If you mean as a part of the game itself, then I would need to understand those aspects before deciding if it was a good idea or not.
It could be interesting, but I would not enjoy having to do things because an elected figure says I must (I get enough of that IRL). I guess you are not saying that, but I think it should be made clear on the direction that this idea is proposing before people say yea or nay.
I love the idea of players being able to become integrated into the social landscape of the world. It provides a wonderful opportunity for an extra layer of immersion and also serves as a pie in the sky for starry eyed players.
I do have some concerns. I think the action that merit's someone becoming the king or queen of a land should be in harmony with the gravity of the achievement. This particular issue can spoil the game if it goes too far off the mark either way. Some games have a somewhat difficult but accomplishable task to let you temporarily become emperor, or head of the market, or mayor of the town for a temporary period of time. The action is weak and the reward is spoiled so it is de-evolved into nothing more than a milestone achievement. On the other side of the spectrum, you might give the accomplishment of king/queen to a popular streamer or an extremely active forum poster or as a pledge reward. The lack of in game merit would make the reward seem hollow and ruin the spirit and potential of the idea. However, if a player was really interested in the political intrigue quests of a nation and spent time investing into these story lines and their perception skills and then one day became the first to find the thread of a quest that allowed a player to become a monarch, then that player becoming king or queen would be amazing.
Also as a side note, leaders are not the only opportunity for this kind of player integration. I think any dedicated action that lends a lived in feel for the world of terminus should merit consideration for player integration. If someone sells cabbages in the same spot for a year and the community notices... maybe that person should get a cabbage shack. If an outpost town starts pulling large amounts of trade because players like it, maybe it should get a few more guards, then some nicer buildings, maybe a new name, maybe more residents, maybe a year or two later its unrecognizable. Maybe NPC's say things like " I rememba' when dis place wassa dump!". When players see even the smallest bend in the world to honor their actions, even something as simple as deeper mud puddles on a popular route, it is an automatic elevation of game immersion. When players don't see player affected change in the world, it shines a light on the unraveling thread in the backdrop; It instantly reminds us that this world is not real.
-Gottbeard
No. If that control is substantial in any amount, it will be abused. People want power, people will find a way to silence/censor, cheat or otherwise toxify a world to make their presence matter.
It's bad enough EQ and older games like this had their entire raid scenes dictated to others by a few. This will likely happen again and it will be bad enough competing for scraps. I couldn't imagine if people schemed to get control over game systems.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - Do you agree with electing other community members as in-game Kings/Queens/Lords or Leaders of any type that gives them control over some aspect of the game? Please explain your answer. #MMORPG#CommunityMatters
Oh HELLLLLLLLL nawwwwh. No effing way. Players are biased, mercurial, prone to hold grudges, self serving, egotistical and power hungry just to name a few. None of us should be in control of any aspect of this game that could affect what another player can or can't do.
What process would decide who gets to be in one of these positions? Welcome to popularity contests! Welcome to large guilds collaborating to control the outcome! Who actually gets to vote? Each character, or just 1 vote per account? What about those people who have multiple accounts? How will you determine which single person actually has multiple accounts vs a family that 4 accounts (husband, wife and 2 kids) all registered to the same person or credit card?
EVE Online did this with their EVE Player Council and it quickly devolved into the largest alliances dictating who could run and who you would vote for such that they could then help push the developers into directions that favored them.
This is one thing this game does not need.
I'm going to surprise everyone with this - but actually, yes.
The reason for this is that I support player city mechanics for housing, and those are best facilitated by residents of a housing area electing a mayor who can manage aspects like deciding what civic buildings get placed or what the name of the city is going to be.
That said, the system needs to be set up well enough that people can be voted out of "office" if they break the public trust. And the impact of such office needs to be limited enough that it doesn't severely impact the gameplay of players. Ideally, whatever elected positions you have need to be things that enable people to organize and create events that bring players together, not things that help people get better loot or faster experience or anything along those lines.
So yes, I support it - but only if it's done right.
Tell me you want a prom king and queen. If this comes to pass. I wonder what else the devs. have to waist time on. I'll not bow to any man nor to any in game. Now if YOU want a king or queen then join a guild of your own choice. One vote your vote done. If this becomes part of the game? I respectfully request a server with out this fluff. We have a King and he has passed. God Bless Brad Aradund McQuaid. So who was it that wants seconds. Also how do you stack up. I vote McQuaid. Or a server with out this content.
VOTE>>>>>>>>>>GAME DEVELOPMENT ALPHA<<>>FLUFF AND MORE TIME LOST<<<<<<<<<<<<
1 0
Personal buy in is important to feeling really connected to a virtual world (digital or pen and paper). If done right giving players the chance to really stear the course of the game world can be wonderfully immersive. If done poorly its about as much fun as a wet cat in a burlap sack.
Neph brings up a great example of Mayors of player only cities. Someone ultimately needs to be the one to press the button to activate certain settings, it might as well be an elected player deeply involved with that content. There will be a lot of additional duties and responsibilities with being Mayor of a player made city. SWG had Mayors and it only caused problems when the Mayor quit without passing the torch. A monthly nomination/vote could easily fix that.
Another option could be something similar to an NPC guild officer position. Say every month a contest is run and which ever player scores the highest is appointed as that officer. Over that next month the winning player will be able to pick which of a series of benefits and targets the NPC guild pursues. These could be NPC adventuring guilds, crafting guilds, commerce guilds or class specific guilds. I would shy away from typically hereditary government roles as that’s kinda immersion breaking. Either way as long as the authority is directly controlled and limited its just a fun thing to work towards.
Interesting question. I was all set to discuss the idea of having player councils to give feedback and input (in addition to that from any other players, not in place of it) but that clearly isn't the question.
In-game "control" over "some aspect of the game".
I am in agreement to a large extent with Vandraad both in substance and in tone. The short version being "hell no".
But Nephele's point is valid - are there areas where we can give players control over aspects of the game that are essentially cosmetic and that cannot harm other players' gameplay?
Perhaps there are but with one significant limitation. No player-initiated change should go live without approval from someone in VR. A mayor, to use Nephele's example, who was very immature or decided that he or she suddenly hated the game and wanted to go out with a bang, could easily do something quite visible to other players and make it look as if "some aspect of the game" was extremely offensive to most players, who might assume that meant VR had done something extremely offensive. Blatantly racist messages or images or posters for example. Even posting his or her name in public places after paying (if this was an option) to change it to an extremely offensive name (yes VR would change the name under the Code of Conduct but not until they noticed it or it was reported and they had time to review it).
I wouldn't go as far as Nephele in allowing it for things that do not "severely impact the gameplay of players". I would suggest that it never go beyond the cosmetic - things that have no impact on a player's ability to travel, group, get quests, turn quests in, kill mobs and get loot and experience etc. Things that do not *significantly* impact the gameplay of players.
Still focusing on the concept of a "mayor" - and there are many other possibilities such as votes on the names of towns or NPCs - perhaps a mayor should have no power at all other than to suggest changes which in turn need to be voted on. Thus the mayor might *suggest* that a housing village town hall be stone instead of brick, but the ugly old thing would stay brick unless two thirds of accounts owning houses in the village voted for the change.
YES I DO
But I dont think they should be elected, but rather self-ordained. I think there is only a select class that can fullfill this role and that class is : The Devs.
And The Devs will be able to practice all the traits and characteristics that Vandraad has pointed out - at their whim upon the unsuspecting player base for better or worse(within reason).
Especially Joppa
Kilsin will have to be strictly scheduled when he has "free reign" and announcements will need to be made to the player base well in advance: "Remember, Kilsin day on April 1!, we will be creating a seperate chat server with trivia for those that want to log in and engage with the community. For those that insist on logging into live servers, Rezzes may not be safe to accept untill the following day. We cannot be held responsible for loss of level(s). Roll backs will NOT be considered please do not ask CS as your petition will be ignored. Regarding the petitions from in Blackrose keep where the entire NPC population is not pathing back to their places from having been trained to zone in, this is not a "bug", this is a feature of the ambient AI according to the Dev on duty. Zone in at your own risk"
Roenik Day! "Server re-set approx 10min, All chars were dead on log in char select screen and in world. Discovered line in coding that did not allow NPC's to rezz player characters, we appreciate your patience"
dorotea said:... But Nephele's point is valid - are there areas where we can give players control over aspects of the game that are essentially cosmetic and that cannot harm other players' gameplay? ...Yes. Meridian 59 did it. But it was due to character actions, not player actions. Not community members being put into power, but NPCs.
Optional tuning surfaces can be temporal drift back to center, magnitude of pricing changes (discounts and increases), and/or minimal duration of pricing changes.
In M59, I *think* it was something on the scale of: If the Duke was in power, purple mushrooms cost 7c each. If the Princess was in power, they cost 5c each. Or something like that. And you needed a purple mushroom to cast particular spells. It was 24 years ago, so my memory may be betraying me. :)
Reference1 " Vassals of Princess Kateriina find that Shal'ille, Jala, Faren, and Sorcery spells are easier to learn and more powerful. Her vassals also regenerate mana quicker and have a bonus to defense. "
Reference2 " Members of the Rebellion gain a bonus to their offense and weapon attack damage as well as increased improvment speed with Weaponcraft, Knightcraft, and Banditry, and enjoy a greater health regeneration rate. "
If you mean giving members of the community special status and powers within the game because of their real life status as community leaders, no. I think everyone in the game world should be on equal footing regardless of their activities in real life. No player should have more inherent power than another in the game world. Now if a player wants to set out to build reputation/notoriety within the game world, that's great. But that too should be done within the game world.
I’d be for having local leaders that can rule an area, to include affecting local prices, or trade regulations and prohibited items ect.., if this was a type of Non-Combat class or profession like an entertainer, Merchant, Caravan driver ect requiring the player to advance using a limited number of skill points between Combat and Non-combat class choices.
No.
I'm not interested in popularity contests, and that's what this would effectively be.
Additionaly, if the effects were desireable enough to actually encourage people to be elected it would eventually be manipulated by large guilds that intend to gain advantage to their members without regard the impacts it may have to other guilds or average players. If the impacts were inconsequential then it's development resources much better spent in other areas that most players want and would benefit from.
I think Guild leaders should be given certain organizational controls over guiild things like: bank access permissions, officer grantorship, establishing of restricted areas within guild hall seperate from open to public, ability to remove "anonymous" tag from guild members when appropriate or needed.
likewise 3/4 of guild can vote current leadership out by vote, or some such.
No. There is already evidence on this forum that our future raid guild leaders will do whatever it takes to properly "compete", and feel completely justified seeking the best results for their guilds (and only their guilds unless it is convenient to help others for reputation). Search for forum topics related to competitive content, and find out who exactly is making what post. Take a look in the guild recruitment section of these forums.
Several future Pantheon guilds already are taking applications in the form of actual resumes. The fact that noone seems to see problems with this is heavily disturbing to me.
People like these big guild leaders would inevitably win elections, such is the nature of human society. Give those people power over casual players, and the game gets ruined for casual players. Certain classes find that they can't finish their epic quests without selling their soul to the proper buyer.
Keep power frames in the real world, where we are forced to have them, please.
___
Now for cosmetic benefits I wouldn't like it because it is still a popularity contest but still find it much more palatable. Choices like electing a mayor for player housing, as has been mentioned here, is arguably ok. I would still want final say over how my house looks.
_____
I kind of like Vjek's/Meridian 59's idea of giving power to specific npcs, temporarily, so long as it is actively being balanced so all related players get a piece of the pie, despite their guild choice, at some point. I think a system like this should be pretty low on the priority list, though.