Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- Raven 13m I lost myself, in the dark charade.
- Burgerwolf 10m PANCAKES
- zxq 15m Blackcastle was no ordinary prison.
- Rillem 4m Make it personal.
- NightHollow 1m
- Jengris 15m
- BubbleKangaroo 15m
- Acupa 1m
- SmokePotion 1m Right or wrong, I'm getting high.
- Vanashis 2m
- Sivartas 17m
And 21 more hiding and/or disguised
Sindomedome logo
a cyberpunk roleplaying game
banner art by Michal Lisowski
Connect to Sindome @ moo.sindome.org:5555 or just Play Now
  • BgBB
  • Ideas
  • Corporate Sumptuary Law
  • Do not outshine me, peasant.

Corporate Sumptuary Law
Do not outshine me, peasant.

Login to post. Membership required.
Jump To
Newest Post
This straddles the line between a complaint thread and idea thread, so no offense taken if it gets moved or whatnot.

I think a side effect of the corporate side of the game becoming more and more established is that a lot of rare items are generally staying in the hands of corporate citizens. While that's not a knock on the players or a bad thing per se, I do think there should be consideration for the effects it has on gameplay when many sets of limited armor stay primarily with corpsec in corporate towers, or many rare weapons, etcetera.

I do think that there is some issue right now with a current pervasive feeling that all combat characters must have the best armor possible for the day they will kick ass. I recall a point in time, though, that it was seen as gauche that a junior corpsec even had a katana, not the ceramic kind, because it was above their current status. The need to have the best armor will only be solved by people robbing eachother for it until it trickles up, and in addition to that, in my own opinion, by corporate sumptuary laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law

While it probably shouldn't be literally called that IC, I find the concept that your rank can determine what is acceptable for you to wear or possess to be an interesting one. It makes sense within the game world, and it can have potentially positive effects on the game culture.

Limiting the wearing of high-end armor or usage of high-end weapons on duty to senior or managerial positions while your average agent must make do with ProTek and the like is not only a strong motivator for corpsec to try harder to attain higher positions, but it is likely to help alleviate rarity issues as well.

In-character, this is a way for the brass and the upper echelons of the security teams to protect their egos so that more affluent yet lower-ranking agents don't outshine them or 'show them up' in terms of expensive tacticool gear. Wearing that suit of ballistic plating is a privilege that only the elite of the elite are granted, whether you can afford it or not.

By batko at Feb 23, 2025, 12:50 AM | 0
Ironic of course that this kind of already exists, but only for firearms.
By Aida at Feb 23, 2025, 12:51 AM | 0
My question is would that make the possibility of obtaining the higher end harder for regular players? I feel like the players holding those roles would buy the high end armor to stash for their big promotion or in case they get fired. At least if they're wearing it there is a possibility for them to lose it.

Would this translate well to mix-side corporate bodies?

By Mindhunter at Feb 23, 2025, 9:03 AM | 0
I'm a bit confused. You're trying to fix corporate characters having too many rare items by… restricting the items to only corporate characters who are high ranking? Wouldn't that make it even harder for non-corporate characters to get those items too?
By Emily at Feb 23, 2025, 10:29 AM | 0
@Emily, I think the idea is that anyone who is corporate has to abide by being geared to 'their rank'. Some just recruited corporate agent shouldn't be rolling around in magic power armor. Anyone non-corporate gets whatever they can hustle because they aren't tied to things like dress codes.
By Magiy at Feb 23, 2025, 10:49 AM | 0
Rather than an IC restriction on corporate players getting gear, I'd rather see more IC opportunities and plots encouraged by Staff and other players alike for those corporate players to use that gear more and put it to use.

I see this only frustrating players more than actually incentivizing change as the brunt of the problem lies in players being risk averse and stockpiling gear that doesn't see any use - and not just topside either.

By Cowbell at Feb 23, 2025, 10:53 AM | 0
I think @Cowbell's point hits the nail more directly on the head. Rather than restricting who we allow to use the armor, why not just create more situations where they have to risk losing it? Specifically I thinked built-in, coded situations for this, not just telling people "you should attack these walking tanks more often.

That said, on the point of restriction, we already have a few jobs that issue a required uniform that mirrors a certain level of armored protection. I'm not sure why we wouldn't do the same for all security type roles. Would make it pretty easy to meter who can wear what if it was just as simple as "this is your uniform, you're expected to wear it and only it while on duty."

By ZedBanger at Feb 23, 2025, 11:12 AM | 0
I believe there's already plans by Staff and builders to create unique themely corporate security armor for each CorpSec team that'll make them stand out from each other. Not the thread to discuss that, but I'm looking forward to that - especially if they won't be biolocked or come with brand markings everywhere so it's suitable for non-corporate players to make use of them as well (with risk of course, it being corporate property and all).

To add onto ZedBanger's point, while I think coded situations are fine, one point of discussion throughout the ages was to have CorpSec have more plots to do that'd put them in the Mix or in dangerous situations. There have been examples of such plots before that didn't necessarily mean walking into certain death, so I'd like to see a return to that with CorpSec actively partaking in conflict where they're exposed to risk and death.

They already have safety nets in place and higher pay to acquire gear that they want far easier than most – so I think ultimately corporate combat PCs should be far more proactive and daring for the sake of the corp. After all, nothing says more loyal than dying in the name of your corporation against overwhelming odds. I doubt NLM or VS will care about a set of ProTek or Xo if it was lost in pursuit of something greater.

This would only take that away and encourage players to play it safe and passively, sitting in HQs and watching cameras more than anything else until they reach a high enough ranking to get the gear they need.

By Cowbell at Feb 23, 2025, 11:20 AM | 0
To clarify, it's not legality for the whole of Withmore, it's legality within corporate policy, so basically 'if you want to work here, you need to play by our rules'.

The idea that this would make people more risk averse is odd to me, I suppose there is multiple ways of looking at it. Personally I think it would incentivize more daring behavior in order to earn certain privileges, rather than encourage laying low until those privileges are handed to them. After all, if staff observes the latter, they won't get promoted.

By batko at Feb 23, 2025, 12:21 PM | 0
I disagree. If people aren't actively putting themselves out there while they already have sets of decent combat gear + backups as it is, I don't see how those same people would suddenly start taking risk with worse where their chances of survival would go down.

We'd only run into the problem of 'walking into certain death' if the idea is to force players to just get themselves killed with subpar gear in the Mix or doing whatever else until they get promoted and can finally get better equipment. That's only going to burn people out. And what then? Since gear is locked behind promotions and even harder to acquire, those corporate characters will even be less likely to risk anything after crossing that line.

Again, what should be encouraged is that losing gear and dying is okay, even if you lose a set of Xo3 or whatever else. I really don't see how a restriction like this would change that player mentality.

By Cowbell at Feb 23, 2025, 12:30 PM | 0
I am a fan of corporate uniforms for CorpSec. Exceptions made for the higher ups. If you are on duty, be in your uniform. If you aren't, wear corporate appropriate clothing for the situation. For example, no dinners on the down in X05. BUt if you are working a gig on your own time (with your corporation's allowance) or are doing 'private biz' (as much as can exist when you've sold your sole), sure. Throw on whatever you want.

I would also like to see corpies being allowed to go and risk their fancy shit too, if not encouraged. I have known some CorpSec players who would have loved to go and do risky biz in the mix but were shut down by their corp's management. I have also seen some manage to go and do these things wither by not asking (my preference) or framing things just right.

I do think that this is a valid concern though, even if my suggestions on it are not favored. If you let rare gear fall into the hands of players who rarely even have permission to go risk it and are largely perceived to be beyond the reach of others (even if the reality is different, the perception matters a lot), I am not sure much will change.

By Grey0 at Feb 23, 2025, 12:58 PM | 0
I'm going to see if generic bgbb tags work for quotes here or not (or if I have to use HTML), so I apologize if this just looks dumb.

I have known some CorpSec players who would have loved to go and do risky biz in the mix but were shut down by their corp's management. I have also seen some manage to go and do these things wither by not asking (my preference) or framing things just right.Grey0

This was touched on last night at the town hall. Many players seem to think an NPC telling them not to do something is some kind of hard written rule issued by the GMs. Corporate play certainly isn't the only victim of this. There are plenty of examples of Mix players unwilling to take risks or cross boundaries for more or less the same reason.

Why is anyone waiting for permission to do anything? Doesn't coloring within the lines all the time get boring?

By Quotient at Feb 23, 2025, 1:38 PM | 0
"NPC telling them not to do something is some kind of hard written rule issued by the GMs."

I will say I do think staff kind of talks out of two sides of the mouth on this one. NPCs will pretend to lay down rules for the character and not the player but they will also sometimes literally lay down rules for the player themselves regarding theme and roles and what limitations there are on each, and I don't blame new players for not always understanding the difference.

I and lots of other veteran players will know the difference from experience, plenty of players will just get told why did you believe that sometimes, and why didn't you listen in others.

By 0x1mm at Feb 23, 2025, 2:25 PM | 0
Jump To Oldest Post