Depends on the game. If the game is created with the voting process in place and game balance/fun is built around the mechanic then I have no issue with it. If the voting process is tacked on as an afterthought with no time spent on balance/fun then I am against.
I do not think Pantheon is designed around having Player Characters having additional powers and from what I have heard/seen of Pantheon I do not think it would be a good fit without changes.
Absolutely not!
One of the reasons I play games is to try to escape the never ending toxicity that is politics. To be honest, I don’t even really like the idea of having guilds in games because of the politics that often happens within them as they grow in size. I would much prefer an MMO be built to accommodate at most small fellowships such as the one in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.
I have read these posts with interest and now my gut feeling is now in line with the majority them here. Personally, I wouldn't bother with it.
I do kinda like the idea of voting in NPCs into powerful positions though - that could open a lot of adventuring opportunities for players more than having players in those positions.
I highly disagree with this outside of a full PVP system where people would be in control of regions and constantly raiding/warring with eachother this will lead to horribly toxic gameplay. Short of the system being a worthless title that did nothing it would be horrible. Not only would different servers go in different directions which would be a problem for building out the game, but people would ruin factions you support from the inside.
Imagine if you joined a guild but the rest of the game was able to vote some incompetent person into leadership who raided the guild treasury you worked hard to build for their friends and family while pulling out of alliances because they wouldn't pay him bribes. The leader then declares war on the guild who wouldn't give up a named camp to the leader's friend.
I don't care how limited the power you give them is. Anything beyond a title would go into insanely toxic.
I would prefer highly involved players that have proven (discussion here) themselves, and would contribute to game continuity.
guides: a bit like alpha testers; giving feedback, and having certain extra permissions to help players with incidents
(I only had good experience with some such players myself)
I am sure something like this could have merit and bring benefit to a game. I however can not think of anything good just bad arising from the system. Maybe I am just not thinking big enough or maybe I am not imagining far enough outside of my comfort zone.
I saw a video of Ashes of Creation with the devs and in the middle of the vote they started killing each other. This seemed to be the outcome the devs were looking for? So maybe this is the reason I can only envision bad things from a system you are describing.
I had an entirely different reply ready to be posted. But that would stir away from your question.
At the moment, no I can’t see that working out with either falling flat on its face as the game goes on or becoming corrupted/manipulated by players. The last one would result in a power grab by dominating guilds or sub communities.
Seasonal events, celebrations, winner of the day-kind of deal. Sure, if you have enough people that vote for it. With the impact of the election only lasting for that day. The winner can determine which kind of free gifts are handed out by npc’s (when players interact with those npc’s). Although, I don’t see this being very popular for a long time.
Elected constables that determine the placement of shops on the local market. Sure. All shops, still buy from players, but depending on where they are located, they offer more or less goods. Without constables, the shops alternate positions and the abundance of their goods.
If the elected constable invest more money during their position, they might increase their impact on the market. For example, appearance/banners of shops are more exclusive or within a certain colour scheme/theme. Entertainment in the street (firebreather, jugglers, etc.). When they invest even more, the shops will sell exclusive goods and as result more guards will patrol in town.
Elections could be held. The electory process is a mathematical design based on several factors. Which factor has a more weight than the other, is up to the devs to decide.
- by keeping track of how much time player X has spent within the city
- how many interactions that player has had with npc’s within the city
- how many items are traded (bought or sold) to npc’s within the city
- average standing faction of all the different factions combined within the city
- participation in electory tasks, storylines that transpire during that time within the city (possibly earning regional and temporary 'Esteem' from those npc's)
- …
How that is organized? The game announcing that an election is starting at day X and will last for Y time before the results are calibrated. This means every player new or old can enter the election within that time and choose methods how they will influence those factors.
It’s the game that determines the outcome and not the community themselves. BUT it’s the players choice to engage in the election event. So in a way, the player can try to get themselves elected. By indirect means.
Personally I think Having leaders or other non-adventure classes/roles, roaming around in the game as a player VS a lifeless NPC adds to the “building a world not a game” philosophy pantheon has touted over the years.
Could some maniac gain the throne and tax all the cookies, or do anything outside the limitation granted by VR, probably not, so I fail to see the need for the negative imaginations running wild again. I have no doubt any system, class or feature would have its checks and balances, and patches to fix oversights.
The team may be small, but there not mobile developers. Well except for that one :)
HemlockReaper said:Could some maniac gain the throne and tax all the cookies, or do anything outside the limitation granted by VR, probably not, so I fail to see the need for the negative imaginations running wild again.
I don’t think there is enough information provided to be very optimistic or pessimistic about any implementation of this voting question. I do think that it is reasonable to put concerns down to such a question though.
With so little to go on, letting your imagination run wild is the right way to go.
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
I think this would be fun in a way. Maybe certain travel and diplomatic standings. They could also have the option to decorate some common areas to add their own flavour. I would also like their to be some signatory responsibilities...like officiating tournaments or hold themed galas.
The important thing is that they would not have the ability to affect game play...and could voted out.
It would be almost a new skill (community crafting)
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
NO.
reasons:
1. a serious lack of info in your question about how much control, over what particular parts of the game, leaves me much more concerned about possible negative effects than hopeful for any positive effects.
2. if the affect on the world allowed to the King/Queen is trivial, then I expect many will choose not to get involved (as will I), and the time/energy spent on creating the system will be enjoyed by only a few players.
3. if the affect on the world is non-trivial, then you are adding some aspects of real-life, elective politics into Pantheon that I have never had the slightest expectation of encountering. While it won't stop me from playing, the degree to which I have to experience and engage with the 'campaigning' and the resultant changes will be the degree to which Pantheon's appeal is diminished for me.
Also, I fell compelled to point out - more or less humorously - that the guy asking me this lives 9000 miles away from the morass of over-heated politics that I and ~350 million others are currently stuck in the middle of :D
It depends on the level of authority over game mechanics that a Mayor or King/Queen get. As several states an elevated position like this has the potential of ruining the gameplay for others. My vote goes towards a maybe where the elected player might get control over cosmetic aspects and perhaps a smaller quest line that isnt a necessity for players to complete.
A King/Queen/Mayor could:
It shouldn't bee free though. The electee would have to pay for the above suggestions from their own coffers. Also there should be a limit on how often and where these features could be enabled. If the electee goes awol, a week maybe, then the office will be up for grabs and a new election called.
The quest line could be a series of available quests from which the electee selects one or two. Then the quest could be named like this where xxx is the electees ingame surname (if it exists), e.g. "The search for King xxx's missing boots".
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
No, I do not agree.
Is this question purely academic, or are the developers soliciting feedback to inform the game's design?
Implementing a system like this should be planned for early on. Take Ashes of Creation as an example. They have always advertised an election system as part of their game and it supports a bigger system called the "NODE" system which is core to their vision and drives many design decisions.
I don't follow Ashes of Creation closely, but for what little I follow they have maintained a clear vision since their Kickstarter, and have communicated it consistently and well enough that I think I can explain how their election system integrates with their overall game design. There is more depth than this, so I hope Ashes fans don't take offense.
Their World Map is divided into (maybe) ~30 areas knows as Nodes, which begin at "level 0" and will subsequently rise and fall based on player activity to develop settlements, towns, cities, and metropolis on these nodes. A Node can only develop at the expense of other Nodes, which means player factions will be competing to develop their Nodes. At any time only 5 Nodes out of 30 can achieve Metropolis status. In the course of developing their Node, players will elect leaders (Mayors) to facilitate the development of the Node. The Mayors will be instrumental in directing the development of the Node and guiding it successfully (or not). The election of the Mayor may determine what type of node (e.g. Military, Commerce, Religious, Science) it becomes, what type of player housing will be available, tax rates, etc. When Nodes develop, they will also generate Unique NPCs, Unique Quests, Unique Dungeons/Raids, Unique Monster Spawns. The community will have a vested interest in toppling some Nodes so that others may rise in their place, and topple elected leaders along with them.
Whether you like or dislike Ashes of Creation, most can agree they have maintained a clear vision and povided details on their systems and how they will support that vision. I don't like the general idea of an election system, but for Ashes of Creation I will concede that it fits well within their overall design, and perhaps it will be successful.
I follow Pantheon Rise of the Fallen closely, but I don't know half as much about the systems in Pantheon and how they will support the vision as I do for Ashes. Which is sad, because Pantheon is the game I am more interested in. Ironically, I'm interested in Pantheon more for what it is avoiding than anything innovative it is promising. Ashes of Creation has a more bold, innovative, and interesting vision, but they are also doing things I really don't like.
I assume this question was purely academic, but if the developers are insisting on feedback with an explanation then my answer is "no" based on the following:
In the future with "Community Debate" posts by VR, it would be good to understand if the developers are looking for feedback in order to inform the game design or what the purpose of the post is in the first place.
Open ended posts like these confuse me as to what state of development the game is in. Particularly since Brad McQuaid and other VR team members have been clear in the past that they planned to solicit community feedback and were going to rely heavily on direction from the community for design decisions. But that was several years ago, and the last couple years of development have been more silent, so I assume the "crowd source" phase is over, and major systems are now firmly in place?
I'm sure there are a multitude of smaller design decisions where the community can participate and where development is not scheduled to finish for some time yet. For example, a community debate (not a one-word-response) on "Need vs. Greed" would be good if VR need feedback in order develop that aspect of the game.
In all honesty, I thought by this time in development VR would be telling or (showng) us much more of what the game was about, rather than asking us what it should be about.
I've never really given this idea much thought, but I LOVE the potential it could bring.
First, the benefits of having a ruler must be limited and not groundbreaking, but could have access to sliders for the local region.
Examples:
You could get VERY creative with ways to implement this system. Again, there shouldn't be any game breaking benefit here.
I also like the possibility of having different ways to elect leaders of different cities. One city could be a straight popular vote, others could limit voting to only certain classes, or each class votes as a delegation, and whoever wins the most delegations wins, voting as guilds. You can weight someone's voting power based on their faction level, etc. You could do some really cool stuff in implementing a system like this.
If community matters, then community should matter. What better way than having social interactions that ACTUALLY AFFECT THE WORLD.
No. Why should someone be elevated above the rest of the player base? There should be enough social community, drama, and division alone from guild competition/cooperation. If you want to have your server GM's embody a role I'm all for that. That's someone who works for the company, you, and has the company focus and direction in mind.
No, this idea might be "interesting" but leave it there.
Olympeus said:In the future with "Community Debate" posts by VR, it would be good to understand if the developers are looking for feedback in order to inform the game design or what the purpose of the post is in the first place.
Open ended posts like these confuse me as to what state of development the game is in. Particularly since Brad McQuaid and other VR team members have been clear in the past that they planned to solicit community feedback and were going to rely heavily on direction from the community for design decisions. But that was several years ago, and the last couple years of development have been more silent, so I assume the "crowd source" phase is over, and major systems are now firmly in place?
I'm sure there are a multitude of smaller design decisions where the community can participate and where development is not scheduled to finish for some time yet. For example, a community debate (not a one-word-response) on "Need vs. Greed" would be good if VR need feedback in order develop that aspect of the game.
In all honesty, I thought by this time in development VR would be telling or (showng) us much more of what the game was about, rather than asking us what it should be about.
These threads of community debate coming from Kilsin, are just that. A trigger to get the community to talk about and discuss this topic. They've stated that although a community debate-thread has been made, it doesn't mean that they've implented the topic in the game, or would do so in the future of the game's development. At this point, it's just to stir up a conversation. If anything, VR could just take away some insights from these threads, about how the community thinks or pick up some new lines of thought concerning a topic.
I have seen this happen in Arche Age and it was ugly..people who actually did everything to get into those positions stayed in those positions by censoring other plays and such to get into a Hero position...the heroes in both factions did nothing for the rest of the faction and only cared about themselves...No I do not think this is a good thing and will cause more problems than anything good.
randomrob82 said:I've never really given this idea much thought, but I LOVE the potential it could bring.
First, the benefits of having a ruler must be limited and not groundbreaking, but could have access to sliders for the local region.
Examples:
- what should the taxes be when purchasing goods from the local player-owned shops. Higher taxes could provide local benefits (more merchants with better rates/more stuff; more guards patrolling the region; thining mobs in regional areas and increasing tradeskill node spawn rates) or lower taxes so players selling their goods simply get more of the full price of the sale
- allow for toggling some nominal diplomacy issue with neighboring cities
- implement a system that would allow for triggering community events
You could get VERY creative with ways to implement this system. Again, there shouldn't be any game breaking benefit here.
I also like the possibility of having different ways to elect leaders of different cities. One city could be a straight popular vote, others could limit voting to only certain classes, or each class votes as a delegation, and whoever wins the most delegations wins, voting as guilds. You can weight someone's voting power based on their faction level, etc. You could do some really cool stuff in implementing a system like this.
If community matters, then community should matter. What better way than having social interactions that ACTUALLY AFFECT THE WORLD.
This is very similar to the way i see it. Different towns competing to attract players by choosing from provided options that will shape the feel of the town.