Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This totally falls into the "nice to have" bin but I'd like to see different governance styles for settlements.
An obvious one would be total dictatorship. The settlement leader can set any law/rule/tax/war he wants, whenever he wants. He may of course appoint people below him with specific roles but overall, the membership has nothing to say on anything. It would also be nice to have a failsafe mechanism for members to challenge the dictator and possibly dethrone him (in direct 1v1 combat or maybe XvX).
Another system would be direct democracy. Giving a single vote to each member and passing every law/rule/tax/war under vote. This would involve each and every member but would cause long delays (I wouldn't expect votes to happen at a precise instant but having like a 24h window where people can cast their vote).
The last idea I had was to manage settlements like a business. Any player (member of the settlement or not) could buy equities. They could then vote for a board of administrator that would lead the settlement. The board would be elected but they would have to appoint any "executive" to do the day to day management.
As a side note, I wouldn't bind any of those systems to a specific alignment. As see a LG paladin organization setting a dictatorship system so they act with a military chain of command just as much as I see a CE settlement setting a direct democracy so anyone can decide to add/remove laws whenever they feel like it.
I believe such systems wouldn't be too hard to implement (mostly iterations over the basics) and could add a lot of meaningful interactions. Like crafters in a democracy organizing a lobby to lower taxes, minions in a dictatorship preparing a revolution in secret, two big neighboring settlements investing money to finance a 3rd "trade" settlement they could then control remotely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I recall SWG had a variety of governance methods and worked out well enough. It even had skill trees to enhances ones abilities as a leader of a community. To gain experience it required you to actually attain a position of leadership and do stuff in it, so it wasn't something that just anyone could do.
I would also like to see support for governments that are more fantasy inspired. A common enough fantasy government is a tribe ruled by a dictator chief, but the position is gained and held through combat to the death. Basically, allow a ritual combat winner is the dictator.
So basically, yes I would like to see a lot of different modes of governance, and I think they probably should be supported with skills as it has been shown to work with at least one other game.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the publicly traded model, but it very much feels like a "Nobody does X" feature. I could be very wrong about that, but I would need to see an estimate of the opprutinity cost of having that option.
I wouldn't run a settlement like that, unless I happened to buy one that someone else started, and that's the problem: if you can sell it, someone can buy it. If nobody can buy it, nobody can sell it. I doubt that people will pay much for minority shares, or that majority shareholders will often sell enough of their stake to lose their majority position.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like this idea as well for many of the reasons previously stated.
First, let me start with an obvious drawback for this mechanic. I can see people saying that there is no need to implement a system such as this because guilds already have the ability to run a settlement as they see fit. If a guild has a dictator-like lord/leader or whether they decide to be a democracy...no one forces a person to join a particular guild so in a sense, this already exists.
But on the pro side, I can see this adding another layer to the game that would be fun and exciting. Since it has seems that character alignments will just be a mechanic and not an aid to role playing or a strict restrictor of behavior, I can see this system adding to settlements/guilds reputation in the player-community as well as offer some intrigue. Settlements would have to uphold the values they advertised to it's members as sell as add some flow to the politics of the game.
Imagine a LE dictatorship who promised glorious combat, but whose leader was hesitant and conservative on the battlefield. Of course, his members have the option of leaving...but what about a coup?
Imagine a CG settlement who advertised as a democracy and eventually voted out it's own founding member!
The variants of this are endless and I think well worth debating.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Proxima Sin
That's exactly how public companies work in real life. Hostile takeover are rare though because companies try to limit the number of available shares on the market vs the ones they already control. Issuing new shares is a good way to inject more money but also dilutes equities, it's a trade off they have to manage.
I see trade hubs being good candidates for this model. A settlement that doesn't want to accept too many strangers could finance (with or without partners) the construction of a trade settlement to redirect customers elsewhere. That settlement could then focus on trade infrastructures, giving dividends every so often to the shareholders and using the extra cash to lower taxes so they attract more people. If that settlement ever gets attacked, the shareholders will have to step in to defend their interests.
Mercenary settlements could also be good candidatess. They don't care who owns them, as long as they have someone to fight against for money. If a targeted settlement decides to reverse the tide by buying shares from the mercenaries, then why not?
In any case, I wouldn't set the settlement governance at creation to never change it again. I would allow any leader to switch to any system, provided they have the right to do it. A democracy could't turn into a dictatorship unless the majority votes for the change. A dictator could always change to democracy (because he's all powerful) but that would erode his control over the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So your enemies can buy all your shares and hijinks ensue.
There is a veto power to this. In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.
What we would need more information on is the actual process for creating a company charter, for creating a settlement character, and for assigning permissions (access) to the various tools of company / settlement management.
In my experience with MMOs this is how the typical system works:
Forming a Company / Corp / Clan / Guild:
1. One person purchases a charter
2. Person then collects the signatures of nine other characters
3. The Group is now formed
4. The holder of the charter is automatically the "Guild Leader".
5. Company Permissions, Titles, Functions, etc are then set by the GL.
6. The GL is usually the only person with admin power, and the highest
rank anyone else usually receives is that of a Director.
Whatever form of government that is used is Operational Practices (how it will be run), not Organizational Structures (how it works).
The only way around this is to make the system either based on Unanimous decisions or by popular vote. The obvious pitfalls for those are that it is either nearly impossible to get things done, needing 100% of the vote; or you don't always do what is best for the settlement because it was voted down.
* Note, started this post a few hours ago, not reflective of what has been posted since then.
I think the business idea is novel, and interesting.
Eve corporations are theoretically share based in as much as when you set them up you issue a number of shares and these can be held by as many people as you have shares.
Going to war requires a share holder vote.
Having said that. It is not possible to sell shares in Eve nor in practice do shares get distributed widely (normally only the corp leader and sometimes the directors get shares)
I would say I would welcome such an idea if they actually make it have meaning. This would indeed means shares being made saleable and tradeable. It would also require the payment of dividends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.That's not true.
It remains to be seen if it is not true in PFO.
Unless you can show me an example in an MMO where it was not the case, in my experience in almost every major MMO from the past 12 years, it always boiled down to one person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way around this is to make the system either based on Unanimous decisions or by popular vote. The obvious pitfalls for those are that it is either nearly impossible to get things done, needing 100% of the vote; or you don't always do what is best for the settlement because it was voted down.
That was the fall of BRUCE alliance in Eve. They were one of the NRDS alliances that lived for years in NPC 0.0 space. They were very well organized and they built up a large number over time. They had one guy that sat at the top but a group of members made all the decisions. Then they set out to take sov. They took it all right...
They held the space for about a month. The committee decided that the unofficial leader was not needed anymore. Later another alliance came in and challenged them... They ended up so bogged down in voting over everything that nothing got done. They lost their space and folded up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.That's not true.
It remains to be seen if it is not true in PFO.
Unless you can show me an example in an MMO where it was not the case, in my experience in almost every major MMO from the past 12 years, it always boiled down to one person.
LOL, Ive had this argument with Nihimon. Trust me T7V is different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It remains to be seen if it is not true in PFO.In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.That's not true.
It remains to be seen if SADs are in PFO. It remains to be seen if Wizards are in PFO. It remains to be seen if PvP is in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way around this is to make the system either based on Unanimous decisions or by popular vote. The obvious pitfalls for those are that it is either nearly impossible to get things done, needing 100% of the vote; or you don't always do what is best for the settlement because it was voted down.That was the fall of BRUCE alliance in Eve. They were one of the NRDS alliances that lived for years in NPC 0.0 space. They were very well organized and they built up a large number over time. They had one guy that sat at the top but a group of members made all the decisions. Then they set out to take sov. They took it all right...
They held the space for about a month. The committee decided that the unofficial leader was not needed anymore. Later another alliance came in and challenged them... They ended up so bogged down in voting over everything that nothing got done. They lost their space and folded up.
This example makes my case, but it also does not recognize that even in this case, one person held the final say.
An alliance is EVE is created by One Person Creating the Alliance Name, Location (HQ), Logo, Motto, Description, and then paying the 1 billion isk fee.
That One Person Sets the permissions, controls who can join or who gets kicked, can disband the alliance at one click of the mouse.
The only limitations to that One Person's power are those that he or she accepts.
It remains to be seen if PFO will have a different system. GW saying they "will have" is not the same thing as GW saying they "have" a different system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It remains to be seen if it is not true in PFO.In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.That's not true.It remains to be seen if SADs are in PFO. It remains to be seen if Wizards are in PFO. It remains to be seen if PvP is in PFO.
So then you recognize that saying "That's not true" is not based on any fact, but just a hope or a guess.
If we are being real accurate.. PFO remains to be seen. I'm sure there are dozens of projects that never make it out of alpha.
Sea Dogs 2 was a proposed MMO being produced by Akella / Bethesda and it was morphed into Pirates of the Caribbean MMO, when Disney bought the rights. Akella then went a produced Pirates of the Burning Sea, which then was taken over by Flying Labs.
Ultimately, neither game was Sea Digs 2 nor did they launch as a Bethesda title.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It remains to be seen if it is not true in PFO.In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.That's not true.It remains to be seen if SADs are in PFO. It remains to be seen if Wizards are in PFO. It remains to be seen if PvP is in PFO.
You broke the SAD seal!! That makes the SAD seal sad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the meta game organization of a company, one person will be the admin of the website / forums and one person will be the provider of the TS / Vent / VoIP. Usually this is the same person that is putting up the credit card to pay the bills.
This same person has the full admin rights to do whatever he or she wishes with the services that he or she is paying for. Now, others can contribute to those costs, but the credit card is still in one person's name and control.
This one person is the organizational leader of the group. There may be several or even many operational leaders, whom all derive their positions and power from the organizational leader. Ultimately the guy paying the bills, has final say.
If you believe you organization is different, then it is very likely, you are not its organizational leader. You do not have the final say, you are subordinate to the person that does. As an operational matter, you have only one true power, to leave.
This is a very common decision that is made by operational leaders who feel they could be a better organizational leader than the current one. They strike out on their own and become an organizational leader.
This is why alliances usually fall apart, or at least their membership is somewhat fluid. I believe that settlements, as they grow, will also see this somewhat fluid movement. This will especially become more likely as the number of settlements increase beyond 100 (perhaps sooner).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You broke the SAD seal!! That makes the SAD seal sad.It remains to be seen if it is not true in PFO.In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.That's not true.It remains to be seen if SADs are in PFO. It remains to be seen if Wizards are in PFO. It remains to be seen if PvP is in PFO.
Yes, fear of the SAD runs strong in this crowd. Little do they suspect that SADs will either be rarer then they think or they will be mostly pre arranged.
Little do they recognize and should fear that there are groups out there that are solely focused on conquest, and banditry is just a minor nuisance that most will have to endure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So then you recognize that saying "That's not true" is not based on any fact, but just a hope or a guess.I recognize that it's a load of BS for you to say:
In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.
So, you are an operational leader and not an organizational leader. There is nothing wrong in that BTW, it only remains to be seen how long you choose to remain in that position or break out on your own to form your own organization.
In the military all officers are groomed to eventually take over their own commands. All apprentices seek their opportunity to become master. Ambition and talent are very difficult to restrain within the second or lower positions within an organization.
Even with oligarchies, there is usually the "One". The Roman triumvirates ended with "One", after civil wars.
What remains to be seen is the mechanics in-game for company, settlement and nation. I've already explained how there is just one outside of the game, with most guild organizations.
He who pays the bills is the one. He who has the switch to shut it all down, is the one. The only way that this is not the case is if that one person hands over power to have final say.
Then there is the next question: Have you ever known a former guild leader to continue paying the bills after having been removed from leadership? Or worse, continue paying the bills after being kicked out of the organization entirely?
There would be no greater fool ever born who would not tear it all down rather than let others seize control, while he still continued to pay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, you are an operational leader and not an organizational leader.What makes you think we're talking about me?
Because an organizational leader would never debate that they ultimately have the final say. Bottom line, it is built into the mechanics of evey MMO, website provide, and voice program provider I have seen.
In some cases you can not even transfer full administrative rights to a second party, unless you are willing to share credit card or game account information.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then you recognize that saying "That's not true" is not based on any fact, but just a hope or a guess.I recognize that it's a load of BS for you to say:
In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.So, you are an operational leader and not an organizational leader. There is nothing wrong in that BTW, it only remains to be seen how long you choose to remain in that position or break out on your own to form your own organization.
In the military all officers are groomed to eventually take over their own commands. All apprentices seek their opportunity to become master. Ambition and talent are very difficult to restrain within the second or lower positions within an organization.
Even with oligarchies, there is usually the "One". The Roman triumvirates ended with "One", after civil wars.
What remains to be seen is the mechanics in-game for company, settlement and nation. I've already explained how there is just one outside of the game, with most guild organizations.
He who pays the bills is the one. He who has the switch to shut it all down, is the one. The only way that this is not the case is if that one person hands over power to have final say.
Then there is the next question: Have you ever known a former guild leader to continue paying the bills after having been removed from leadership? Or worse, continue paying the bills after being kicked out of the organization entirely?
There would be no greater fool ever born who would not tear it all down rather than let others seize control, while he still continued to pay.
Review the history of dictators in the Roman Empire.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So, you are an operational leader and not an organizational leader.What makes you think we're talking about me?Because an organizational leader would never debate that they ultimately have the final say. Bottom line, it is built into the mechanics of evey MMO, website provide, and voice program provider I have seen.
In some cases you can not even transfer full administrative rights to a second party, unless you are willing to share credit card or game account information.
That sounds awfully like the words of someone who is insecure about the security of his own position. The website admin has the ability to take some unilateral actions, but those actions do not constitute ultimate power. The ability to unilaterally cause a group to disband is not ultimate power, trivially because it can exist in the hands of multiple people at the same time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speaking of governance, to the OP, it is suggested that we look at various terms and build up from the company level first and then see if that transfers to the settlement. There are many, many variations I believe.
I have already put forth the difference between organizational leadership and operational leadership. This in my mind is the difference between having full admin rights and having nearly full admin rights.
For the sake of clarification, the UNC has a Master = Organizational Admin and at the moment, Two Councils = Operational Leaders. All three leadership roles have equal say in presenting operational ideas, and many ideas are put to a council or even officer vote.
I have internally said, I'm the Master of the UnNamed Company, but not master over its members. I give into the suggestions of my council, especially The Goodfellow who introduced me to PFO.
As far as being the "Face" of the company leader, that is largely a cult of personality thing and it's in the perception of the PFO community. Unless otherwise told, the community is going to have a perception of who each companies leader is, based largely on activity. This may not be accurate, but that is the fault of the actual leader and not the community for forming that perception.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my experience with MMOs this is how the typical system works:
Forming a Company / Corp / Clan / Guild:
1. One person purchases a charter
2. Person then collects the signatures of nine other characters
3. The Group is now formed
4. The holder of the charter is automatically the "Guild Leader".
5. Company Permissions, Titles, Functions, etc are then set by the GL.
6. The GL is usually the only person with admin power, and the highest
rank anyone else usually receives is that of a Director.Whatever form of government that is used is Operational Practices (how it will be run), not Organizational Structures (how it works).
The only way around this is to make the system either based on Unanimous decisions or by popular vote. The obvious pitfalls for those are that it is either nearly impossible to get things done, needing 100% of the vote; or you don't always do what is best for the settlement because it was voted down.
That's what I'm saying, all games pretty much offer the same bland structure. I'm merely suggesting to jazz it up a bit. But unlike previous games, I don't want this to set in stone for eternity. I want options for members to do something about leadership when they feel it's necessary.
Eve corporations are theoretically share based in as much as when you set them up you issue a number of shares and these can be held by as many people as you have shares.
Going to war requires a share holder vote.
Having said that. It is not possible to sell shares in Eve nor in practice do shares get distributed widely (normally only the corp leader and sometimes the directors get shares)
I would say I would welcome such an idea if they actually make it have meaning. This would indeed means shares being made saleable and tradeable. It would also require the payment of dividends.
I always felt the EVE system was lacking too. Having to manually track incomes/expenses to figure out monthly profits. Then for a 5% dividend, figuring out how each individual shareholder received and manually transferring that money to them. It was just too painful so people didn't bother.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I always felt the EVE system was lacking too. Having to manually track incomes/expenses to figure out monthly profits. Then for a 5% dividend, figuring out how each individual shareholder received and manually transferring that money to them. It was just too painful so people didn't bother.
Actually, when I sent out dividends to shareholders, it figured out the amounts just fine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did you do the research and figure out that many individuals relinquished absolute legal authority because their mission had been accomplished?Review the history of dictators in the Roman Empire.Are you agreeing? Like KitNyx said, I may be missing it.
Yeah, I understand what a Consul of Rome was. That in no way detracts from what Bludd said. There is always one man with the influence and power to control things, whether overtly or covertly.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy to set up a mechanical system that doesn't require a single leader. That's what a Representative Government is. It's easy to set up a system with a Representative government and a strong executive - that's how most Western corporations are structured.
Here's how you implement it:
The members of the Settlement elect a Board of Directors. A majority vote of the Board is required for the Settlement to take a meaningful action. That's a simple Representative system.
To make it more complex, the authority to do various things can be delegated. So the Board could delegate total authority to a single character - withholding only the right to strip that character of that authority. That is pretty much how Western corporations work - the Board hires a CEO and delegates near-total authority to the CEO.
You don't have to delegate to a single authority. You could create a position called Warlord, and delegate the war (and peace) making functions to that character, and create a position called Governor, and delegate the Settlement infrastructure management functions to that character, and so on and so on.
The easiest system is dictatorship, with a slightly more complex system being dictatorship where the dictator can delegate some authority (i.e. the EVE system).
But the idea that there's only one way for humans to organize for communal action is silly, and disproved by social structures all around us every day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The easiest system is dictatorship, with a slightly more complex system being dictatorship where the dictator can delegate some authority (i.e. the EVE system).
I believe this is the most commonly used for guilds in many MMO's and what many players are familiar with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you guys miss the point. Yes there can be a straight forward structure, where "this guy" leads everything and delegates from there.
Another way is as Ryan suggests, Which is like our Representative Government here in the US.
I think what is being missed... is that no matter which you have above, there is always someone who has the "Cult of Personality" leading things. Either overt like a warlord, or covert like a single Senator. The covert person may not have complete control, but they have enough control to influence votes or decisions of the majority. Thit will always exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you guys miss the point. Yes there can be a straight forward structure, where "this guy" leads everything and delegates from there.
Another way is as Ryan suggests, Which is like our Representative Government here in the US.
I think what is being missed... is that no matter which you have above, there is always someone who has the "Cult of Personality" leading things. Either overt like a warlord, or covert like a single Senator. The covert person may not have complete control, but they have enough control to influence votes or decisions of the majority. Thit will always exist.
You actually beat me to the punch, before I could post something snarky like "And goalposts moving in 3... 2..."
Here's the goalpost I don't feel like letting you move.
In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.
If you want to pretend he was just saying "there's usually a really influential person who can sway others", that's fine, but don't think you're fooling anyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.If you want to pretend he was just saying "there's usually a really influential person who can sway others", that's fine, but don't think you're fooling anyone.
Wasnt trying to fool anyone there Nihimon.
Since actually, you moved my goalpost for me... or rather took what I said and made it your own version.
I said influential person with control, I did not say sway. The influential person controls a large enough group that the others automatically follow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But it isn't just one person who controls the group, right? One person can amass enough control and hold it for a while, but will eventually lose control to some other power bloc. That's why parlimentary governments sometimes have votes of no confidence, and coalitions sometimes fall. It's more of a series of key-persons, each at the fulcrum of the decision for one decision or ten or a hundred, and then another key person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well of course, power shifts, that will always happen no matter what. The one guy could live a long life and be in control the whole time, or he could be assassinated after a few months, or he could just be voted out and have no basis for power.
Or he could be Newt Gingrich, takes the reigns of the House for several years, then gets voted out of office... just to go on to be a Lobbyist and still hold control over Congress. He had a different form of control.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's the goalpost I don't feel like letting you move.
In the end there is always one, just one person that possesses the final say.If you want to pretend he was just saying "there's usually a really influential person who can sway others", that's fine, but don't think you're fooling anyone.
You do realize I was speaking of the mechanics, right? I specifically mentioned admin rights. I specifically mentioned a charter held by one person. I specifically mentioned the cost of a website of voice chat program being tied, typically, to one person's credit card.
What you do operationally is up to you, and that as I have stated over and over again is usually in the hands of more than one person.
@ Ryan
Will the company / settlement tools place within the hands of one person the admin rights of that company / settlement? Then if they should so choose, they could delegate as much or as little of those admin rights to their membership.
I'm not talking about specific tools, just the initial and final tools of creation and disbanding of the organization. Other typically reserved admin tools are also, naming the guild; setting permissions; etc.... But those are more specific.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
@Bluddwolf
The way the system was designed on paper is that certain aspects of the Settlement have to be defined in the Charter, and the Charter has to be accepted by a certain number of characters for the Settlement to be created. As written, a single-character Settlement is impossible, and a Settlement is always created by a collective act of multiple characters.
The Charter (as written) specifies the initial voting structure of the Settlement. If the Charter specifies a Republic, it comes into existence as a Republic. (I don't think the written design uses the word "Republic" - I think it uses Oligarchy).
What will make it from the paper design to the actual design is tbd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
The way the system was designed on paper is that certain aspects of the Settlement have to be defined in the Charter, and the Charter has to be accepted by a certain number of characters for the Settlement to be created. As written, a single-character Settlement is impossible, and a Settlement is always created by a collective act of multiple characters.
The Charter (as written) specifies the initial voting structure of the Settlement. If the Charter specifies a Republic, it comes into existence as a Republic. (I don't think the written design uses the word "Republic" - I think it uses Oligarchy).
What will make it from the paper design to the actual design is tbd.
I understand that a number of characters are needed to move the charter from a piece of paper to creating and actual company or settlement. That is normally the case, with the exception of Eve (to my knowledge).
Does the government type require a vote on or does the initial person requesting the charter, select it first?
Once the form of government is selected, can it be changed, and by whom?
Even guilds in Age of Conan had different types of governments to chose from, but still, only one person had access to the admin section to make any changes.
How many people will potentially have admin rights to a company or settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...accepted by a certain number of characters...
Will anything stop the ancient trope of "Please help me form my guild. I'll pay you [something valuable to newbies, but meaningless to a vet], and you can quit right afterward"? I know one-person Settlements will be meaningless, but is there any need at all for controlling this sort of thing?