhile.