Originally posted by Wankler 3. Developer generated live content - This means a developer team that is dedicate to doing number 2 above. The Matrix Online had alot of problems but the live events team was a brilliant idea. There were alot of issues that needed to be addressed with the live events, but I think they were on to a good idea with the live events. 4. Greatly reduce travel time. Although I really like both WoW and Eve Online, to get anywhere in both of those games is a 20 minute ordeal. You walk, or you fly, but basically it's the same thing, you sit there and look at your screen for long periods of time waiting to get there.
I personally dont like any "out-of-world" live-generated developer content. It is like animators at a hotel when you are on vacation. We dont need this kind of entertainment in a dynamically changing world; if done well a dynamically changing world is self-sufficient and will not need such artifical stuff.
To travel times - fast travel times hinder the evolution of a player-driven world economy. If all can be transported in an instant from everywhere to everywhere then their is no locality, no local or regional markets, no need for trade-routes which takes time, effort and risk. No conflict potential and no specific regional supply and demand ... all what is needed to evolve a good economy and strenghen game play is taken away by implementing teleport - this way no dynamically worlds will happen due to lack of a working economy.
Just a few thoughts about ideas raised in the posts above:
Keeping players interest by adding skills instead of new content - The problem with this is that the more skills you add, the more difficult you make it for new players to understand what they can do. The game also has to support enough player driven content for you to enjoy playing with those new skills, though any good game should seek to do this.
Actions affecting your abilities - The problem with this is that it becomes a straight jacket. It's like playing a paladin in D&D, you HAVE to do the right thing, and you don't even have the option of deciding what you'd like to do, the decision is made for you at character generation. I for one find this too stifling.
Player made content - Player made content just can't be done well in an MMO. Even if it could be held to a high enough standard (and I have severe reservations about that), you can't have content that feeds back into the character. You can't have XP / cash or any other rewards from player made content, or it will just get exploited. There are enough complaints about farmers etc already.
Economy = grind - There will always be some element of grind in an MMO. What ever it is that you're trying to limit, be it money or XP the only way to limit it and stop every player getting whatever they want immediately is to make them play the game to get it. There will always be a most profitable way to gain money / xp, and therefore there will always be an element of 'I'm only doing this because it's the quickest way to get X'. There is no escape in any game that has character development. The trick is to make the grind so interesting that it isn't a grind. WoW was pretty good about this, there were 100's of quests so you didn't have to do anything you didn't fancy. You did HAVE to farm for gear at 60, but the instances were very well done, with enough variety that you could have loads of laughs for months doing it.
Effecting the world - This I feel is what the people who were kind of argueing on the 'other side' would most love to see. I think more of it can definatley be used in future MMO's. The problem is ofc that you can't have 50,000 players effecting the PvE elements of the game except in the most superficial ways, but they can ofc effect the player driven content. This is a very tricky part of games development. If players can effect the world, how much power do u want to place into the hands of the stereotypical Chinese kid? If you want many people to play your game, how to you prevent the abuse of the casual gamer by the fringe elite? I'm not saying that there aren't answers, and I'd say that some developers are just too lazy to even look for the answers, but it's a hell of a poser.
What I'd love to see - Just a thought that I'd love to see implimented. Imagine Fallout the MMORPG. I'd love to see reputation used in MMO's. I'd like to have a character that could do quests in Reno until he gained enough rep in their town to fight under their banner. I would like the option of questing for another town to maybe change sides to fight on their side, but without making it too easy. Here is an area where your actions should have consequences. Where your banner isn't chosen at generation, but reflects your history.
And I'd like to thank everyone that contributed the well argued and reasoned opinions above. I might not have agreed with you, but I've enjoyed a rational debate that has mostly boiled down to the style & population of the game we'd like to play.
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
Have to respectfully disagree baff. If you try to be everything to everyone you end up being nothing to someone.
But something to most people is better than something to just one person.
It's impossible for an MMO to be all inclusive in that regard, and I don't think that WoW has anything that i'd call freeform.
One cannot win every battle in life, but one should aim to win the big ones. 95% inclusive is better than 94% inclusive. 51% better than 50%. 31% better than 30%. Not being able to get a perfect 100% score is not a deterence for trying to get as high as possible.
You cannot choose to take a side other than what the game tells you, and are pushed into battles that are not of your doing. In freeform, i should choose my fights, not have them chosen for me.
That choice in WOW and Planetside is made in character creation. In Matrix Online faction choice is made later down the line. In Eve you far more flexible completely (although this flexibility comes at the expense of Roleplay opportunity).
I have never been pushed into any fight in WOW. I had a wide variety of fights to choose from at all times, duels, pvp battles, pvp battlefields with a variety of gametypes. Open pvp, arena PvP world domination pvp, casual pvp, AI, AI bosses, quest AI's, Ai's requiring teamwork casually encountered AI's. etc etc etc
Please stop thinking baff that content is being left out, because that is simply not true. In the environment we are talking about, there would actually have to be far more content than previous games due to the dynamic way that players would interact with it. This has been the problem for developing these games, as devs can't make enough content. New technologies are starting to make content creation easier for devs, such as engines and toolsets. Hopefully this will mean that the requirements for these types of MMOs to be made will be reached, and then my friend you'll see what we mean. Unfortunately, you and many others are looking at this discussion through the eyes of MMOs of the past, which in my mind is clouding your view on it. Natural as that may be, it is unfortunate.
It would take actual examples of games that have developed along the lines of your suggestion in which content was not left out for me to take more notice of this argument. I understand that your are discussing a fantasy game that hasn't been made, but I feel any such discussion must be rooted in what is demonstrably achieveable.
I felt that my example of Planetside was a game that adhered to your stated design principles but also agreed with my opinion that games that focus on one type of play only tend to be underdeveloped and "content lite".
Thanks for your delicate and tactful reply. Sorry to have done a cheap dissect and rebutal rather than progress the discussion. I will endeavour to do better next time.
Nick, all your arguments are true if you see them before the background of conventional MMOs. But if you start thinking about how a game could be like if you dont see conventional MMOs as written in stone but changeable, you might find, that it is actually not that hard to make it all work.
For example player made content. See EVE Online for example - actually the "history" evolves dynamically and is a player-made content. Players drive economy, player drive politics, player drive history, player create new content by actually effecting the world. The more players are able to change the world the less developer-provided content is needed.
Best example is the real world itself - it is based on a complex rule set and a lot of energy, nothing more was needed to make it happen.
Careful Ragosch, folks tend to assume that when you mention or compare things to real life that you really want all the boring bits of life in the game, which of course aint true. Using principles that are familiar (i.e. In Real Life) in my opinion make things more easily understood and accessible. There are obviously things in life that we don't want or need in a game, but in the end i guess that's pretty subjective.
Originally posted by baff It would take actual examples of games that have developed along the lines of your suggestion in which content was not left out for me to take more notice of this argument. I understand that your are discussing a fantasy game that hasn't been made, but I feel any such discussion must be rooted in what is demonstrably achieveable. I felt that my example of Planetside was a game that adhered to your stated design principles but also agreed with my opinion that games that focus on one type of play only tend to be underdeveloped and "content lite".
That's the problem Baff. We are only NOW getting the techology that makes it demonstrably achieveable. Past attempts haven't worked, or have been inherently flawed due to the lack of technology behind them. Any discussion rooted in what you suggest in any industry that is driven by technology will always be a discussion based purely on the past, and whilst there are certainly lessons we can take from the past they can in no way condemn ideas and dreams for the future. Especially not when the possibilities are increasing exponentially as we get closer to the honey pot.
Eve Online is one of the best examples of thinking outside the current mould. What benefits them however, is the fact that their graphics (though beautiful) require less instense dev time and more effort can be made in their other systems. Personally I didn't get into EVE but it certainly excited me simply by the possibilties that it shows and others that it hints at.
It needs to be controled in the way it is in the real world too - by political power and a working law and order system. At places where this cannot be provided there will be outlaw territory. EVE Online has hardwired this by assigning security states from 0.0 to 1.0 to any system for example (1.0 most secure, 0.0 actually no offical law and order system). It does not need to be done this way, but it shows the concept of it and it proofs that this system works.
I'm no expert on Eve, but by the same measure it has a reputation as a game with a herd and preditors. Extreme players do weild power over more casual gamers, and often use that power to abuse them.
(At the same time I should mention that some extreme players have gone way out of their way to make the game more fun for new players).
I think you have to accept that for better or worse, the more extreme players will call the shots over player driven content, and will get allot more out of it.
How do you keep the herd happy? The average subscription time for an eve player is four months (pretty sure on that, can't remember what thread I read it on though).
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
Originally posted by CardinalSin How do you keep the herd happy? The average subscription time for an eve player is four months (pretty sure on that, can't remember what thread I read it on though).
A game where you control a family over 10-20 generations in history is much different from a single-character game. Playing out just a single character limits you in a way. You have no ability to let this character work while you play with another one, just because there isnt another one. You have to work by yourself and that is what limits EVE in a way - sooner or later fun converts into work more or less.
If you advance as a family and have the control over many characters which can do automated work for you, you are basically managing a growing family dynasty or empire, which will provide you with economical and political power sooner or later.
You are in the lead of communties, states and nations then and this enables a much different gameplay from the normal monster-slaughtering or combat oriented games. In our game PvP means actually player versus player competition, not just player versus player combat. Economical power enables military and political power, but it also have effects on scientific advancements which are effecting economical power in reverse.
Such a system is changing at high rates and gameplay will not get stuck that easily. You never know if your enemy might have made an invention which might make your defenses and armour pretty useless. See the inventions of propelled weapons like long bows, crossbows, guns and rifles for example, they made chain and plate armour pretty useless and combat changed totally.
This is dynamic gameplay and I guess this will make players happy and excited for a longer time than static gameplay is able to.
Perhaps, but you still haven't addressed the issue with player driven content - The total no lifer that plays the game 24 / 7 calls the shots, and he can if he wants use his relative power to damage the gameplay of more casual gamers.
Are you just going to accept this as the cost of doing business?
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
It would be that way if we would not have a simple rule - if someone is declared an outlaw in a state or nation all of his family members living in these states and nations will leave him immediately.
An outlaw player looses all or a part of his family this way (just because he is the black sheep of the family now and they dont want to be with him any longer) what makes him less powerful in an instant while bounties are put on his head now and he is hunted by officals and bounty hunters too. Dont forget, there is just 1 life to live and penalties at those times often were death penalties. If he will get caught sooner or later hanging from the gallows might be the last thing he might see before his account is closed forever (just because he runs out of characters the moment he dies by hanging).
So it is not a good idea to become an outlaw in those states or nations where your family lives. But to operate far away from your family is much harder. Players can become outlaws and criminals, but they need to take a very high risk like it always was in the real world also. But territory not controlled by states or nations is outlaw territory where brutal force rules. And this is important too because it rises the demand for forming social communties, form states and join powerful nations.
Declaring someone outlaw is the nuclear option, it's not suitable for the majority of infractions.
What if King Bob tells you that you have to hand over a rent of 10% a month for building the city walls or he'll have to kick you out of the kingdom? Sure, you can go join someone else, but all the work you've put into developing a little armoursmiths would be lost. He has the majority of the population on his side, so he has the right to make the demand, but ultimately another player gets to decide your future because he's more involved in the game than you are.
What about the next month when in a time of trouble it's decided that all players have to spend 2 hours a week defending the walls incase the outlaws attack, but you only get to play for 6 hours a week.
And the week after when it's decided by popular vote that the whole city is going outlaw, but you were offline on holidays for a week & didn't get to stock up on materials before the change like all the hard core?
What happens to the casual guy if the rules are made by the hard core? Tough shit?
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
Originally posted by CardinalSin What if King Bob tells you that you have to hand over a rent of 10% a month for building the city walls or he'll have to kick you out of the kingdom? What about the next month when in a time of trouble it's decided that all players have to spend 2 hours a week defending the walls incase the outlaws attack, but you only get to play for 6 hours a week. And the week after when it's decided by popular vote that the whole city is going outlaw, but you were offline on holidays for a week & didn't get to stock up on materials before the change like all the hard core.
To first paragraph:
He is the king and when his will is proclamated it is law - it is no democracy! - This is actually system supported in our game by the tax system (you said "rent") and the law and order system.
To second paragraph:
Hm, you arent a patriot as it seems. If your nation needs to be defended against an enemy, there is no question if or if not to defend it or open a discussion about it - people are called for duty as it was at all times and if you dont follow this call you might be executed for cowardice. I cant see where you see any problems here, this was handled this way including the second world war by many nations.
You dont need to be online if some of your characters are called for duty. They will act by AI if you are not online in our game, so dont worry about it.
To third paragraph:
This is up to politicians, not to normal citizen or pesantry. If you live in a nation you often do not have a choice if you want it that way or not. You need to follow the decicions of the majority in a democracy or those of your king in a monarchy. You need to stick to law and order and decisions of poltical leaders are valid for all. This is how states and nations work, so why do you have a problem with it in a game?
It could have 100 million subscribers, it would not be any better - it is a crap game, and if 100 million like crap, they might enjoy it, nothing against it - it would change nothing, it is still a boring level-grind game.
Originally posted by Ragosch It could have 100 million subscribers, it would not be any better - it is a crap game, and if 100 million like crap, they might enjoy it, nothing against it - it would change nothing, it is still a boring level-grind game. Ragosch
ROFLMAO!!
The walking, talking definition of sour grapes ladies and gentlemen!!
God himself could part the clouds, float down from heaven, shine divine light upon your presence, and tell you in plain, simple worlds that World of Warcraft was divenly inspired and created to deliver mankind from all suffering....
...and Rogosch would still be sitting there in his little puddle of filth with his arms crossed and a stern little look of determination on his cherubic face.
if you trust the masses for quality, you will just get average things or below average - the masses dont know what is good, they never did and they will never do - it is a fact. So, I do not follow the masses but derive my own opinions - thats it.
Comments
I personally dont like any "out-of-world" live-generated developer content. It is like animators at a hotel when you are on vacation. We dont need this kind of entertainment in a dynamically changing world; if done well a dynamically changing world is self-sufficient and will not need such artifical stuff.
To travel times - fast travel times hinder the evolution of a player-driven world economy. If all can be transported in an instant from everywhere to everywhere then their is no locality, no local or regional markets, no need for trade-routes which takes time, effort and risk. No conflict potential and no specific regional supply and demand ... all what is needed to evolve a good economy and strenghen game play is taken away by implementing teleport - this way no dynamically worlds will happen due to lack of a working economy.
Ragosch
Just a few thoughts about ideas raised in the posts above:
Keeping players interest by adding skills instead of new content - The problem with this is that the more skills you add, the more difficult you make it for new players to understand what they can do. The game also has to support enough player driven content for you to enjoy playing with those new skills, though any good game should seek to do this.
Actions affecting your abilities - The problem with this is that it becomes a straight jacket. It's like playing a paladin in D&D, you HAVE to do the right thing, and you don't even have the option of deciding what you'd like to do, the decision is made for you at character generation. I for one find this too stifling.
Player made content - Player made content just can't be done well in an MMO. Even if it could be held to a high enough standard (and I have severe reservations about that), you can't have content that feeds back into the character. You can't have XP / cash or any other rewards from player made content, or it will just get exploited. There are enough complaints about farmers etc already.
Economy = grind - There will always be some element of grind in an MMO. What ever it is that you're trying to limit, be it money or XP the only way to limit it and stop every player getting whatever they want immediately is to make them play the game to get it. There will always be a most profitable way to gain money / xp, and therefore there will always be an element of 'I'm only doing this because it's the quickest way to get X'. There is no escape in any game that has character development. The trick is to make the grind so interesting that it isn't a grind. WoW was pretty good about this, there were 100's of quests so you didn't have to do anything you didn't fancy. You did HAVE to farm for gear at 60, but the instances were very well done, with enough variety that you could have loads of laughs for months doing it.
Effecting the world - This I feel is what the people who were kind of argueing on the 'other side' would most love to see. I think more of it can definatley be used in future MMO's. The problem is ofc that you can't have 50,000 players effecting the PvE elements of the game except in the most superficial ways, but they can ofc effect the player driven content. This is a very tricky part of games development. If players can effect the world, how much power do u want to place into the hands of the stereotypical Chinese kid? If you want many people to play your game, how to you prevent the abuse of the casual gamer by the fringe elite? I'm not saying that there aren't answers, and I'd say that some developers are just too lazy to even look for the answers, but it's a hell of a poser.
What I'd love to see - Just a thought that I'd love to see implimented. Imagine Fallout the MMORPG. I'd love to see reputation used in MMO's. I'd like to have a character that could do quests in Reno until he gained enough rep in their town to fight under their banner. I would like the option of questing for another town to maybe change sides to fight on their side, but without making it too easy. Here is an area where your actions should have consequences. Where your banner isn't chosen at generation, but reflects your history.
And I'd like to thank everyone that contributed the well argued and reasoned opinions above. I might not have agreed with you, but I've enjoyed a rational debate that has mostly boiled down to the style & population of the game we'd like to play.
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
Have to respectfully disagree baff. If you try to be everything to everyone you end up being nothing to someone.
But something to most people is better than something to just one person.
It's impossible for an MMO to be all inclusive in that regard, and I don't think that WoW has anything that i'd call freeform.
One cannot win every battle in life, but one should aim to win the big ones. 95% inclusive is better than 94% inclusive. 51% better than 50%. 31% better than 30%. Not being able to get a perfect 100% score is not a deterence for trying to get as high as possible.
You cannot choose to take a side other than what the game tells you, and are pushed into battles that are not of your doing. In freeform, i should choose my fights, not have them chosen for me.
That choice in WOW and Planetside is made in character creation. In Matrix Online faction choice is made later down the line. In Eve you far more flexible completely (although this flexibility comes at the expense of Roleplay opportunity).
I have never been pushed into any fight in WOW. I had a wide variety of fights to choose from at all times, duels, pvp battles, pvp battlefields with a variety of gametypes. Open pvp, arena PvP world domination pvp, casual pvp, AI, AI bosses, quest AI's, Ai's requiring teamwork casually encountered AI's. etc etc etc
Please stop thinking baff that content is being left out, because that is simply not true. In the environment we are talking about, there would actually have to be far more content than previous games due to the dynamic way that players would interact with it. This has been the problem for developing these games, as devs can't make enough content. New technologies are starting to make content creation easier for devs, such as engines and toolsets. Hopefully this will mean that the requirements for these types of MMOs to be made will be reached, and then my friend you'll see what we mean. Unfortunately, you and many others are looking at this discussion through the eyes of MMOs of the past, which in my mind is clouding your view on it. Natural as that may be, it is unfortunate.
It would take actual examples of games that have developed along the lines of your suggestion in which content was not left out for me to take more notice of this argument. I understand that your are discussing a fantasy game that hasn't been made, but I feel any such discussion must be rooted in what is demonstrably achieveable.
I felt that my example of Planetside was a game that adhered to your stated design principles but also agreed with my opinion that games that focus on one type of play only tend to be underdeveloped and "content lite".
Thanks for your delicate and tactful reply. Sorry to have done a cheap dissect and rebutal rather than progress the discussion. I will endeavour to do better next time.
Nick, all your arguments are true if you see them before the background of conventional MMOs. But if you start thinking about how a game could be like if you dont see conventional MMOs as written in stone but changeable, you might find, that it is actually not that hard to make it all work.
For example player made content. See EVE Online for example - actually the "history" evolves dynamically and is a player-made content. Players drive economy, player drive politics, player drive history, player create new content by actually effecting the world. The more players are able to change the world the less developer-provided content is needed.
Best example is the real world itself - it is based on a complex rule set and a lot of energy, nothing more was needed to make it happen.
Ragosch
Careful Ragosch, folks tend to assume that when you mention or compare things to real life that you really want all the boring bits of life in the game, which of course aint true. Using principles that are familiar (i.e. In Real Life) in my opinion make things more easily understood and accessible. There are obviously things in life that we don't want or need in a game, but in the end i guess that's pretty subjective.
That's the problem Baff. We are only NOW getting the techology that makes it demonstrably achieveable. Past attempts haven't worked, or have been inherently flawed due to the lack of technology behind them. Any discussion rooted in what you suggest in any industry that is driven by technology will always be a discussion based purely on the past, and whilst there are certainly lessons we can take from the past they can in no way condemn ideas and dreams for the future. Especially not when the possibilities are increasing exponentially as we get closer to the honey pot.
Eve Online is one of the best examples of thinking outside the current mould. What benefits them however, is the fact that their graphics (though beautiful) require less instense dev time and more effort can be made in their other systems. Personally I didn't get into EVE but it certainly excited me simply by the possibilties that it shows and others that it hints at.
sure lots of things in life suck..
but if you give the player a world where she/he is completely able to control and change it...
then the player is driven to experience all the benefits and possibilities she has to master his environment.
one day, mmo's will be 100% like life, and then we can do whatever we can cooperate and do as a team, forming societies to build us up, not leveling
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Well what about the problem of player driven content - how much power do you place in the hands of extreme players?
Do you just accept that a certain level of abuse will happen to casual players?
What about those who feel that they are not equiped to compete with more capable gamers, do they have a place?
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
It needs to be controled in the way it is in the real world too - by political power and a working law and order system. At places where this cannot be provided there will be outlaw territory. EVE Online has hardwired this by assigning security states from 0.0 to 1.0 to any system for example (1.0 most secure, 0.0 actually no offical law and order system). It does not need to be done this way, but it shows the concept of it and it proofs that this system works.
Ragosch
I'm no expert on Eve, but by the same measure it has a reputation as a game with a herd and preditors. Extreme players do weild power over more casual gamers, and often use that power to abuse them.
(At the same time I should mention that some extreme players have gone way out of their way to make the game more fun for new players).
I think you have to accept that for better or worse, the more extreme players will call the shots over player driven content, and will get allot more out of it.
How do you keep the herd happy? The average subscription time for an eve player is four months (pretty sure on that, can't remember what thread I read it on though).
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
A game where you control a family over 10-20 generations in history is much different from a single-character game. Playing out just a single character limits you in a way. You have no ability to let this character work while you play with another one, just because there isnt another one. You have to work by yourself and that is what limits EVE in a way - sooner or later fun converts into work more or less.
If you advance as a family and have the control over many characters which can do automated work for you, you are basically managing a growing family dynasty or empire, which will provide you with economical and political power sooner or later.
You are in the lead of communties, states and nations then and this enables a much different gameplay from the normal monster-slaughtering or combat oriented games. In our game PvP means actually player versus player competition, not just player versus player combat. Economical power enables military and political power, but it also have effects on scientific advancements which are effecting economical power in reverse.
Such a system is changing at high rates and gameplay will not get stuck that easily. You never know if your enemy might have made an invention which might make your defenses and armour pretty useless. See the inventions of propelled weapons like long bows, crossbows, guns and rifles for example, they made chain and plate armour pretty useless and combat changed totally.
This is dynamic gameplay and I guess this will make players happy and excited for a longer time than static gameplay is able to.
Ragosch
Perhaps, but you still haven't addressed the issue with player driven content - The total no lifer that plays the game 24 / 7 calls the shots, and he can if he wants use his relative power to damage the gameplay of more casual gamers.
Are you just going to accept this as the cost of doing business?
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
It would be that way if we would not have a simple rule - if someone is declared an outlaw in a state or nation all of his family members living in these states and nations will leave him immediately.
An outlaw player looses all or a part of his family this way (just because he is the black sheep of the family now and they dont want to be with him any longer) what makes him less powerful in an instant while bounties are put on his head now and he is hunted by officals and bounty hunters too. Dont forget, there is just 1 life to live and penalties at those times often were death penalties. If he will get caught sooner or later hanging from the gallows might be the last thing he might see before his account is closed forever (just because he runs out of characters the moment he dies by hanging).
So it is not a good idea to become an outlaw in those states or nations where your family lives. But to operate far away from your family is much harder. Players can become outlaws and criminals, but they need to take a very high risk like it always was in the real world also. But territory not controlled by states or nations is outlaw territory where brutal force rules. And this is important too because it rises the demand for forming social communties, form states and join powerful nations.
Ragosch
Declaring someone outlaw is the nuclear option, it's not suitable for the majority of infractions.
What if King Bob tells you that you have to hand over a rent of 10% a month for building the city walls or he'll have to kick you out of the kingdom? Sure, you can go join someone else, but all the work you've put into developing a little armoursmiths would be lost. He has the majority of the population on his side, so he has the right to make the demand, but ultimately another player gets to decide your future because he's more involved in the game than you are.
What about the next month when in a time of trouble it's decided that all players have to spend 2 hours a week defending the walls incase the outlaws attack, but you only get to play for 6 hours a week.
And the week after when it's decided by popular vote that the whole city is going outlaw, but you were offline on holidays for a week & didn't get to stock up on materials before the change like all the hard core?
What happens to the casual guy if the rules are made by the hard core? Tough shit?
Nick
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet.
To first paragraph:
He is the king and when his will is proclamated it is law - it is no democracy! - This is actually system supported in our game by the tax system (you said "rent") and the law and order system.
To second paragraph:
Hm, you arent a patriot as it seems. If your nation needs to be defended against an enemy, there is no question if or if not to defend it or open a discussion about it - people are called for duty as it was at all times and if you dont follow this call you might be executed for cowardice. I cant see where you see any problems here, this was handled this way including the second world war by many nations.
You dont need to be online if some of your characters are called for duty. They will act by AI if you are not online in our game, so dont worry about it.
To third paragraph:
This is up to politicians, not to normal citizen or pesantry. If you live in a nation you often do not have a choice if you want it that way or not. You need to follow the decicions of the majority in a democracy or those of your king in a monarchy. You need to stick to law and order and decisions of poltical leaders are valid for all. This is how states and nations work, so why do you have a problem with it in a game?
Ragosch
LOL!
WoW is now at 6 Million subscribers... and that is NOT listed as a news item here at EVEFANBOI.com...
...er, um I mean MMORPG.com.
Yesiree!! That's fine, objective, balanced gaming news coverage for you!
It could have 100 million subscribers, it would not be any better - it is a crap game, and if 100 million like crap, they might enjoy it, nothing against it - it would change nothing, it is still a boring level-grind game.
Ragosch
ROFLMAO!!
The walking, talking definition of sour grapes ladies and gentlemen!!
God himself could part the clouds, float down from heaven, shine divine light upon your presence, and tell you in plain, simple worlds that World of Warcraft was divenly inspired and created to deliver mankind from all suffering....
...and Rogosch would still be sitting there in his little puddle of filth with his arms crossed and a stern little look of determination on his cherubic face.
Good show buddy!
if you trust the masses for quality, you will just get average things or below average - the masses dont know what is good, they never did and they will never do - it is a fact. So, I do not follow the masses but derive my own opinions - thats it.
Ragosch