Jump to content

Politics, Government and Player Voting Power


dw_ace_918

Recommended Posts

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 :P Or choose to burn it down, this also works. Key concept: activity. Organisation isn't magic or self sustaining either :P 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CoreVamore said:

Um, just nope, it imposes limits on a sandbox game, which by its nature is open ended and can end up being communist, capitalist, democratic, fascist, demonic,. angelic, religious, agnostic etc etc etc.

 

The worlds/systems will be what they will be, and just like in the real world as DU expands, I'm sure there will be a mixture of the above throughout DU

 

If you want the above then join an org that wants the above. :D

 

Simplz ;)

 

I agree there to be a limit however only if it doesn't destroy the game as a whole other than that Orgs should not be limited and can be countered likewise 

 

15 hours ago, NanoDot said:

"You can have any political system you want, as long as it's Democracy" !

 

DU's playerbase is not one nation, it's a fractious collection of different groups with widely differing ideas of how the game should be played. DU's design gives those groups complete freedom to choose how they want to organize and rule themselves. Anything else limits that freedom of choice.

 

Democracy is an option, but not a requirement. It will in all likelihood be the least popular form of organization, because it reduces the power of organization leadership. I expect semi-dictatorships and "monarchies" will be the most common forms of organization.

 

The "founders" of organizations in DU are closer to CEO's than to political leaders. They "own" the org by virtue of the fact that they created it. They are the supreme authority in that group, with the power to invite new members or eject existing members as they see fit. Very few of them (if any) will be elected leaders that serve only as long as their "people" approve of them. Anyone that doesn't approve of them will most likely be summarily ejected from the org...

Authoritarian governments .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 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

Pretty much

 

3 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

No let it flow let diversity rain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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 :P Or choose to burn it down, this also works. Key concept: activity. Organisation isn't magic or self sustaining either :P 

 

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. 

Time will tell '

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, unown006 said:

I agree there to be a limit however only if it doesn't destroy the game as a whole other than that Orgs should not be limited and can be countered likewise 

I said there should be NO limits, which is the case, as its a sandbox game.

 

Your idea limits the game to something you believe is viable, it may be, however it wont be for everyone and will fail to be global, and hence will fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:

I said there should be NO limits, which is the case, as its a sandbox game.

 

Your idea limits the game to something you believe is viable, it may be, however it wont be for everyone and will fail to be global, and hence will fail.

My only issue would be if DU orgs turned into ark mega tribes which for many is not fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, unown006 said:

How so because what I can see DU will be very much like ark

Lets see.... tens to hundreds of worlds/planets.... tens of thousands of territory spaces. Safe zones.

Persistant servers that arent erased every month.

 

The fact that NQ has studied ARK and knows what needs to be done so it isnt another ARK.

 

These factors alone will avoid DU becoming another ARK  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:

Lets see.... tens to hundreds of worlds/planets.... tens of thousands of territory spaces. Safe zones.

Persistant servers that arent erased every month.

 

The fact that NQ has studied ARK and knows what needs to be done so it isnt another ARK.

 

These factors alone will avoid DU becoming another ARK  ;)

? did I say DU will become ark?

 

1 hour ago, unown006 said:

How so because what I can see DU will be very much like ark

Guess not As DU will still be like ark we can only hope that NQ will not make the same mistakes with groups as wildcard did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, unown006 said:

? did I say DU will become ark?

 

Guess not As DU will still be like ark we can only hope that NQ will not make the same mistakes with groups as wildcard did

Becoming like ark implies it will be like ark.....  lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 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

My kind of thinking :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, it is DU or don't DU, as Lethys said.

 

The only problem you might have (the biggest problem, perhaps) is convincing others to join your ideas. Marketing. And then managing (people).

 

But chances are something will pop up eventually. In other words, and as the community grows, all kinds of ideas and concepts will be put to the paper and forums, and game. This basically means whatever type of group, organization or state you look for, it will pop up by general concept at least.

 

Make your own. You can't, don't want to do it yourself or it does not work in the long run? Then join an existing group or advertise an idea and have others join up and share the burden or responsibilities equally.

 

But no matter what you or others do, not everyone in the community will like it. And does not have to.

 

E: Uh oh, two posts till 666 posts , brace for impact!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

Yeah and so you try to argue for a .....system. ... To "Balance" that. Because it's easier If it's imposed on all of us instead of making ppl actually work for it. 

Guess we just disagree Here. You want it handed to you by the game like in a theme park mmo. I want players to deal with it on their own Like in a real sandbox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

 

44 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

It seems you're still trying to find some sort of non-sandbox mechanism to provide safety and security for a chosen type of gameplay under a flag of governance protecting said chosen type of gameplay. 

 

I am sorry, but I have tried to get the point across. It is not going to happen. That simply is not a debate. We do not get any choice in this. NovaQuark is not going to provide this for you - or anyone with any chosen type of gameplay. 

 

Here's your reality check: whether you like it or not in any sandbox game you have to deal with your own and other people's behaviour. Regardless of whether it is good, bad, happy or sad. The sandbox requires the full spectrum of human behaviour in order to provide opportunity for any type of human behaviour. 

 

There are going to be people who want to do good things. There are people who are going to want to bad things. Some will want to reap tears. Some will want to use you. Some will tempt you to use them. Others will build just because that makes them happy. Others will try to destroy just because that makes them happy.

The sandbox is just like real life in terms of emergent gameplay. It doesn't protect or constrain. It's the choices and actions of people inside the sandbox which determine matters. 

 

Look, in some sandbox games I've built organisations from the ground up. Systems of governance, economics, logistics, diplomacy, strategy & tactics training to kill, teamwork to help starting players. In others I've built up teams to prey on the innocent by means of metagaming. In another I've done pretty much everything one could imagine, from replicating democracy among pixels turning it into tyranny (or vice versa) and harvesting the tears from those who just wanted to be left alone. The sandbox doesn't judge, protect or secure. It just provides the arena. Anything goes in it, only the developer sets any rules. 

 

 

I will agree that "corporation" as the default type of organisation sets limits. But I have already explained why that makes sense. This however does not prevent you from running a corporation or group of corporations the way you want it, the way that works best for you and likeminded people. But yes, in a sandbox you are always in potential competition and interaction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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!

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

This is all just my opinion, and don't have data (if someone does that would be useful) but my view is based on my experience.

It will start with many organizations, those organizations are swallowed up by the chosen few who will then have power to dictate the terms of gameplay, subscriptions drop, players lose interest and move on. (This is just my opinion, and cannot prove it)

This model works if the focus on the game is supremacy. If that is what we want, fine. If the focus is something else, there has to be a different model. I cannot say mine is a better one, I've never seen it employed in a game, but I think it has marit. Other models could work, maybe better ones out there. I like the concept of all inclusiveness that it could add, as well as dynamic player roles, and choices with player enforced consequences.

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 games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...