Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately basing it on settlements won't solve any problems. Settlements will be viewed as vile special interest groups conspiring to ruin the game for people who don't want to be part of a player-run settlement. Monthly churn is likewise bad. When there is a large amount of action you'll spend all your time getting people up to speed on things rather than moving forward. Also, in the event that one group takes over/controls all the settlements in the world, suddenly you have only one voice in a council.
Really, one of the better ways to handle it is an open self-nomination process followed by campaigning, a primary election, more campaigning, then a general election. You want enough players on the council to cover each other when some of them experience decreases in time available to devote to the game, 12 is generally a good number. It's small enough that things don't devolve into 'inaction through committee', large enough to keep an active core, and large enough to involve people from all different parts of the game. It's also large enough to be more difficult for special interest groups to game effectively.
One of the difficulties in a game where Alts are common is keeping armies of alt-voters from heavily weighting a candidate. There are voting methods, such as Single Transferable Votes and it's variations that would help keep a council from being run by a single bloc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Pinosaur,
Although I know you are trying to be fair, it is a "Player's Council" not a "Council of Settlements".
However, Settlements having limited space to establish, provides a limited size for the council. It would better mirror real world government structures. Though I do not advocate this for reality, but for practicality. Most players will consider a settlement to be home, just as most of us consider a city or state to be home, regardless of how strongly we feel an allegiance or lack thereof to the place. Representatives are elected to represent those living in a certain place. We don't elect 'Senator representing roaming nomads' or 'Senator representing bandits that call nowhere home'.
The problem comes from extra large factions coming to dominate player councils by nature of being effective at taking/controlling settlements. If they are then able to guide the tenor of the game, then everyone begins playing their game. New tactics to challenge their model will be discouraged by said council, forcing newcomers to beat the entrenched powers at their own game. The danger here would best be represented by rich and powerful industry and special interest lobbyists vs. the interests of the average citizen.
When those in power have influence over policies that could affect their source of power, the system tends to run away from equitable representation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Care Bears and Griefers are equally toxic to the game play of an Open World PvP MMO.
Ryan's analysis of what went wrong with Ultima Online actually supports this, in a sense. In essence, the players who were adamantly anti-PvP clamored for a non-PvP server. When they got what they wanted, the game began to decline, because all of the things that were meaningful in a PvP environment were no longer meaningful.
However, if you look at the in-game actions of these two hypothetical extremes - 1) those who intentionally seek out other players in an attempt to ruin their experience; and 2) those who intentionally avoid interacting with other players - there's a world of difference. In this sense, the first group has a huge negative impact on other players while the second group has, by definition, virtually no impact at all on other players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Care Bears and Griefers are equally toxic to the game play of an Open World PvP MMO.Ryan's analysis of what went wrong with Ultima Online actually supports this, in a sense. In essence, the players who were adamantly anti-PvP clamored for a non-PvP server. When they got what they wanted, the game began to decline, because all of the things that were meaningful in a PvP environment were no longer meaningful.
However, if you look at the in-game actions of these two hypothetical extremes - 1) those who intentionally seek out other players in an attempt to ruin their experience; and 2) those who intentionally avoid interacting with other players - there's a world of difference. In this sense, the first group has a huge negative impact on other players while the second group has, by definition, virtually no impact at all on other players.
You gave an example of where they had a huge impact on other players. If they clamour for game changes that lead to those changes, then their impact was felt by all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You gave an example of where they had a huge impact on other players. If they clamour for game changes that lead to those changes, then their impact was felt by all.
Yes, but that was not their in-game actions.
Both groups use their out-of-game actions to harm the game by lobbying for changes that serve to minimize meaningful human interaction (or maximize meaningless human interaction). One group lobbies for no PvP, the other lobbies for no consequences for PvP.
However, only one group uses their in-game actions to harm the game.
That said, I think there are a number of posters that might superficially appear to be in one group or the other who are actually simply giving voice to their concerns and willing to be persuaded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An MMO has two layers, in-game and metagame. Keeping both of these healthy is critical to the game, not a simple task considering that while the game itself can have clearly defined objectives and expectations, the metagame is nebulous at best. Metrics can be gathered by developers from inside the game, but oft-times the driving force is from without, and the metrics only show a shadow of what is really going on.
One of the critical functions a Player Council would have is to keep the developers apprised on what is going on with the metagame in their particular fields of interest. This is why it is critical to have a general representation of all play styles and interests in such a council. Developers and designers are individuals, and therefore bound by those limitations when dealing with things, like the metagame, which are not directly under their control. Forums help, but they are typically dominated by a vocal minority who don't always provide adequate information due to the limitations of the medium.
Face to Face, or voice to voice discussion are critical but it's impossible for a company to get that level of direct interaction with the players. The noise overrides the signal. A player council, however, can function as a filter and relay to improve the communication of problems and desires.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In all instances I would blame the decline on the developers and not "carebears." It is ultimately their responsibility to sift good ideas from bad.
I think GoblinWorks understands that, and won't be making the same mistakes.
That for me, was the turning point when I realized I didn't have to defend the right for this to be a PvP game, but instead should be discussing what I want meaningful PvP to look like.
Goblinworks took in over a million dollars in contributions toward their project while promising both that, and this:
Players who attack and kill other players outside of certain situations, such as declared wars or pursuing bounties placed on criminal characters, face the possibility of worsening their Reputation and beginning a slow decline towards Chaotic and Evil alignments. A low Reputation will keep players from entering more advanced settlements, while Alignment limits what abilities you can learn, factions you can ally with, etc. Players will engage in PvP without some thought as to their target selection will quickly find themselves only welcome in the most wretched of settlements and many respectable groups will turn them away.
They have the right to change anything they've said but that could be taken to mean that they can still create a Sci-Fi based WoW clone should they desire. If GoblinWorks cares about their promises (which I believe they do) then they owe us a game with open an unrestricted PvP, but meaningful consequences for random slaughter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have the right to change anything they've said but that could be taken to mean that they can still create a Sci-Fi based WoW clone should they desire. If GoblinWorks cares about their promises (which I believe they do) then they owe us a game with open an unrestricted PvP, but meaningful consequences for random slaughter.
Ahem. Meaningful consequences for all slaughter (and a number of other interactions both cooperative and competitive). Being the Good Crusader hunting and slaying Evil bandits who have expired flags and are hanging out in a tavern somewhere is very far from random. But it should still have meaningful consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ahem. Meaningful consequences for all slaughter (and a number of other interactions both cooperative and competitive). Being the Good Crusader hunting and slaying Evil bandits who have expired flags and are hanging out in a tavern somewhere is very far from random. But it should still have meaningful consequences.
/concur
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think GoblinWorks understands that, and won't be making the same mistakes.
Excellent link. I'd like to highlight something.
I've said before that the MMO industry has had a problem with PvP for nearly 15 years and done almost nothing to address it. We're all students of those 15 years and we have a pretty good grasp on what the problems are and what kinds of solutions have been tried in the past to address them, and some pretty strong opinions on why those solutions failed.
If we're right, and we create a game where there is a lot of PvP but not a lot of grief, we'll unlock a tremendous value in terms of deeply immersive game play and strong communities. And I think we'll be right. Not perfect, not right all the time, not right always at first, but in the long run, right; that a game that maximizes meaningful human interaction (and that includes PvP) does not degenerate into a terrible experience for .
All we're asking now is that you give us a chance to build our game and see if we can break through 15 years of past misbehavior.
I think it's important to keep reminding everyone that PFO intends to support people who don't want to make PvP a big part of their play experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think GoblinWorks understands that, and won't be making the same mistakes.Excellent link. I'd like to highlight something.
I think it's important to keep reminding everyone that PFO intends to support people who don't want to make PvP a big part of their play experience.I've said before that the MMO industry has had a problem with PvP for nearly 15 years and done almost nothing to address it. We're all students of those 15 years and we have a pretty good grasp on what the problems are and what kinds of solutions have been tried in the past to address them, and some pretty strong opinions on why those solutions failed.
If we're right, and we create a game where there is a lot of PvP but not a lot of grief, we'll unlock a tremendous value in terms of deeply immersive game play and strong communities. And I think we'll be right. Not perfect, not right all the time, not right always at first, but in the long run, right; that a game that maximizes meaningful human interaction (and that includes PvP) does not degenerate into a terrible experience for .
All we're asking now is that you give us a chance to build our game and see if we can break through 15 years of past misbehavior.
Yes, a great link. I would hope people read that one in it's entirety and realize how cool and ambitious the goals are. Meaningful pvp and the roles of players who don't want to focus on it will be determined not only by the tools we are provided by Goblinworks, but by how we use those tools in EE. Merchants, Loremasters and Crafters will be much valued even in evil settlements and venture companies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Pinosaur,
Although I know you are trying to be fair, it is a "Player's Council" not a "Council of Settlements".
However, Settlements having limited space to establish, provides a limited size for the council. It would better mirror real world government structures. Though I do not advocate this for reality, but for practicality. Most players will consider a settlement to be home, just as most of us consider a city or state to be home, regardless of how strongly we feel an allegiance or lack thereof to the place. Representatives are elected to represent those living in a certain place. We don't elect 'Senator representing roaming nomads' or 'Senator representing bandits that call nowhere home'.
The problem comes from extra large factions coming to dominate player councils by nature of being effective at taking/controlling settlements. If they are then able to guide the tenor of the game, then everyone begins playing their game. New tactics to challenge their model will be discouraged by said council, forcing newcomers to beat the entrenched powers at their own game. The danger here would best be represented by rich and powerful industry and special interest lobbyists vs. the interests of the average citizen.
When those in power have influence over policies that could affect their source of power, the system tends to run away from equitable representation.
It should confer ZERO in game advantage to be a member of the council, beyond bragging rights. GW might act on a council sugestion, but only if it has merit, not because 'the council said so'. Player council input should be viewed as 'biased reporting' by GW and stringently evaluated via scrutiny of game stats. And I believe it will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Doggan if I am reading you right you do not want someone who you believe has the care bear mentality speaking for you. From what I understand the way a Player Council would work is this: the ‘care bear’ would be speaking for those who think like he does. While another person on the council would be speaking for those who think the way you do. Both sides have just as much right to be heard.
A republican does not speak for democratic he speaks for fellow republicans and vice a versa. The best type to have on a player council is one who is moderate and can see the benefits of both sides. Who wants what is best for the game over all not just the way they wish to play it.
With that said let me say I agree with most that a Player Council is just a popularity contest that may cause more harm than good. To make one that actually is a benefit will take a lot of hard work and understanding of how a small group of people can accurately represent a larger group with many different ideas of what they want out of a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll solve the whole thing by Being The Player Council all by myself. I'll represent each of you absolutely equally (not at all) with complete equanimity.
There, then. With that settled the meeting is adjourned: I will commence my vacation on St. Croix forthwith using the Council Funds. Don't call me I'll call you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It should confer ZERO in game advantage to be a member of the council, beyond bragging rights. GW might act on a council sugestion, but only if it has merit, not because 'the council said so'. Player council input should be viewed as 'biased reporting' by GW and stringently evaluated via scrutiny of game stats. And I believe it will be.
What it should confer and what it does are two absolutely different things. This is seen very widely in representative bodies.
Further, if that much stringent exploration will go into council suggestions, why have a council instead of a suggestions board anyone can post to?
Can someone provide me a bullet list of why exactly a Player Council would be a positive factor OVER open communication lines with all players? Other than the potential prestige of wanting to some day be on an influential council? I am willing to consider the idea, but need to know how this is anything more than a popularity contest combined with an artificial idea filter - whether selection is done by players or devs. I simply do not see the need for a special class of player. We sort of already have one with the crowdforging crowd, to be honest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It should confer ZERO in game advantage to be a member of the council, beyond bragging rights. GW might act on a council sugestion, but only if it has merit, not because 'the council said so'. Player council input should be viewed as 'biased reporting' by GW and stringently evaluated via scrutiny of game stats. And I believe it will be.What it should confer and what it does are two absolutely different things. This is seen very widely in representative bodies.
Further, if that much stringent exploration will go into council suggestions, why have a council instead of a suggestions board anyone can post to?
Can someone provide me a bullet list of why exactly a Player Council would be a positive factor OVER open communication lines with all players? Other than the potential prestige of wanting to some day be on an influential council? I am willing to consider the idea, but need to know how this is anything more than a popularity contest combined with an artificial idea filter - whether selection is done by players or devs. I simply do not see the need for a special class of player. We sort of already have one with the crowdforging crowd, to be honest.
I agree with many of the points you and others have made here. I am not sure how I personally feel about the existence of a "players' council". I think I probably would not be cutthroat enough to be on it, and I, like everyone else, want to offer my opinions/observations/suggestions.
What I do acknowledge is that a small group of players would be much easier for GW to deal with. It is sort of like the idea of representative democracies versus direct democracies (the council would be a representative democracy with each member "representing" a sub-community such as settlement(s) or CC(s)). I am not convinced either is the most inclusive (or best) form of governance, but I have not yet come up with (or seen) a better solution.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In response to the challenge: yes.
Selected members of the community can engage in high-bandwidth discussions with the small number of principle designers on a tight feedback loop (such as a meeting or roundtable discussion), and if they don't have to worry about status among other players can share insights about emergent behavior that might not be shared in open fora (things like "I think it is OP that I can...", which would be perceived as a call to Nerf that mechanic, resulting is status loss among people who use it (or status posturing toward a different group).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can someone provide me a bullet list of why exactly a Player Council would be a positive factor OVER open communication lines with all players?
I expect the primary responsibility of the members of the Player Council will be to make themselves available to the player-base in-game, listen to their concerns, distill them, and present them faithfully to Goblinworks.
The Player Council is how Goblinworks will open communication lines with all players. If not a Player Council, then you'd only be hearing from the players who post on the forums, or the devs themselves would need to spend a lot of time listening to individual player concerns from players in-game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And to be consistent, the system for selecting who is part of any such group should mirror that of the customer complaints service: arbitrary and capricious.
At least that way it becomes impossible to stuff a ballot box, or perform any actions which creates a perceived right to be part of such a body.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can someone provide me a bullet list of why exactly a Player Council would be a positive factor OVER open communication lines with all players?I expect the primary responsibility of the members of the Player Council will be to make themselves available to the player-base in-game, listen to their concerns, distill them, and present them faithfully to Goblinworks.
The Player Council is how Goblinworks will open communication lines with all players. If not a Player Council, then you'd only be hearing from the players who post on the forums, or the devs themselves would need to spend a lot of time listening to individual player concerns from players in-game.
This is part of it. Ideally the Player Council would carry some ownership in the game progression. Open communication TO the players is doable. Not always advisable, but doable. Open communication FROM the players is a whole other ball of yarn. The signal to noise ratio is far too small to be of much value, especially after EE is past. With a Player Council GW will have someone to talk to who can relay and relate from a player's perspective (an invaluable commodity) and they will have someone to relay to them what the players want. That way they can work toward giving the players what the players want instead of what they think the players want.
Having worked in development for a while now I can say with a certainty that neither side knows what is really needed until there's clear, concise, and open communication between them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having worked in development for a while now I can say with a certainty that neither side knows what is really needed until there's clear, concise, and open communication between them.
Indeed.
I work with a guy who designed electrical harnesses for the 777 at Boeing. That was a very rigidly structured environment where change management was critical. Now he works for a retail company with 2 other developers and we don't really find out what the users want until we give them what we think they want and they can finally communicate with us by telling us what's wrong with what we've built. It's a bit of a culture shock for him, but it's necessary at times.
The key point being, a lot of times meaningful communication simply isn't possible until there's something tangible to talk about, where both sides can point and grunt and finally be understood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's exactly what e-peen is though. Emphasis on the "e"subtract 10 from mine, I use PVP to make up for the lack of peenDidn't realize how seriously you guys would end up taking my mocking suggestion that this turn into an e=peen measuring contest.
I'm sleepy now, but I'll log back on tomorrow evening and count all the posts to give you a final tally then.
I know
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The key point being, a lot of times meaningful communication simply isn't possible until there's something tangible to talk about, where both sides can point and grunt and finally be understood.
Pointing and grunting would certainly be a step up from the general forum conversations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I knowThat's exactly what e-peen is though. Emphasis on the "e"subtract 10 from mine, I use PVP to make up for the lack of peenDidn't realize how seriously you guys would end up taking my mocking suggestion that this turn into an e=peen measuring contest.
I'm sleepy now, but I'll log back on tomorrow evening and count all the posts to give you a final tally then.
You say you know, and yet you talk about how you compensate. "Emphasis on e" means we're talking about how people compensate. The hyper-macho behavior is being mocked by implying you're compensating for something, and you reply to subtract 10 from how much you compensate because you compensate. That means you're not following the way you seem to think you are. We're not talking about the score of a RL size, but the score of how much you compensate. So If you want to emphasize that the issue is that you compensate, then we need to add to your tally, not subtract.
And Nihimon's comment about homophobia and misogyny. If I were to venture a guess that that comment was directed at the one above it, since he didn't actually quote anything, the one that is mocking hyper-macho behavior of people butting heads and is thus anything but misogynistic or homo-phobic, then I'd conclude that he's not following the point I was making very well either.
But the part about needing an audience was spot on ;D I'll get to that in a moment about my own need to compensate.
If that comment was directed elsewhere though, then I simply didn't follow what he was getting at.
And of course I realize the hypocrisy, as I butt heads with plenty of stubbornness here on these forums as well. But like Xeen I'm ok with admitting that, and it's justified because of my very considerable need to compensate ;D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You bozos are ruining my thread with this ...childishness. Now, excuse me while I compose a NEW thread regarding a certain spherical element of a small, evil, green and pointy-eared humanoid.
"Childishness" says the guy running the very popularity contest at the heart of all this mockery.
The concept of this thread is juvenile, and it will remain so when you create a new one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You say you know, and yet you talk about how you compensate. "Emphasis on e" means we're talking about how people compensate. The hyper-macho behavior is being mocked by implying you're compensating for something, and you reply to subtract 10 from how much you compensate because you compensate. That means you're not following the way you seem to think you are. We're not talking about the score of a RL size, but the score of how much you compensate. So If you want to emphasize that the issue is that you compensate, then we need to add to your tally, not subtract.I knowThat's exactly what e-peen is though. Emphasis on the "e"subtract 10 from mine, I use PVP to make up for the lack of peenDidn't realize how seriously you guys would end up taking my mocking suggestion that this turn into an e=peen measuring contest.
I'm sleepy now, but I'll log back on tomorrow evening and count all the posts to give you a final tally then.
You have to start counting from a negative number, how about that?
Not funny?
I thought it was
HA
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You bozos are ruining my thread with this ...childishness. Now, excuse me while I compose a NEW thread regarding a certain spherical element of a small, evil, green and pointy-eared humanoid."Childishness" says the guy running the very popularity contest at the heart of all this mockery.
The concept of this thread is juvenile, and it will remain so when you create a new one.
I guess I needed to add /sarcasm and no, I will not be making a Goblin Balls thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would vote for....... Oh wait, if I did that, they would get no other votes. The fact is, these forums will look very different a year from now. There will be new voices added to the voice of veterans. There will be veterans' voices that fall silent.
The only fact is, this thread is too soon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*gasp*...was that...agreement?... this thread is too soon.There should probably be Players before there is a Players' Council. That is, we should probably at least wait until we're in Alpha.
That is an unfair characterization.... Nihimon and I have agreed on at least 3 issues in our combined 9007 posts.
"Good day Sir..... I said Good Day!"
;)