dw_ace_918
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dw_ace_918
-
-
1 hour ago, vylqun said:
sorry, but thats nonsense. Organisations will be a big part of the gameplay, and considering the devblog concerning orgs (which you probably didn't read) they are far from static and defined. They can be pretty much everything if set up correctly.
And if you join an org. with a single leader aka Boss, then its your choice, no reason to cry about not having anythign to say. You could as well join a democratic org and take part in decisions etc.
DU whatever you want - but don't force other people into a democratic superorganization just for your sake.
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.
-
2 hours ago, virtuozzo said:
Yes, we will see all sorts of human behaviour. Good and bad. Things will happen, people and organisations rise and fall, adapt and prosper or fall prey to themselves or others.
The point of the sandbox is that this is exactly what is supposed to happen.
But there is no correlation between sandbox gaming and product succes or failure. There's entirely different correlations at play there, for example developer or publisher not being in tune with state of gameplay, state of competition, making bad calls on advertising targets, screwing up in iteration cycles - etcetera. You can actually find a lot of research on these things.
The sandbox is not focused on supremacy. As I said, it doesn't judge or secure or push. It just provides the arena. Inside that arena is where we get to want things. It's a lot like real life, where you have things you want, and thus things you need to do for it. For all of this you have dependencies. You share those with others. Together people make group decisions. In interaction with other groups they make decisions based on shared interests. Nothing secures any of this in any magical way. It just is what people make of it.
I get the idea you are looking for something which isn't compatible with the sandbox concept. A gaming environment where a player can choose a type of gameplay and be secure in it because the game provides a top level security and freedom of choice mechanism. This is possible in games. But these are not sandbox games.
You actually can get a lot, if not everything, of what you seem to want in a sandbox game. But it will require being part of a group construct where the same values and awareness of requirements for choice/safety are shared. A well organised group like that can provide a secured choice of gameplay, but it will always carry an activity based cost because in a sandbox the developer does not provide for this.
Look on the bright side: exactly because the above means that any group is always at risk of at minimum competition - with groups who may not share the same values or awareness - any activity in such a group is going to be a lot more meaningful than in a non-sandbox game. When there is risk of cost people behave differently and appreciate activity and shared concepts a lot more.
Look, it is perfectly human to want for some kind of status quo blanket. But that is by design not going to be the case in DU. But DU will provide you the means to make your own status quo blanket. At a cost, in competition. But because of that it becomes a lot more real. And DU provides a lot more room and opportunity to do these things. More so than other sandbox
-
End of line man.
-
3 minutes ago, Lethys said:
Yes, If my org is more powerful than yours then I will force you to do things. And some may be bullied into doing something. So what. Change the game, get Allied together and fight. Opppose those who want to surpress you.
I don't want to be in a democracy at all, because it's the worst form of goverment imho. I'm not scared, but mildly amused by such things because imho it just doesn't work.
If you want ppl to work together on a larger scale than do it, noone holds you back. If that's your dream then do it, you already got all necessary mechanics for it. The rest will follow soon.
But don't call ppl Out on "imposing their rule in others" while you try to do exactly that. Weak argument, and a petty one too
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.
-
7 hours ago, unown006 said:
If you are asking for science please watch the video above There will be many outside the box solutions some are already here And force fields may be cheap but so are many other metas out there but I really like it to give one more atvatage to a defender if it puts the time into it
Sure, shield are a si-fi staple right, there's no reason not to use them.
-
11 minutes ago, unown006 said:
Yes but you also have a survival aspect added to it so in this case I dont believe this is the best soultion
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.
-
1 hour ago, virtuozzo said:
Thing is, DU provides one organisation type, corporation. This is a form of organised economic activity and interaction. If DU were to provide a more generic type of player organisation it would be simpler to follow along your exploration. Now it is still possible within a corporation, even between corporations. But it will require a degree of roleplay, so to speak.
DU puts a lot of emphasis on economics. Primarily because in terms of game constructs without some sort of guiding concept it is hard to kickstart a meaningful array of human interactions. In an ideal virtual world you wouldn't need that based on emergent gameplay, but a game is also a product so it has to make a profit. Also, it's very close to the most common / median average type of behaviour people are familiar with. Everybody's got to feed, every system is an exchange of energy, thus economics. Once this is established, room becomes available for different types of organisation, different forms, different goals. In a way it's a little bit of a catch22, since it doesn't fully match with human social psychology. But as I said, it's still a game and a product.
From what you've written here, two types of mechanisms can be observed which independant of type, form or focus of organisation have merit to translate into game features & mechanisms because these are things which are commonly shared across at minimum the types of organisation.
Voting
Jobs
We don't yet know how NQ will approach these things, but it is good to point out that there will be a demand among players for a mechanism which facilitates decision processes in a meaningful in game manner, and a mechanism players can use to assign/exchange tasks. Maybe they have already put this kind of thing on an internal roadmap. Maybe not. Part of me wonders whether the Lua scripting features will be restricted to voxel tech, or whether it'll allow or enable customisation of in game mechanisms.
But it's all still within player organisations. There's no magic government or oversight construct other than NQ that would not break the sandbox.
Here's a thought: what happens when people from one country find new land and are stimulated to explore it? Look at human history. They leave the old place, carve out their own niche, create their own systems. The old is marginalised, supplanted, ignored, and so forth. It'll take a bit of time, but the moment people start to build beyond their starting points is the moment those starting points, and anything connected with them (be it magical governance or anything else) becomes pretty much powerless. The people who stay in the old world end up equally powerless in the long run.
In a sandbox construct the baseline is a selection of very very basic mechanisms. Because a sandbox doesn't provide meaningful gameplay unless the customers build up and organise the place
Or choose to burn it down, this also works. Key concept: activity. Organisation isn't magic or self sustaining either
Civilisation building? Let's look at human history on that as well. Civilisations are built on the ashes of previous iterations. By people. Not by a deus ex machina.
No matter from what angle we approach the topic, it keeps coming back to the sandbox concept. Sandbox games succeed or fail by the activity of its players - introduce said deus ex machina and you undermine the impuls to be human in the sandbox.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Lethys said:
Do it. Organize that. Work for it. See that it's done. I'll watch from afar and will try to bring it down. That's a sandbox
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.
-
1 hour ago, virtuozzo said:
I would agree, but I do think I should point out that these are subjective perspectives. One man's justice, or system of justice, is another man's oppression. While this goes way outside of gaming, consider the following. Tracking a citizen without reservation (morality) may provide a foundation of a system (law) of justice in one society. In another it would be a violation of justice (morality) as well as the system of justice (law).
As players in a sandbox we can and are expected (even required) to create our own systems. That might clash with how others do it elsewhere, or even with corporations active in the same territory but with a different set of ideas. So it would require those creating their selected system to secure it, providing safety. I'm sure you can see the chain of interaction in this.
The sandbox just provides the arena. If a player wants anything in that arena, he or she will have to invest in that. Choice of gameplay carries cost of meeting requirements. Only players can meet that cost in a sandbox.
I'm not saying there can be no governments. But I am saying that the sandbox will not provide it. Never, or it will not be a sandbox. Players can create it. If they so choose.
Just keep in mind that the only distinction between governance and robbery is that the ones in government make the laws
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.
-
5 minutes ago, virtuozzo said:
I think you just got confused on expectations. No worries.
It's perfectly human to try and find safety, security and freedom - each requirements for both basic necessities and anything beyond that. In a sandbox it's the player who has to provide for these things. The game developer might provide common mechanisms or options which share dependancies, but the environment itself does not provide these three things (sole exception being the equivalent of a starting point, and even that has limits).
I do think your exploration has merit. I've spent 15 years in EVE Online (plus F&F & Beta time prior) where a lot of this was completely overlooked (just like it other games) - it never was a factor at all in those days. But it is an exploration in terms of "so how are players going to organise themselves, what choices will share what options for shared mechanisms". Features which players can use to support their choices in organisation within the sandbox. I don't doubt that to a high degree NQ have already done homework on this.
Getting different perspectives on that together in a discussion will enable NQ to prevent a few traps CCP (and others) bumped into.
DU is - in a nutshell - a reimplementation of the classic computer game Elite, with the advantage that it can learn from best practices established by other games. Most of those, like EVE (as Braben put it back in the day) were just that: reimplementations. DU however is - or can be - more than just that. In any case it is being designed to be more than just that. But for this the devs not only have to build the game in terms of core, code, tech and infrastructure. They also have to figure out what makes different people and groups tick in different ways. A lot of that is known, there's a ton of research and experience available on it in the industry (but more importantly, outside of it). But as a game is developed and it starts to grow, players tend to push harder than implementation. It never hurts to see player considerations ahead of time, on the contrary.
So don't worry about such explorations. Just keep in mind the nature of the sandbox.
P.S. Comparisons between DU, EVE, Elite, Ultima and such are easy to make. This doesn't mean however that they're also actually accurate. All these games share certain concepts, and in terms of genre + environment (DU, EVE, Elite, Homeworld) there's other similarities. But they are not the same games, we shouldn't treat them as such. While there are some baseline concepts specific to both DU and EVE, it's still a completely different starting point of development. I'm sure that considering the roadmap of EVE there will come a point where DU will have to face refugees from there, but that is still far off. But there are lessons and there is an experience base to draw from EVE's development history.
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.
-
38 minutes ago, virtuozzo said:
No worries on the idea, it's the focus of the exploration which is off.
Let me put it this way, a lot of people just want their type of gameplay - they want to be happy with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Nothing. But in a sandbox the core foundation of functionality is that it is players who build their niche of choice through their actions, thus making a choice in available game mechanisms a niche of gameplay. There is no magic security or safety for any such niche. Except that which players provide for it.
The bright side is that in a sandbox there is a lot of room for exactly that.
Discussing that is important. As I said, there are considerations to make for NQ in this as well. But in order to punch through a bunch of common perception problems and expectation challenges it would be more productive to seperate any such exploration from theorising on sandbox constraints. That's NQ's prerogative.
I'd rephrase the topic, basically. If you want a type of play based on or connected with concepts of demos cratos, make that the topic. Along the lines of "Player Organisation: Player Governance".
That would seperate matters, enable players to provide their perspectives on what they want to try, explore, build or compete with. For some that might be systems based on or derivative of democracy. NQ could filter datapoints from that. Others might aim for strict economics, where NQ could see what datapoints might match possible features or mechanisms. Others might weigh in to see what organisations lean which way, and use that as their own datapoint for choosing whether they want to join one, or not.
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.
-
24 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
Well like other people i told before and still keep talking about this: If one man, one org can manage to expand, conquere, domination and still can holding there UNITY, STRONG so be it. Why we have to limit there real power because other cant do like them ?
NQ quote: FREEDOM ISNT FREE.
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.
-
1 minute ago, virtuozzo said:
No worries on the idea, it's the focus of the exploration which is off.
Let me put it this way, a lot of people just want their type of gameplay - they want to be happy with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Nothing. But in a sandbox the core foundation of functionality is that it is players who build their niche of choice through their actions, thus making a choice in available game mechanisms a niche of gameplay. There is no magic security or safety for any such niche. Except that which players provide for it.
The bright side is that in a sandbox there is a lot of room for exactly that.
Discussing that is important. As I said, there are considerations to make for NQ in this as well. But in order to punch through a bunch of common perception problems and expectation challenges it would be more productive to seperate any such exploration from theorising on sandbox constraints. That's NQ's prerogative.
I'd rephrase the topic, basically. If you want a type of play based on or connected with concepts of demos cratos, make that the topic. Along the lines of "Player Organisation: Player Governance".
That would seperate matters, enable players to provide their perspectives on what they want to try, explore, build or compete with. For some that might be systems based on or derivative of democracy. NQ could filter datapoints from that. Others might aim for strict economics, where NQ could see what datapoints might match possible features or mechanisms. Others might weigh in to see what organisations lean which way, and use that as their own datapoint for choosing whether they want to join one, or not.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, virtuozzo said:
Nope. What people do in a sandbox has consequences. Ergo, privacy is a non-topic beyond NQ's domain of RL connections - and any multi-account considerations (alts). A name is an identity, connects to actions, connects to impact. It's a door that swings in more than one direction, otherwise there's no door at all.
If you want a court system, build it in your chosen organisation / territory of connected organisations.
I guess it would depend on how privacy was handled be dev.
-
6 minutes ago, virtuozzo said:
Probably? Indubitably.
Be that as it may, if you'd taken a different angle devs might have had potential for inspiration. It is a sandbox, but some core concepts will be anchored as mechanisms. Like "corporations" (which strikes me as limiting, I'd have gone for "Organisation"). But also like "voting". Other such mechanisms will not be unlike those known from other mmo's. Getting datapoints on perspectives is never a bad thing, provided they're clearly identifiable as narratives.
But honestly, think about what you are saying. An all inclusive sandbox government concept would have to take into account every possible type and interaction of human behaviour with itself and every type and form of feature / mechanism interaction. Which makes it a dumb concept diminishing your cherished freedom. Never going to happen. Even going down that road is a black hole of iteration and resource allocation that's just stupendous in scale.
This isn't a debate on philosophy or political ideology. It really is as simple as behavioural and social psychology as mechanisms within a sandbox of game theory.
-
The freedom for your type of gameplay is the freedom you provide for it. Not anybody else.
-
This is the foundation of freedom in a sandbox: your choices in interaction with others.
-
You are confusing it with security and safety.
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.
-
The freedom for your type of gameplay is the freedom you provide for it. Not anybody else.
-
2 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:
"Accountability would be handled through a transparency information system"
Probably any name and share register will be prohibited by NQ as this is normally prohibited in any MMO so probably the accountability should be something creative, but im interested in this, i tend to block any poisenous person in a game, so if there is gone be a list i will surely use it. And then the accountability part will be that those players will be on alot of block lists and trade etc will be probably harder for them.
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.
-
15 minutes ago, virtuozzo said:
That's just begging for a deus ex machina. "I think I can be safest and have my fun if devs pour what I need for that in concrete".
Removing the behavioural and mechanical sandbox by arbitrary constructs might provide a specific player type with a desired outcome, but it'll still be a non-sandbox game that way. Funny thing, NQ present it as a sandbox.
Which makes all of this a theoretical discussion on things which are never going to happen. Unless you - the player - strive to build and organise your ideas and convictions in to a reality among pixels for yourself and yours. Just like others will do different things in different forms with different methods.
You want government? Get people together, go out there, plant your flag and stake your claim. Build and organise your group the way you want it.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Lethys said:
Do it. Organize that. Work for it. See that it's done. I'll watch from afar and will try to bring it down. That's a sandbox
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.
-
1 hour ago, Aaron Cain said:
"Accountability would be handled through a transparency information system"
Probably any name and share register will be prohibited by NQ as this is normally prohibited in any MMO so probably the accountability should be something creative, but im interested in this, i tend to block any poisenous person in a game, so if there is gone be a list i will surely use it. And then the accountability part will be that those players will be on alot of block lists and trade etc will be probably harder for them.
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:
So with that posted, some feedback:
If you want this to work, find a way to deal with trolls and ego.
And with the people who really dont want any dealings with this stuff during their playtime like me but are not going to actively sabotage it aslong as you leave them be.
One method is make another org, but well thats just what you dont want, the other way is to just pronounce "rules"and hope people follow them and forget about the police force.
But in the end, if anyone wants to mine a big hole right under your base in unprotected territory, they can.
so figure out how to deal with that and you have a plan
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:
Sadly this will probably not work for two reasons: Trolls and Egos
And to be clear, i hereby declare myself neutral and independent of any form of general centralized government that will be imposed in DU and will see any form of involvement of this "government" in my actions as an act of violence and will act accordant.
Take my love, take my land,
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care, I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.
Absolutely, there are inherent flaws. Organizations involvement is optional, you can ban government support and even fight against it without effecting individual player citizenship. Criminal organizations can make a living pounding and stealing, creating a black market and so on, a sandbox government as well as organizations would respond accordingly (with military force I assume). Powers of government would be based on players involvement and support as no tax would be imposed. Some jobs in government would be paid by the system, like how you get paid when you turn in resources to the system to generate money. Trolling would be handled however the players and organizations see fit, with a justice system, they would receive a criminal tag, and have to evade and combat law enforcement, bounty hunters, players and organizations they have offered if they do not want to be put on trial, and pay if found guilty (something like that), so players choices could have real and dynamic effects.
-
6 minutes ago, vylqun said:
Remember, playwrs can be part of several organizations, si if they feel the need for an all embracing government they'll create it themselve.
Sure, and organizations would not change under a sandbox government. The idea is that it would provide an all inclusive organization to promote overall player freedom and give each player a more powerful voice. Involved would be determined by each player. Some tools and jobs would be added. No limitations would need to be imposed and all activities would be conducted by players.
Politics, Government and Player Voting Power
in Idea Box
Posted
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.