We had politics back in the MUD/MUSH days. We had permadeath too.
Politics and permadeath could work in the MUD/MUSH days because they weren't "combat games" like the games we have today. They were primarily social games where people played roles, like minor functionaries and foot soldiers. The "action" was in the dialogue we gave to each other, it wasn't in cleaning out MOBs and bosses for phat lewts. We did have a combat system in those old social environments, but it was text-based, highly narrative, decisive and deadly. You didn't engage in combat trivially.
Fighting was a last resort in those games, not a first response. The biggest challenge I see with fostering politics in an MMO is that people are too quick to fight...as to be expected in games designed to feature combat as the central activity. Because combat is not a political act; it is the thing you do when politics breaks down. And seeing how the vast majority of people attracted to these games are in it for the combat, I don't see why they would want to waste time building relationships, forging conspiracies or engaging in diplomacy.
Now I've been in MMORPGs with a lot of political intrigue. But the intrigue was always as a result of strict, roleplay-centric groups who practiced strict IC discipline. Regrettably, this is beyond the desire of most players I know.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means"
-Carl von Clausewitz
Ofcourse war and especially the threat of war or smaller military action is very much part of politics as much as any sanctions, embargos or anything of the sort.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
We had politics back in the MUD/MUSH days. We had permadeath too.
Politics and permadeath could work in the MUD/MUSH days because they weren't "combat games" like the games we have today. They were primarily social games where people played roles, like minor functionaries and foot soldiers. The "action" was in the dialogue we gave to each other, it wasn't in cleaning out MOBs and bosses for phat lewts. We did have a combat system in those old social environments, but it was text-based, highly narrative, decisive and deadly. You didn't engage in combat trivially.
Fighting was a last resort in those games, not a first response. The biggest challenge I see with fostering politics in an MMO is that people are too quick to fight...as to be expected in games designed to feature combat as the central activity. Because combat is not a political act; it is the thing you do when politics breaks down. And seeing how the vast majority of people attracted to these games are in it for the combat, I don't see why they would want to waste time building relationships, forging conspiracies or engaging in diplomacy.
Now I've been in MMORPGs with a lot of political intrigue. But the intrigue was always as a result of strict, roleplay-centric groups who practiced strict IC discipline. Regrettably, this is beyond the desire of most players I know.
But that's not really different from today.
You're describing one or two specific niche MUDs that weren't focused on combat. The lion's share of them were focused on combat and advancement (and also had a social element.)
Let's please avoid having selective memory about what types of games existed in the past, just because it supports our personal agenda.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Fighting was a last resort in those games, not a first response. The biggest challenge I see with fostering politics in an MMO is that people are too quick to fight...as to be expected in games designed to feature combat as the central activity. Because combat is not a political act; it is the thing you do when politics breaks down. And seeing how the vast majority of people attracted to these games are in it for the combat, I don't see why they would want to waste time building relationships, forging conspiracies or engaging in diplomacy.
Exactly. I don't waste my time buidling relationship beyond a couple min chat with people i like, and certainly not interested in conspiracies, nor diplomacies.
Plus, if i want political intrigue, i will just watch Game of Thrones. Doing it on my own probably has a very low time-to-fun factor. Game of Thrones is so successful in provide that because their professional writers have spent lots of time, so that every min of the show is intriguing.
No doubt. But let me qualify that .. "i don't waste my time building relationship in GAMES". I have more than enough relationship online & off-line that i really don't need more.
No doubt. But let me qualify that .. "i don't waste my time building relationship in GAMES". I have more than enough relationship online & off-line that i really don't need more.
He knew that, no doubt. He just had to make that quip.
I have to say, for people who promote socializing and community, some are quite malevolent.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
No doubt. But let me qualify that .. "i don't waste my time building relationship in GAMES". I have more than enough relationship online & off-line that i really don't need more.
He knew that, no doubt. He just had to make that quip.
No quip, I had assumed it referred to games, this is an MMORPG forum, whether Narius is loved or lonely outside MMORPG is irrelevant.
I prefer to deal with people as people rather than as pixels even in a game, I find it less pathological.
I figured I'd weigh in here, as it is a source of argument that appears every once in a while.
No. You cannot create a sustainable MMORPG with politics and intrigue as its base.
People are your reason.
See, to a lot of pro-dominance people it sounds like a good idea on its surface. But inherently it is doomed to failure because ... people are people. The same reason that dooms PK systems (or FFA FL or Misery if you prefer): people HATE to lose and you can't hold them to the system.
MUDs and MUSHes, as discussed above, did have some of these systems, including politics. However, they were super-small and generally were driven by the creator and his friends. The vast majority (although there were exceptions) had very VERY few players. (10-100)
When someone lost, they just picked up their sticks and went someplace else.
The second reason in your box is: People are assholes and generally have very low empathy. A lot of PKers are always ready to play the guy in semi-lo sec space in EVE killing and podding helpless people for kicks. There are no end of them. Just like in EVERY OTHER game of similar type. (Such as classic UO.)
OTOH, put THEM in the same position and they quit immediately; especially if they have NO WAY (such as in EVE) where they could catch up. Now, the pseudo-hardcore people will tell you that they'd FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT. LOL. Maybe 3%-5% would. The rest wouldn't but their egos won't let them say so. Numbers don't lie and political systems have large orders of magnitude greater loss versus win scenarios.
The political system won't hold back the assholishness, just raise it to a new level and drive players away in droves. This, of course, assumes that the political system actually has some sway. If not, it is moot and e-peen fodder.
The obvious (and only) counter-argument is EVE. However, if you look, the number of people that "live" in high-sec space is *drum roll* 90%+. Yep. People are inherently extremely risk-averse.
Oh, but just ask them. Every one of them would tell you they're hard-core ultra PKers. LOL. Uh, no, they aren't. WoW won because it did the very simple thing: they listened. People wanted to win, so WoW is the game where your dog wins. The ultra-moron end-game crowd is where they fail, but the majority of people don't raid meaningfully. They stop paying too, or start another character. This is why they've tried to cut down on the asshole elite factor. They haven't done it yet. If you examine why, you'd find the same causality that dooms in game political systems.
Third: even if you could create a godly-system that would encourage competition AND hold down on the assholishness (AHF hereafter for Asshole Factor), it still wouldn't work because politics (as the common term is identified) relies on popularity and voting as its premise.
The most people win. (In that the most popular candidate wins.) I'm certain (with a very wide smirk) that you don't think people make wise decisions in elections. LOL
Anyway, the largest guild or the people that give the impression of giving away the most free shit will win. Absolutely nothing will change that. Ever. The hoi polloi will ALWAYS vote the safe, free shit. Even if it means lobotomies for all or universal death.
However, on side B, where the "politics" of which we're speaking is really another name for PK, then the time-evolved people will win. Those would be the retired, disabled, rich, college, or soccer-mom people that have the most time to play. Time wins, then those people with the most time will win.
And, in a political system, how many people can actually WIN? Well, that'd be an inversely proportionate answer wouldn't it. See, the denominator increases without substantially increasing the numerator. So more people = lots more losers.
But, again, if the winners can't actually effect the game, then the political system is a subgame.
Fourth: Go play Second Life. Then come back.
OK. People have NOOOOOOOO imaginations. Give them free reign and what do you get? Pedophilia, Porn, Casinos, Rent, and Flying Dicks. Yes, it is true that a small minority of people do have imagination and the ability to produce it. Those people are off doing something artistic (such as creating games, perhaps). However, the vast majority of people lack an ounce of creative ability.
Put them in charge and you get Joe Biden and Sarah Pailin. *shudder*
See, very few people (well under 1%) like or are willing to suffer in a realm for which they pay money. There are infinitely stupid people, of course, but they are few and far between.
The fourth point also kills the Sandbawxxxx!!!! argument. Go look, again, at SL or any other game with user-designable content. Yes, there are talented designers. However, designers typically aren't ultra-aggressive enough to be able to design in a sandbox. If they do, either dollahs or AHF is the reward.
Anyway, a political system is unsustainable because of the above reasons and more.
Either the system has no effect, and is moot / e-peen fodder or,
the system can actually effect the world and the AHF kills off 95% of the player base.
Like most PK and other "niche" games, they quickly fail due to the churn. All games have churn where people come and go, but in order to be a success in the near (0 to 3 year) term, your incoming players have to be less than your churn.
Any game with a celebrated loss scheme is destined to fail. There just aren't any counter-factors to consider.
Now, I understand these arguments won't change the "I only see my way and I only see me winning" group of people. They won't be able to have enough empathy to figure out why no one likes FFA FL games, either. See, their tiny egos will only allow them to see themselves winning. Therefore, their "everyone" experience is everyone always winning.
Asking them what they'd do if they were relegated to the slums of some forced political system and their responses are laughingly delved into 3 parts:
1) I'd quit and go do something else. (50%) or,
2) I'd take up arms and change the system 'cause I'm the winnnnnnnnnnnnnnah! But don't actually do anything and will fall to 1 above after 1 to 100 tries. (49%) or,
3) Same as 2, but actually have the brashness to attempt the change. (1%) However, the postulates in 3 will only be successful approximately 1 in 10 times (10%).
Therefore, 1:1000 would actually work for that system. And these numbers are screamingly generous.
With human-standard rates of churn, that game would always fail even if it were COMPLETELY free.
We have this argument around 10 times a year or so. The answer is always the same and won't change.
However, if any of you manage to think of a system that is competitive, doesn't depend on numbers or popularity or time, is grief-proof to the player base, AND is meaningful, please (!!) speak right up. I'm ready to be wrong.
We had politics back in the MUD/MUSH days. We had permadeath too.
Politics and permadeath could work in the MUD/MUSH days because they weren't "combat games" like the games we have today. They were primarily social games where people played roles, like minor functionaries and foot soldiers. The "action" was in the dialogue we gave to each other, it wasn't in cleaning out MOBs and bosses for phat lewts. We did have a combat system in those old social environments, but it was text-based, highly narrative, decisive and deadly. You didn't engage in combat trivially.
Fighting was a last resort in those games, not a first response. The biggest challenge I see with fostering politics in an MMO is that people are too quick to fight...as to be expected in games designed to feature combat as the central activity. Because combat is not a political act; it is the thing you do when politics breaks down. And seeing how the vast majority of people attracted to these games are in it for the combat, I don't see why they would want to waste time building relationships, forging conspiracies or engaging in diplomacy.
Now I've been in MMORPGs with a lot of political intrigue. But the intrigue was always as a result of strict, roleplay-centric groups who practiced strict IC discipline. Regrettably, this is beyond the desire of most players I know.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means"
-Carl von Clausewitz
Ofcourse war and especially the threat of war or smaller military action is very much part of politics as much as any sanctions, embargos or anything of the sort.
I actually had the Prussian general in mind when I said that "combat is not a political act."
Politics is a matter of words: laws, diplomacy, speeches, bargains, etc. You talk with people to get them to do what you want them to do.
Combat, however, is the attempt to make someone comply through force, not words. It's what you can do to accomplish political objectives when politics is no longer an option. But that implies that we actually have an incentive not to go to war...a rather difficult thing to incentivize when the entire reason people buy and play these games is to fight. For as Clausewitz would say, war is (or at least should be) "no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object."
That's why politics in today's MMO environment is just silly. There's no reason to create systems of intrigue when it's much more fun just to fight it out. Indeed, war is just "too fun" not to resort to it as a first response for everything here. The new MMO crowd we've developed over the last 20 years would have it no other way.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
We had politics back in the MUD/MUSH days. We had permadeath too.
Politics and permadeath could work in the MUD/MUSH days because they weren't "combat games" like the games we have today. They were primarily social games where people played roles, like minor functionaries and foot soldiers. The "action" was in the dialogue we gave to each other, it wasn't in cleaning out MOBs and bosses for phat lewts. We did have a combat system in those old social environments, but it was text-based, highly narrative, decisive and deadly. You didn't engage in combat trivially.
Fighting was a last resort in those games, not a first response. The biggest challenge I see with fostering politics in an MMO is that people are too quick to fight...as to be expected in games designed to feature combat as the central activity. Because combat is not a political act; it is the thing you do when politics breaks down. And seeing how the vast majority of people attracted to these games are in it for the combat, I don't see why they would want to waste time building relationships, forging conspiracies or engaging in diplomacy.
Now I've been in MMORPGs with a lot of political intrigue. But the intrigue was always as a result of strict, roleplay-centric groups who practiced strict IC discipline. Regrettably, this is beyond the desire of most players I know.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means"
-Carl von Clausewitz
Ofcourse war and especially the threat of war or smaller military action is very much part of politics as much as any sanctions, embargos or anything of the sort.
I actually had the Prussian general in mind when I said that "combat is not a political act."
Politics is a matter of words: laws, diplomacy, speeches, bargains, etc. You talk with people to get them to do what you want them to do.
Combat, however, is the attempt to make someone comply through force, not words. It's what you can do to accomplish political objectives when politics is no longer an option. But that implies that we actually have an incentive not to go to war...a rather difficult thing to incentivize when the entire reason people buy and play these games is to fight. For as Clausewitz would say, war is (or at least should be) "no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object."
That's why politics in today's MMO environment is just silly. There's no reason to create systems of intrigue when it's much more fun just to fight it out. Indeed, war is just "too fun" not to resort to it as a first response for everything here. The new MMO crowd we've developed over the last 20 years would have it no other way.
Politics isn't ruled out just because the firing starts, politics decides whether your opposition's allies offer military aid or just words of support, politics decides the conditions for the fighting.
I actually had the Prussian general in mind when I said that "combat is not a political act."
Politics is a matter of words: laws, diplomacy, speeches, bargains, etc. You talk with people to get them to do what you want them to do.
Combat, however, is the attempt to make someone comply through force, not words. It's what you can do to accomplish political objectives when politics is no longer an option. But that implies that we actually have an incentive not to go to war...a rather difficult thing to incentivize when the entire reason people buy and play these games is to fight. For as Clausewitz would say, war is (or at least should be) "no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object."
That's why politics in today's MMO environment is just silly. There's no reason to create systems of intrigue when it's much more fun just to fight it out. Indeed, war is just "too fun" not to resort to it as a first response for everything here. The new MMO crowd we've developed over the last 20 years would have it no other way.
In essence: People talk because they don't want to fight - In games, people like to fight, so why talk?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I actually had the Prussian general in mind when I said that "combat is not a political act."
Politics is a matter of words: laws, diplomacy, speeches, bargains, etc. You talk with people to get them to do what you want them to do.
Combat, however, is the attempt to make someone comply through force, not words. It's what you can do to accomplish political objectives when politics is no longer an option. But that implies that we actually have an incentive not to go to war...a rather difficult thing to incentivize when the entire reason people buy and play these games is to fight. For as Clausewitz would say, war is (or at least should be) "no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object."
That's why politics in today's MMO environment is just silly. There's no reason to create systems of intrigue when it's much more fun just to fight it out. Indeed, war is just "too fun" not to resort to it as a first response for everything here. The new MMO crowd we've developed over the last 20 years would have it no other way.
So you think it's impossible for a game mechanic to prevent players from being at war constantly?
Even without creating specialized gameplay around politics, players in online web strategy games like Travian have strong incentive not to be at war constantly (a non-warring alliance grows faster.) I'm sure the same is true in EVE where if your corp is able to be heads-down on economic improvement while avoiding war, they'll become considerably more powerful in the long-run.
And if a politics game was created, clearly it would implement multiple game mechanics for not being at war constantly. Troop upkeep, popular unrest, and other real-world consequences would be entirely appropriate.
You just have to make sure it's a game about politics if you're making a game about politics. That implies (a) advertising it as such, to drive player expectations, (b) making the varied acts of politics a bunch of dense gameplay decisions because making those decisions and managing things needs to fill your entire game session. This means nobody's really going to miss combat, because combat would actually be a somewhat anemic system compared with the political options.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can already do politics and intrigue with any game that has a clan/guild system. It's called RP.
Nah .. my guild don't RP. Guild drama .. may be .. but politics? Not really.
If your guild can't coordinate with other guilds to get some good RP stories going, then you have noone to blame but yourself.
RPing politics is hardly the same as actualy having politics and intrigue in the game.
Have you ever played a table-top rpg? Almost none include social mechanics beyond bluff and charm type skills. The reason is that social interactions and politics are way too nuanced to be represented very well with a rule set.
If an MMO does it, I bet the "political" benefits will still just be the result of actual combat, such as controlling a contested island or something. Or you could have an alliance system that allows guilds and nations to declare states of peace and war with each other, but like in real life, that kind of stuff would be controlled by very few players. For everyone else, such a system really doesn't add any sort of mechanical "benefit" or sense of identity. You'd end up with a lot of resources going into setting up a game system that's only accessed by a few people.
Everyone else would just end up RPing things out like they always have. Because people don't like being told how their character is going to act.
You can absolutely have politics and intrigue in an MMO as regular occurences. You just have to build the structures that allow it to happen. I wouldn't even say it's that hard.
Create valuable things, make a public tournament of competing for them, and provide non-combat avenues to victory. Done. You now have public, important intrigue that can be set to whichever schedule you like (though you'll want to find a happy balance in the frequency to preserve importance and engagement). Of course building those things isn't as quick as a snap of the fingers, but you don't need to be a creative genius to build such a system.
A good general rule of designing MMOs, and games in general: anyone who says it can't be done is probably wrong. There are unique challenges that require unique solutions, but the puzzles are not intractable by any means. Of course, if you shut down an idea as soon as you identify problems, without making any effort to solve them, many things in life will seem impossible.
You can already do politics and intrigue with any game that has a clan/guild system. It's called RP.
Nah .. my guild don't RP. Guild drama .. may be .. but politics? Not really.
You're basically saying, "Nah, Idon't drive my car to Florida, so cars can't drive to Florida."
No i am basically say "my guild don't RP" .. and there is no in-game politics for my guild. That is pretty clear. I said NOTHING about what other guilds can or cannot do.
You can already do politics and intrigue with any game that has a clan/guild system. It's called RP.
Nah .. my guild don't RP. Guild drama .. may be .. but politics? Not really.
If your guild can't coordinate with other guilds to get some good RP stories going, then you have noone to blame but yourself.
"blame" . don't sound like getting RP stories going is desirable for everyone. And no .. my guild don't do any RP .. because we are not interested in it.
(Oh, more like my ex-guild .. quit WOW quite a while ago already).
I actually had the Prussian general in mind when I said that "combat is not a political act."
Politics is a matter of words: laws, diplomacy, speeches, bargains, etc. You talk with people to get them to do what you want them to do.
Combat, however, is the attempt to make someone comply through force, not words. It's what you can do to accomplish political objectives when politics is no longer an option. But that implies that we actually have an incentive not to go to war...a rather difficult thing to incentivize when the entire reason people buy and play these games is to fight. For as Clausewitz would say, war is (or at least should be) "no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object."
That's why politics in today's MMO environment is just silly. There's no reason to create systems of intrigue when it's much more fun just to fight it out. Indeed, war is just "too fun" not to resort to it as a first response for everything here. The new MMO crowd we've developed over the last 20 years would have it no other way.
In essence: People talk because they don't want to fight - In games, people like to fight, so why talk?
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus When will an mmorpg succeed to finallygive us an endgame base on politics and intrigue? The more i look at game of thrones, midkemia and other fantasy epos, he more i realise this is what is missing.... A way to infuence the world trough roleplaying.. but how to put this intoo a simple mmo?
I actually had the Prussian general in mind when I said that "combat is not a political act."
Politics is a matter of words: laws, diplomacy, speeches, bargains, etc. You talk with people to get them to do what you want them to do.
Combat, however, is the attempt to make someone comply through force, not words. It's what you can do to accomplish political objectives when politics is no longer an option. But that implies that we actually have an incentive not to go to war...a rather difficult thing to incentivize when the entire reason people buy and play these games is to fight. For as Clausewitz would say, war is (or at least should be) "no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object."
That's why politics in today's MMO environment is just silly. There's no reason to create systems of intrigue when it's much more fun just to fight it out. Indeed, war is just "too fun" not to resort to it as a first response for everything here. The new MMO crowd we've developed over the last 20 years would have it no other way.
In essence: People talk because they don't want to fight - In games, people like to fight, so why talk?
You seem to be assuming players may want to be in every fight or that they do not like diplomacy. Depending on the game and the objectives (micro and macro) of the players, that may or may not be true.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
"War is the continuation of politics by other means"
-Carl von Clausewitz
Ofcourse war and especially the threat of war or smaller military action is very much part of politics as much as any sanctions, embargos or anything of the sort.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But that's not really different from today.
You're describing one or two specific niche MUDs that weren't focused on combat. The lion's share of them were focused on combat and advancement (and also had a social element.)
Let's please avoid having selective memory about what types of games existed in the past, just because it supports our personal agenda.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Exactly. I don't waste my time buidling relationship beyond a couple min chat with people i like, and certainly not interested in conspiracies, nor diplomacies.
Plus, if i want political intrigue, i will just watch Game of Thrones. Doing it on my own probably has a very low time-to-fun factor. Game of Thrones is so successful in provide that because their professional writers have spent lots of time, so that every min of the show is intriguing.
That explains a lot.
No doubt. But let me qualify that .. "i don't waste my time building relationship in GAMES". I have more than enough relationship online & off-line that i really don't need more.
He knew that, no doubt. He just had to make that quip.
I have to say, for people who promote socializing and community, some are quite malevolent.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No quip, I had assumed it referred to games, this is an MMORPG forum, whether Narius is loved or lonely outside MMORPG is irrelevant.
I prefer to deal with people as people rather than as pixels even in a game, I find it less pathological.
I figured I'd weigh in here, as it is a source of argument that appears every once in a while.
No. You cannot create a sustainable MMORPG with politics and intrigue as its base.
People are your reason.
See, to a lot of pro-dominance people it sounds like a good idea on its surface. But inherently it is doomed to failure because ... people are people. The same reason that dooms PK systems (or FFA FL or Misery if you prefer): people HATE to lose and you can't hold them to the system.
MUDs and MUSHes, as discussed above, did have some of these systems, including politics. However, they were super-small and generally were driven by the creator and his friends. The vast majority (although there were exceptions) had very VERY few players. (10-100)
When someone lost, they just picked up their sticks and went someplace else.
The second reason in your box is: People are assholes and generally have very low empathy. A lot of PKers are always ready to play the guy in semi-lo sec space in EVE killing and podding helpless people for kicks. There are no end of them. Just like in EVERY OTHER game of similar type. (Such as classic UO.)
OTOH, put THEM in the same position and they quit immediately; especially if they have NO WAY (such as in EVE) where they could catch up. Now, the pseudo-hardcore people will tell you that they'd FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT. LOL. Maybe 3%-5% would. The rest wouldn't but their egos won't let them say so. Numbers don't lie and political systems have large orders of magnitude greater loss versus win scenarios.
The political system won't hold back the assholishness, just raise it to a new level and drive players away in droves. This, of course, assumes that the political system actually has some sway. If not, it is moot and e-peen fodder.
The obvious (and only) counter-argument is EVE. However, if you look, the number of people that "live" in high-sec space is *drum roll* 90%+. Yep. People are inherently extremely risk-averse.
Oh, but just ask them. Every one of them would tell you they're hard-core ultra PKers. LOL. Uh, no, they aren't. WoW won because it did the very simple thing: they listened. People wanted to win, so WoW is the game where your dog wins. The ultra-moron end-game crowd is where they fail, but the majority of people don't raid meaningfully. They stop paying too, or start another character. This is why they've tried to cut down on the asshole elite factor. They haven't done it yet. If you examine why, you'd find the same causality that dooms in game political systems.
Third: even if you could create a godly-system that would encourage competition AND hold down on the assholishness (AHF hereafter for Asshole Factor), it still wouldn't work because politics (as the common term is identified) relies on popularity and voting as its premise.
The most people win. (In that the most popular candidate wins.) I'm certain (with a very wide smirk) that you don't think people make wise decisions in elections. LOL
Anyway, the largest guild or the people that give the impression of giving away the most free shit will win. Absolutely nothing will change that. Ever. The hoi polloi will ALWAYS vote the safe, free shit. Even if it means lobotomies for all or universal death.
However, on side B, where the "politics" of which we're speaking is really another name for PK, then the time-evolved people will win. Those would be the retired, disabled, rich, college, or soccer-mom people that have the most time to play. Time wins, then those people with the most time will win.
And, in a political system, how many people can actually WIN? Well, that'd be an inversely proportionate answer wouldn't it. See, the denominator increases without substantially increasing the numerator. So more people = lots more losers.
But, again, if the winners can't actually effect the game, then the political system is a subgame.
Fourth: Go play Second Life. Then come back.
OK. People have NOOOOOOOO imaginations. Give them free reign and what do you get? Pedophilia, Porn, Casinos, Rent, and Flying Dicks. Yes, it is true that a small minority of people do have imagination and the ability to produce it. Those people are off doing something artistic (such as creating games, perhaps). However, the vast majority of people lack an ounce of creative ability.
Put them in charge and you get Joe Biden and Sarah Pailin. *shudder*
See, very few people (well under 1%) like or are willing to suffer in a realm for which they pay money. There are infinitely stupid people, of course, but they are few and far between.
The fourth point also kills the Sandbawxxxx!!!! argument. Go look, again, at SL or any other game with user-designable content. Yes, there are talented designers. However, designers typically aren't ultra-aggressive enough to be able to design in a sandbox. If they do, either dollahs or AHF is the reward.
Anyway, a political system is unsustainable because of the above reasons and more.
Either the system has no effect, and is moot / e-peen fodder or,
the system can actually effect the world and the AHF kills off 95% of the player base.
Like most PK and other "niche" games, they quickly fail due to the churn. All games have churn where people come and go, but in order to be a success in the near (0 to 3 year) term, your incoming players have to be less than your churn.
Any game with a celebrated loss scheme is destined to fail. There just aren't any counter-factors to consider.
Now, I understand these arguments won't change the "I only see my way and I only see me winning" group of people. They won't be able to have enough empathy to figure out why no one likes FFA FL games, either. See, their tiny egos will only allow them to see themselves winning. Therefore, their "everyone" experience is everyone always winning.
Asking them what they'd do if they were relegated to the slums of some forced political system and their responses are laughingly delved into 3 parts:
1) I'd quit and go do something else. (50%) or,
2) I'd take up arms and change the system 'cause I'm the winnnnnnnnnnnnnnah! But don't actually do anything and will fall to 1 above after 1 to 100 tries. (49%) or,
3) Same as 2, but actually have the brashness to attempt the change. (1%) However, the postulates in 3 will only be successful approximately 1 in 10 times (10%).
Therefore, 1:1000 would actually work for that system. And these numbers are screamingly generous.
With human-standard rates of churn, that game would always fail even if it were COMPLETELY free.
We have this argument around 10 times a year or so. The answer is always the same and won't change.
However, if any of you manage to think of a system that is competitive, doesn't depend on numbers or popularity or time, is grief-proof to the player base, AND is meaningful, please (!!) speak right up. I'm ready to be wrong.
But is it more fun?
When i headshot someone in PS2, i totally treat him as some intelligence pixels in a game. I find it entertaining.
I actually had the Prussian general in mind when I said that "combat is not a political act."
Politics is a matter of words: laws, diplomacy, speeches, bargains, etc. You talk with people to get them to do what you want them to do.
Combat, however, is the attempt to make someone comply through force, not words. It's what you can do to accomplish political objectives when politics is no longer an option. But that implies that we actually have an incentive not to go to war...a rather difficult thing to incentivize when the entire reason people buy and play these games is to fight. For as Clausewitz would say, war is (or at least should be) "no pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object."
That's why politics in today's MMO environment is just silly. There's no reason to create systems of intrigue when it's much more fun just to fight it out. Indeed, war is just "too fun" not to resort to it as a first response for everything here. The new MMO crowd we've developed over the last 20 years would have it no other way.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Politics isn't ruled out just because the firing starts, politics decides whether your opposition's allies offer military aid or just words of support, politics decides the conditions for the fighting.
In essence: People talk because they don't want to fight - In games, people like to fight, so why talk?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
So you think it's impossible for a game mechanic to prevent players from being at war constantly?
Even without creating specialized gameplay around politics, players in online web strategy games like Travian have strong incentive not to be at war constantly (a non-warring alliance grows faster.) I'm sure the same is true in EVE where if your corp is able to be heads-down on economic improvement while avoiding war, they'll become considerably more powerful in the long-run.
And if a politics game was created, clearly it would implement multiple game mechanics for not being at war constantly. Troop upkeep, popular unrest, and other real-world consequences would be entirely appropriate.
You just have to make sure it's a game about politics if you're making a game about politics. That implies (a) advertising it as such, to drive player expectations, (b) making the varied acts of politics a bunch of dense gameplay decisions because making those decisions and managing things needs to fill your entire game session. This means nobody's really going to miss combat, because combat would actually be a somewhat anemic system compared with the political options.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can already do politics and intrigue with any game that has a clan/guild system. It's called RP.
You make me like charity
Nah .. my guild don't RP. Guild drama .. may be .. but politics? Not really.
If your guild can't coordinate with other guilds to get some good RP stories going, then you have noone to blame but yourself.
You make me like charity
You're basically saying, "Nah, I don't drive my car to Florida, so cars can't drive to Florida."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
RPing politics is hardly the same as actualy having politics and intrigue in the game.
Have you ever played a table-top rpg? Almost none include social mechanics beyond bluff and charm type skills. The reason is that social interactions and politics are way too nuanced to be represented very well with a rule set.
If an MMO does it, I bet the "political" benefits will still just be the result of actual combat, such as controlling a contested island or something. Or you could have an alliance system that allows guilds and nations to declare states of peace and war with each other, but like in real life, that kind of stuff would be controlled by very few players. For everyone else, such a system really doesn't add any sort of mechanical "benefit" or sense of identity. You'd end up with a lot of resources going into setting up a game system that's only accessed by a few people.
Everyone else would just end up RPing things out like they always have. Because people don't like being told how their character is going to act.
You make me like charity
You can absolutely have politics and intrigue in an MMO as regular occurences. You just have to build the structures that allow it to happen. I wouldn't even say it's that hard.
Create valuable things, make a public tournament of competing for them, and provide non-combat avenues to victory. Done. You now have public, important intrigue that can be set to whichever schedule you like (though you'll want to find a happy balance in the frequency to preserve importance and engagement). Of course building those things isn't as quick as a snap of the fingers, but you don't need to be a creative genius to build such a system.
A good general rule of designing MMOs, and games in general: anyone who says it can't be done is probably wrong. There are unique challenges that require unique solutions, but the puzzles are not intractable by any means. Of course, if you shut down an idea as soon as you identify problems, without making any effort to solve them, many things in life will seem impossible.
No i am basically say "my guild don't RP" .. and there is no in-game politics for my guild. That is pretty clear. I said NOTHING about what other guilds can or cannot do.
"blame" . don't sound like getting RP stories going is desirable for everyone. And no .. my guild don't do any RP .. because we are not interested in it.
(Oh, more like my ex-guild .. quit WOW quite a while ago already).
To help ensure you win.
I thought Worldalpha was based on this.
You seem to be assuming players may want to be in every fight or that they do not like diplomacy. Depending on the game and the objectives (micro and macro) of the players, that may or may not be true.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre