dw_ace_918
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by dw_ace_918
-
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.
-
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.
-
I didn't think any of that would be effected. The fact that an all inclusive sandbox government run by players is inherently flawed presents a dynamic feature to me. It would also allow players options if structures such as you described (and prefer) are not what they want to be part of.
-
There is always room for anarchy regardless of any power structure in game (such as already exist with organizations), nothing would change this.
-
Thank you for elaborating. It is just an idea, and I wanted to see what people think. It would be a sandbox government with a few tools and jobs, and what it would be is anything the players at large want to make it. My thinking is, this sandbox has many people, and larger concerns could be addressed with a cooperative organization, as to prevent a society subservient to one or more dominant groups. I don't know what that that would look like or how it would work, but it would have to promote player freedom and impose no constants.
-
Yes, it may not work well depending on players involved and and how some limited powers could be used. It's a sandbox government, with a few sculpting tools, serving everyone in the sandbox. So the players define it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
-
This "system" is no constant, it only provides two things: tools and jobs. Participation is optional, nothing is inherently required except a few position that are chosen by the people. There is no difference between the effects of a government vs an organization except who they answer to.
-
Thank you for your input. May I ask, in what way or how would a player based democracy imposed limits to the game?
-
In what way would player based democracy imposed limits?
-
Government Organizations * Please read rules (below) The idea: Optional, all inclusive, citizenship equality, community run government hierarchy. No single player ownership, community chosen leadership, all inclusive optional citizenship. Functions of governing including any style of government, with tools to employ justice, security, leadership structures, taxes and more. Massive subscriptions to player published government system to initiate. Dynamically different and superior to other forms of organizations. Possible initial predesighned government on new game as opinion for all players. Rules in this topic (added 5-4-18) > please do not use QUOTE tool, it damages the forum by cluttering it with "quote clouds" > You may callout a user name if you wish to communicate with them in this topic forum. > If an idea has merit to you outside of the gov org topic, feel free to start a new topic on it as its own game idea. > Please be curious and respectful, remember, we all have a right to our own opinions and ideas.
-
It's from command & conquer alliance's (or something like that), it used a shield mechanic on new game start and after destruction. The focus was heavily on defence, and strategic attack patterns based on opponents defensive design. Attacks where limited by command points that had a cool down period to regenerate. Many times I would log in with my base destroyed, have to move (an allowed distance), and for a short time have a shield. We would use this time to gather alliance members to retaliate. I'm sure many games use mechanics like this for always online play. The point is that it makes base building strategy and attack strategy more challenging and in turn rewarding. It also had a focus on holding resources that benefit the alliance.
-
You may ask "how does this relate to bounties?" Just like real life, accused, summoned, evading justice, leads to bounty. Accused is caught, trial and evidence, judgment, if voted guilty, pays accordingly... ect... All with inherent human error and corruption and global accountability. everyone can follow political issues and elect leaders anonymously. That's one type of political system example anyway. That's what I think we should be considering.
-
Amazing thoughts. I may be off base here, but I think it will be some kind of player run political system in conjunction with systematic constitution, I think that is more of the direction, based on what they have advertised. How would that system work? Voting, official positions, accountability to all players to ensure fairness and justice. Worth a thought, I have never heard of such a thing, but how else would a political system look?
-
Your right, they would have to work to defend a base when you are online or offline too right? I guess automated defenses would not be unreasonable. Not only are they deployed on bases, but ships have them as well (irl). They typically are reactive and not proactive, such as shooting down missiles and divebombers. That would make sense to me. I don't know what kind of weapons you can place on your base and how much independence they are given to operate. -
There is a mechanic from a different base building game that was always online. In order to destroy a base of a player online or not, the attackers had a limited number of attacks to destroy all defenses (which auto regenerated over time) and destroy the command center. Attackers would take damage from defenses also. Movement was limited, so if attacks failed, a player would have time to retaliate and backup could also come and help. If the base was destroyed, it would be moved and slowly recover from damage, losing functionality and resources for a time. I don't know if something like that could be a good compromise, but kinda seems like a possible solution all-around. Would make for a fair and extended battle mechanic. What do you think guys? Apologies, this is off topic.
-
I think I agree with you guys, doesn't seem like there is a lot of value in floating nametags unless you are "grouped" (if there is such a thing in ue) or you are looking at them. Hopefully it will also be better looking floating nametags if visibility is limited to direct line of sight and "grouped" players who are working together.
-
Yeah, I guess I agree with most of that. In the end, if there is some type of stealth it would be used for lots of things other than just combat.
-
What else would I waste my resources on? Gather them to build stuff, and sell stuff... idk... I think people will gravitas towards civilization and creating; to belong and express.
-
It's an aspect that interested me in this game. I look forward to seeing how it works. It looks like there will be a lot of elements to this game.
-
Yes, in the end players will determine the fate of this game, as I understand it. Therefore, what we can accomplish will follow how players interact and how we use the tools given to us in this new world. In the end, I hope it is something fun for all. I apologize for the color, was not intended.
-
I change my answer... no to ai stuff for combat. I could imagine it though... My own army of automatons, a fleet of drones and an infinite supply of clones.... unlikely and unfair an advantage that would be... worse, missing the point, I am. The game, YOU must play. Emphasis on the YOU (the player), not ai constructs. That's what I think.
-
I'm very interested in seeing how civilization building will work. Isn't this actually a big ficus in the game following the lore of rebuilding civilization and colonizing new worlds? Seems like it's own game within the game, build cities (or rather civilizations). Regardless of existential porpoises, is not building the city a challenge and a purpose in itself? I say so.
-
If we take a realistic view of piracy, there will be consequences for those who steal and kill. Not only will you have a bounty on your head, but your role will be limited. You will be sought out by law enforcement and bounty hunters alike. It will not be the grand and full life that Hollywood and other games make it out to be, it will be hard, it will be lived in the shadows and it will carry the constant fear of repercussion... why? Because in a future focused on rebuilding humanity, no innocent person should live in constant fear of criminals. That's how I see it. The role of pirate or criminal will be more difficult, as it is in real life, but there is nothing preventing someone from perusing it, if that is what he or she seeks.
-
Stealth technology and detection technology, even in a futuristic sy-fi game, would have to take its queues from our current understanding of these technologies, and known possibilities, if said game intends to be balanced and fair. Although imagination is the cornerstone of DU, combat technologies are not. I see a civilization trying to rebuild not self-destruct. Conflict is bound to happen when groups decide not to work together, but the intent is not to force such a scenario; it is not only unrealistic in an economically and politically driven world, but detrimental to the core mission of the more evolved survivor of Armageddon: they did not spend 400 years researching how to destroy each other, but how to rebuild. That said, all war technology should be limited and used sparingly and at great cost not only financially but also politically. Defense should hold a higher priority in any case and be given much stronger mechanics. Finally, if I may say, I think it would be great if, when building such systems, much thought and research was put into them, so that they have some scientific basis (though fictional), balanced, and consistent with the technologies related to a society attempting to rebuild light-years from home.
