Annexing people makes people upset!

Seeing Eco as a framework and society simulation, we try to offer tools to deal with any potential issues - in the intent that one day players will be able to do absolutely everything without needing any administrative commands in terms of self-policing, making admins unnecessary when it comes to rules and enforcement. We also have a justice system planned, though one can already be created in meta ways.

When we moved away from a global government to provide local settlements more power over their own matters (and as such making it easier for similar minded players to find together and have a more coherent local society), that also created the problem that a settlement could go rogue and do their very best to torpedo the efforts of the server community as a whole without there being any remedy to that beyond an admin. Annexations are the last resort mechanism to force the settlement into a jurisdiction where that is possible again.

There is however also tons of players liking the more competetive civilization-esque playstyle that annexations can provide - as such the feature is fully configurable on if it is available, how much an annexation costs and under which circumstances it is possible. The settings can be found in Settlements.eco.

And yes, of course one can solve issues diplomatically by talking. You can join settlements and in case of border-disputes use the open borders feature allowing players from all participating towns to use either towns claim papers in any other town. We also provide the culture system allowing defending against any form of annexation and the bigger a settlement is, the harder it becomes to get the prerequisites fulfilled for annexation. And last, it is pretty costly to do so, especially for larger settlements. There is tons of strategies that can be used to avoid it or make it unreasonably pricey. It can also even be used on purpose to get a gain out of it, as you will need to be provided at least the claim papers you already have plus a nice batch on top and other materials. You also can split off again after a grace period, to which the materials you gained in the process of annexation can be helpful if done right.

Eco has always been having PvP, where it wasn't settlement related, it was economy or space related. The game notes that the goal is to destroy the meteor without destroying the world in the process. That is not only a reference to pollution, but also one towards collaboration not being that easy with tons of people that have their own interests (for example having others goals in economic competition than just the meteor) and that a society can self-destruct long before it can agree on something.

We never intended Eco to be a completely peaceful game, we just don't want players to engage in problem solving by using a weapon and forcefully removing the disagreeing player from the game. So yes, being annexed can be upsetting, especially so if that was done without any notice. But the same is true for nearly every mechanic in the game when used in specific ways by players. The game revolves around these challenges. Sure, quitting is always possible in a game and there is absolutely nothing we can do about that, but I don't think that should mean that all of Eco's content should be made in a way where upsetting someone is not possible. The economic part of the game would get very bland that way and the law system would need to be mostly removed as in a game that has the idea of players self-policing with a powerful law mechanic it is also not possible to avoid any sort of potential misuse of the feature (or use in a way that some people disagree and would rather quit than play by the rules made) - but the very same feature can be used to rectify or prevent that misuse and change what someone is unhappy with, dependant on players getting together.

With people having as many different ideas on how to play the game as people have ideas how things should work in real life that is the only suitable way to have things be to allow meaningful society building where people actually can have an impact on the state and there is a relation to what people are used to in real-life. The educational part of Eco has always included politics in school as well and the means of reaching consensus and deal with issues where that is not possible.

This thread alone has multiple comments on how people dislike doing something a specific way in Eco. (For example forced "global" currency in a settlement) The thing is, other people like to do it that way. Settlements allow smaller groups finding together to do that without it being a problem for the whole world. But some things a single settlement decides to do may go against the desires of the majority of the whole server - and then annexation is the only way to do something against that, otherwise they are potentially able to dictate what happens for everyone. Without annexation you can't remove their 100 permanently polluting objects in their settlement space that rises sea level for everyone. In any case, having big tools also always comes with big responsibility. If everyone just does what they think is the best they will find that noone wants to play with them and make them do their thing alone. A server failing that way was always a potential outcome of the game.