Politics, Government and Player Voting Power

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[virtuozzo]

2 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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. 

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[virtuozzo]

3 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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. 

 

1. The freedom for your type of gameplay is the freedom you provide for it. Not anybody else.
    
2. This is the foundation of freedom in a sandbox: your choices in interaction with others.
    
3. You are confusing it with security and safety. 
    

 

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[virtuozzo]

16 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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. 

[dw_ace_918]

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. 

 

1. The freedom for your type of gameplay is the freedom you provide for it. Not anybody else.
    
2. This is the foundation of freedom in a sandbox: your choices in interaction with others.
    
3. 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.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[ShioriStein]

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.

[virtuozzo]

1 minute ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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. 

 

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[dw_ace_918]

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) ?

[virtuozzo]

Just now, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

That's the crux here. They might, if they so choose. If NQ gets insight from how players might run things in and with their chosen types of organisation there are things which they can do to potentially support such behavioural options by means of game mechanisms.

 

Practical example: if your organisation wants to choose its representatives, you might have to do that out of game. If another organisation might want to vote on paying dividends, they might have to do that out of game. But NQ can provide a voting construct which players might make use of in their chosen type / form / niche of organisation and behaviour. 

 

4 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 isn't about power. A lot of people make that assumption and confuse matters. 

 

It's about feeding mechanisms. The focal point matters as little as the chosen currency. These matters are interexchangeable. For some it might be control, for others it might be capital, yet others might select something else entirely. It all comes down to feeding habits, regardless of whether the proverbial food is tangible or intangible. 

 

Any system humans create is assumed to be stable, yet the reality is that any human system is inherently unstable exactly because at the heart of it all choices come down to the above. In game it's a little simpler than in real life, since in game people can't exactly procreate

 

[ShioriStein]

9 minutes ago, virtuozzo said:

feeding mechanisms

Now i'm really confuse.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[virtuozzo]

Just now, ShioriStein said:

Now i'm really confuse.

Every system humans create for any kind of interaction always comes down to an exchange of energy in one form or the other. Energy consumed or in turn exchanged for something else. 

 

Most of the time when we consider feeding systems we think of feeding mechanisms  Like how we eat, whether we use knife and fork or fingers or tentacles. But this is about human behavioural psychology. 

 

We feed, in order to facilitate this we create systems. That's the gist of it.

 

Different human groups make different choices in developing their feeding systems. Different groups provide different forms or methods for their respective systems. We tend to get lost easily with all those different forms and shapes and types of systems, whether it's politics or economics or anything else. When we drill down to the heart of it, humans always require energy, they feed with it, they build because of it. Approaching human activity from this angle makes it a lot simpler to observe human behavioural choices. 

 

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[virtuozzo]

1 minute ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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. 

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[vylqun]

5 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

Sorry, but thats just idealistic nonsense. Without impact or limitations on players activities such a council has no power at all and is therefore a useless instrument solely usable for rp.

If it has consequences ingame then it is a artificial system that imposes its rules upon players and limits actions and there is not supposed to be a mechanic like that in DU.

So either it doesn't conform with the idea of DU or its useless, in both cases there is no need for it. 

As i already said, if you want such a government, create the organization and try to make everyone join, but setting it up as game mechanic? Far to limiting and stiff.

[virtuozzo]

1 minute ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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  

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[dw_ace_918]

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.

[virtuozzo]

6 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:

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.

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.