dw_ace_918
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by dw_ace_918
-
I'm just learning about these aspects of the game. If you know any good references I could review to understand what is known, I would be greatful to you. I'll do some research myself before digging any deeper into this topic. Thank you and cheers.
-
I guess it all depends. If it turns out to be something I don't like, I can quit my subscription to the game any time right. I won't have lots of time to devote to the game because of my work schedule, and I just what to "do me" when I do. I hope the concepts that attracted me to this game won't be overshadowed. My impression of the game now is different than when first I saw it advertised and no solid points of development have confirmed or refuted what we can only speculate. IE, people (myself included) have a lot of different expectations and assumption about undeveloped or undisclosed aspects of the game. But none of this has to do with this topic, except I understand the suggestions to follow what we think we know regarding organizations. I appreciate your uplifting attitude in your posts, thank you for that.
-
With respect and gratitude. Thank you for your insights. I doubt minds will be charged on this, and it's easy to make conclusions. Feeling misunderstood in this thing and standing alone. So we can end I hope on a positive note, and not drag people through the mud because we disagree. So cheers my friend and good debate.
-
Can you post link from devblog All I found where video posts that I don't have time to go through yet, and nothing for this year yet.
-
-
End of line man.
-
I'm not trying to "call people out" I was trying to make a point. I understand that this model works for many, but I disagree overall that it is the end all be all. I think organizations, as I understand them, are a broken system that leads game in one direction. Just how I feel about it.
-
Awesome, thank you all for joining the conversation. Some things I would like to address: I see a lot of concern with how government would IMPOSE, LIMITS, and doesn't confirm to SANDBOX. Well, I think that's a lot of rubbish... i think your organizations are worse, we all know how that model works. First, a sandbox without limits is a desert full of sand dunes (It's sand in a BOX). Additionally, sandbox, from what I understand, has nothing to do with gameplay itself, but building stuff and transforming the environment. Finally, organizations fail to provide dynamic and inclusive gameplay for everyone, in my view. We join them because we have to, for security, sometimes friendship and socializing, mutual interest, whatever, we join them because there is nothing else. Your the boss, we should shut up and do what you say... I say NO! You guys MUST do better. People can be cruel, especially in social gaming. You don't want limits, but you can place on others. You want sandbox with no rules, because the other kids are fun to beat up and bully around... when will we all have a voice and power, why does that scare so many? And what is government but people working together on a larger scale? Humbly I submit to you all, my thoughts. Be kind to one and other.
-
Sure, shield are a si-fi staple right, there's no reason not to use them.
-
No, I wouldn't suggest using this as a blueprint, just came to mind because of the force field. I'm also not sure how much I like the idea of force fields, seems cheap in terms of an idea, the concept has been around for a long time. Also, how much science is there for its feasibility (how realistic is it). I think it would be awesome if there was a more "outside of the box" solution that could play on real technology or based in science. That said, I'm not a scientist, so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe something to do with magnetic repulsion and well designated base defenses.
-
Always good to read your posts. It's not ex machina it's realistic, and not originally to solve problems, just adds more gameplay. Anyways, a sandbox is not without structure (box), and my understanding is it means you can build stuff anywhere without limits as well as transform the environment. I guess I'll see it for myself.
-
Government would require larger scale organization with tools specific to function (like voting, criminal reports, trial system, tax etc). I also think citizenship would have to be all inclusive with no way to kick citizens out because they don't do what you want (even in a dictatorship). The reason I see government type systems as important is that it would enable players to preform functions normally handled by mechanics and npcs. It could solve changes related to viability of civilization building, economics, politics, bounties and justice. Anyway, that's what I think.
-
I agree. So I was thinking (probably dangerous to do) and I could imagine governments being like an organization but distinct in a few ways. One: large subscription of players to create (because it has perks to enable functionality). Two: membership is always open to all, and members or citizens connote be kicked out (even in a dictatorship). Among the perks would by tools to preform government functions (various options available, none required to be utilized). Examples would be a voting system, different organizations (such as judicial and security) that would be a job system (people work under an leadership structures, get criminal reports from citizens, have trials for victims and accused... whatever, could be anything). These would be paid for service by system or tax or something. I think, Initially, there would be one government that all are part of, then people can apply for the creation of new governments, if x number of people (a lot, like 10000 or higher) subscribe to join, boom! Who knows. But I think it could be a cool and fun aspect to the game as well as provide naturally what is normally supplied be npc systems.
-
That's very insightful and interesting. I only want to say on the topic of security and safety would be effected little as justice is different and limited by how it can be employed. However, yes, it could add a minor level of security depending on how well security forces organise under the government.
-
You have some good points for me to consider. I have learned a little bit about the perspectives of many people here. If I ever start a new thread, I hope I'll be more prepared for what kind of direction it will go. I'm not sure how well I have presented my idea, because I feel it is misunderstood, and there seems to be a lot of assumptions and and prejudice about what a government is and how it would effect gameplay. That said, people have been fair and presented reasonable arguments for where they stand, so for me, this is not a failed topic, and there can be more said on it.
-
It would not be free or easy and it's scope and strength would depend on how players invest in it. Only difference is all inclusive and provide foundations for players to build on.
-
Well said. I'll think about what you and many others have said. You can't blame me for tying (please don't blame me, just a new guy who likes games) ?
-
Ok, organizations cannot do this in my opinion. But I respect the suggestions about that direction. I think that I would not make a corporation like that nor do I think it would be very successful because my corporation would be more like a business with partners.
-
I guess it would depend on how privacy was handled be dev.
-
I respect what you are saying. The evolution of an idea may prove more fruitful if other join in and discuss how such potential issues could be solved. It was just an idea, so please forgive me.
-
Player privacy is paramount, so names would be redacted for criminals and accusers, where evidence is only considered, and payments from guilty to victims is anonymous. Depending on what is reasonable, names of public figures and there communications would have to be considered in a way that does not violate individual players information. Just as a principle regarding ideas on this topic.
-
Yes, this is a theoretical discussion of things that probably won't make it into the game. I do however believe an all inclusive sandbox government can provide better freedom of game play for all. In my experience with guilds, whatever you call it, end up diminishing player freedom, propagate super power alliances and make everyone subservient to them. Others may agree or disagree. I just wanted to share some basic ideas to discuss and expand up. So I will say that I understand player organizations can be formed and similar principles can be applied to it. This is about all inclusive citizenship and players power... It's about freedom.
-
Lol, I follow what you are saying. In whatever form this idea can be used (even as an organization) anyone could oppose it. Maybe people can work together and bring something like this about. I still like the idea a true In game sandbox government though.
-
Accountability would only apply to elected officials in whatever way it could be implemented. The scope would be limited, and the would be assuming the role of a public figure. I'm not sure what expectations of privacy are and if that would conflict with account sharing rules as it would only cover the scope of the players character and in game identification.
-
Inherently flawed, yes, but all inclusive sandbox government where players can work as law enforcement to fight these kind of things. Accountability would be handled through a transparency information system so all interested can know what is going on and vote accordingly.
