Nephele said: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.
I would say I'm more on the hell no side of things. I don't want politics of that nature built into the game.
That being said, I see what your saying for player housing. A Major for the player housing, etc. ... omg I just thought about how much I hate most HOAs .
Suffice it to say, it would have to be for very niche things and not affect any core gameplay for me. It's a discussion worth having though for those select RP mechanics.
As a general rule I think giving more power for the players themselves to create dynamic situations in game is a good thing. Content is thus not always needed to be spoon fed by developers in a static way, but players themselves create situations and 'mini-games' within the game world that are constantly changing based on player decisions. It can be really fun, especially when there is some competitive nature to the thing in question.
Something else I just thought of, how funny would it be if there was a voting system to elect someone for x amount of time, and then after their service there was a second vote system, to judge them on how well they did, and the community had the ability to punish or reward them based on their performance. Depending on the vote at the end of their reign, they could either get faction increase or decreases, if they were amazing perhaps they were rewarded an in-game crown or even a parade. If they were terrible, perhaps guards would hang them from a cross in a public square for a few days. Literally unable to play the game and being mocked by the townspeople or even executed for XP loss.
I've answered this elsewhere, but absolutely not. You'd only end up giving more power to big guild leaders, to people that host fan sites, or "influencers". Just no, a stunningly obvious no. This would partially ruin Pantheon in my opinion.
If I'm being too vague here, I apologize. NO!
Nagasakee said:I've answered this elsewhere, but absolutely not. You'd only end up giving more power to big guild leaders, to people that host fan sites, or "influencers". Just no, a stunningly obvious no. This would partially ruin Pantheon in my opinion.
If I'm being too vague here, I apologize. NO!
This is the main reason I avoid games like Crowfall and others that propose similar systems. New World has this type of system, but there are ways to challenge the rule. But, even that requires a significant investment and a large guild to attempt to overcome.
Games will always have player controlled aspects, such as guild leadership, raid leaders, etc. But, at least I have the option to change guilds or raid forces. If a player controlled a city and I was dissatisfied, I would have to pack up and change my whole in-game life. Its even worse when the system forces that players rule, through taxes or other policies.
Hell no! I have yet to find a guild in any MMORPG that didn't become corrupt over time if they were not corrupt to start with.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So you want to take it up and not down by giving a person absolute power on a much broader brand. Are you trying to kill this game? What the hell are you smoking?
When I log in. I want to log into a fantasy world to escape and get away from politics. If I can't do that and it is just another place were politics is being forced onto me. I'll leave. I can't watch sports without politics getting dragged into it. Now I can't play games without politics. You have lost your ever loving minds. If you were looking for a topic to piss people off. You found it.
I think I get the spirit of the OP, for instance: when it comes to Fan Art. But I think it needs to be once-removed. What I mean is- let's face it there are some really talented artists out there that can make some really cool stuff- let's say they post this on an official Pantheon website where you can share Fan art. On this website there is a "like" toggle only where the community can select to like it or leave it possibly coded to only receive one like per seperate IP baring any vote-farmers that are out there. Or the devs can select a few they like and ask the community to vote on them.
Then based on the number of likes, the devs can then invite said "voted" artist to do something in game wether temporary or permanent.
Possible issues: If temporary there may be liscensing issues that will need to be hashed out. If permanent, it will be considered an asset and there may be some other legal stuff that needs to be worked out.
in either case the artist should be able to point to it as part of a portfolio, if possible.
The problem: VR may suddenly get innundated with artwork once it gets out that there is a chance that some work will get "published" and some resentment when it ceases to be a thing, there's only so much wall space in Terminus.
Hello. I do not agree. No. Nada. No way.
Lots of reason. For one, when said person is elected, who to say that person wont log in or play throughout the week/month? Wheres the king? Oh he is on buisness trip, or TDY or in the ER. Like some, we want to log in, into a fantasy created realm/world of gaming. Have the npc/a.i. script it.