Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Politics As A Game Feature...
Devour
Member Posts: 902
So, yes, for all MMO players out there, would you want politics in game as a feature similar to combat? Imagine Vanguard's diplomacy, except without the weird card game mechanics, just more as a blatant form of combat.
If you can stomach playing a MUD for a short time, then I'd advise you to try Lusternia, but if you can't, let me direct you to the Lusternia wiki on influencing denizens ( which, unfortunately, doesn't explain much, but oh well, it's interesting enough, you really have to get ).
Basically, the idea is that you use skills, like you would in combat, in an attempt to use up your opponent's ego ( like mana, but for talking ) whilst keeping yours at a reasonable level. You have "stances" which protected you against certain argument types and weakened you to others and NPCs that you could have influence battles with ( to either beg them for money or to try and change their personality for a short while or a number of other things ) had a certain personality that made them immune to certain abilities etc etc. It's basically combat without fighting, and is the ONLY thing that allows a city to take over a village, when villages "unlock" and become open for the cities to try and convert the denizens in them.
The system grows a lot more complex when you consider that players will often attempt to argue with each other in villages to take other players out of the running for a short time, and fights usually turn into two players duelling whilst lots of others back them up with compliments ( which restore ego ) and refreshment magic.
So, how would people feel about something like this in a game? Vanguard's system was good, even if the card system was a bit silly, but it just didn't really do enough. Some buffs and some extra items was about the limit on it, instead of ( as in Lusternia ) being able to capture villages.
And, yes, Lusternia would be, in my opinion, one of the greatest games ever as an MMO.
EDIT: I'm expanding this idea, in my head, to having multiple faction parties within cities which are within nations etc, each of which would be pressing it's own views and laws upon the general masses, and attempting to get laws instated which would benefits them.
For example: You have a mage's guild and, I don't know, an anti-mage guild within a single city. The mage's guild wants to lower taxes on magic reagents, build more temples to the mage god and have more lax laws on where they can and can't cast magic. The anti-mage guild want to build more temples to the anti-mage god and have more strict laws on where mages can cast magic. Assuming these two factions have equal amounts, and equally well politically developed leaders ( in terms of skills and ability to influence ) their success would be determined by convincing the unwashed masses ( I.E. the NPCs on the gaming world ) that their side is correct through debates in the middle of the city. Combine this with the ability to knock off players ( and put them out of the running SOMEHOW, without forcing them to quit the game forever, not really certain how to do this, it needs more thinking over ) and the many others things that could be implemented, and it would be a glorious thing.
Comments
I'm sure most people have never played let alone heard of "Dark Ages" by Nexon (now Kru) but that game had both a political and religious system in place which brought a lot of interesting things to the game.
While it set people apart from one in other sometimes, it made the game more interesting in the long run. It was a player-run system. Political leaders, "police", etc. were basically elected by the playerbase and had a period of time that they were in that position.
It's one of the major things I miss from that game, one that I wish other games would implement, if done well.
While I love the idea of having politics in a game... this just sounds lame. Very lame.
One of the major problems is, of course, corruption within the game system itself, but it's something that you have to face up to and go against if it's completely necessary to do so.
@madeux: Nice explanation of your viewpoint, there. ;D Unless you mean politics as in "OMG WE HAET U GUYZ CUZ U SUK SO WE ATTAK UR CITY". I believe that's called the real sandbox politik.
if u can use Intimidation based in how much Strenght u have, then ok with me
now: GW2 (11 80s).
Dark Souls 2.
future: Mount&Blade 2 BannerLord.
"Bro, do your even fractal?"
Recommends: Guild Wars 2, Dark Souls, Mount&Blade: Warband, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning.
"Back down Jenkins, or your wife gets these pictures. Back down."
Quest complete:
100 influence earned
50 leverage earned
+10 scare tactics obtained
EVE does politics perfectly. There is no reason to incorporate game mechanics into politics. If you have a Sandbox Game with PVP, then you have politics. More so, if there are areas that can be and have a reason to be controlled.
Otherwise, I agree with Madeux. This sounds really lame. I'd rather the card game in Vanguard.
Either way, you have to ask yourself. Card Game or the Lame Idea.... are they really politics? I can put the title of politics on the combat system and you now have politics! YAY! No.
Like Trading Card Games? Click Here.
Shattered Galaxy also had a political system, with a supreme commander being elected, and then appointing a council. He even got a pretty uber combat bonus, so if you could get a skilled player elected it was pretty potent. Terms were pretty sure (2 weeks I think?) but if you didn't like someone you could always start a vote to impeach (:
Cool to hear that other Nexon games (SG was made by Nexon) also opted to include politics.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wouldn't say EvE does politics perfectly, to be honest, it's not really integrated enough into the system to be "perfect". It especially falls down in a fantasy sandbox. EvE's politics fits EvE, that's the best way I could describe it, but I don't think it'd work in anything else, simply because I can imagine the control system being completely different.
Basically, complex, adult control system = relatively complex, adult community. I've been playing this little Java MMO called Haven&Hearth, and that had to implement the ability to track players who've committed a crime, as otherwise it was impossible to find them and impossible to get retribution. And that's how it HAD to work for that game.
EDIT: Darkfall's politics are an example of the not so complex control system = the "real sandbox politik", in which it was just, "WE DONT LIKE RPERS CUZ THEY R RPERS LETS ALL GANG UP ON DEM". Admittedly, the problem was exasperated by the fact there were no REAL resources that were hard to gain or of a higher quality than others, and so the players eventually just fought for the sake of fighting.
First thing I thought was "I already hate politics IRL, I don't want them in my game too!"
heh :P
In response to the title of the thread, see:
A Tale in the Desert
and
Face of Mankind
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I don't get how people can hate politics, it's like when people say they hate books as a whole, they're both such defining features of modern life that you HAVE to get used to them and understand them. =p Hell, I'm a physicist, and I love following politics! Although, that may be due to the fact that science is a taboo subject at the dinner table, and you need something to discuss.
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but the highlighted sentences is a contradiction. You could not have politics in EVE if the game mechanics did not allow players to take over territory, and form corporations.
No politics exists in an MMORPG without the game mechanics to support it.
I think what you meant to say is you prefer game mechanics like EVE where you can form corporations and take over territor, rather than game mechanics that involve convincing NPC's to take your side on an issue.
I'd like to see a non-space game that functions like EVE, but I don't know how it translates to 2d on the ground, instead of 3d in space.
I suppose you could add floating islands, and then it could function just like EVE, in 3d.
Ihmotepp is quite right on this. Admittedly, you would have politics if they kept the whole resource quality thing in, but not to the same depth and permeation that you currently get in the game.
I'm just trying to think of ways to have peaceful solutions to troubles, and ways to resolve disputes over issues that don't directly revolve around territory size, but instead revolve around factions and how they want the territory to be governed. Of course, it should be completely possible to head into a city, dispose of the leadership and set in a tyrannical reign, but you should end up being hated for the populace ( for a short while, at least, until you prove you're doing something good for them ) and have a LOT of blood on your hands.
I think politics could work well in a game but theres a few key factors why try and talk someone into doing something if they could just kill you? Maybe where ideas like perma death would come in people might be more prone to talking there way into things instead of just killing.
i.e. A highwayman might threaten first for money instead of just going and trying to kill if theres that risk there they might threaten before unsheathing weapons.
Same as guild battles if a guild wants to expand and a smaller guild is in the way they can offer to merge or destroy of which the smaller guild can take up arms, merge or disband.
Same as if you have a guild leader who is heavy handed and always puts his men at risk people will leave or overthrow the leader.
You could even have it where a guild could become a nation once it gets to a certain size and then segments into guilds within the nation of which you can have inballances of power within a nation.
but people will be more prone to talking about things than risking there lives also with the player driven nations you have the defence of everyone within the nation
i.e. Someone attacks a village the king/leader/prime minister will call to arms to claime vengence, protect the village or confront the attackers and depending on size seeing what the best posible route of action is.
And those of you that don't enjoy politics dont need to get involved you can just be a member opposed to a leader.
I think the mechanics that need to be put into place are through the guild mechanism and risks.
SWG has mayoral elections (which, when player cities were better populated, could be rather contentious, as various factions attempted to sieze control of a player city), and was supposed to have a Jedi governance system that wasn't developed. So there's some politics right there.
If you have some sort of self governance mechanism built into an MMO, you will have politics. How far the politics go depend upon how extensive the self governance system is.
Aren't guilds inherently political organizations? Isn't guild drama about conflicting visions of what the guild should be doing?
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
Not really. Most of the time, guild drama is about a member whoring themselves out for loot, or something equally ridiculous.
I was actually about to say pretty much the same about darkages. I loved how player-run that game was, running around as a Guard handling petty disputes and keeping the community in-check ((talking about the real world while in-game was illegal)) was great. That game is still some of the most fun I've had in years, it was a true roleplayers paradise.
Not really. Most of the time, guild drama is about a member whoring themselves out for loot, or something equally ridiculous.
Politics describes the process of how groups govern themselves. If a member of a guild violates the guild norms by whoring themselves out for loot (or something equally ridiculous) isn't the guild's collective response to that political in nature?
I've been in guilds where the failure to extend raid invitations because some members of the guild aren't as well geared as others have led to serious rifts and lots of drama. I've seen members expelled over helping themselves to particular items in the guild bank. I've seen members on the verge of expulsion for taking advantage of a guild vendor. It's "drama" but it's the sort of thing that happens all the times in groups outside of MMOs, like sports leagues.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
the only politics worth a damn are player driven politics, a.k.a guild drama soap operas. they start/end server-wide wars, provide sauce in the form of lulzy forum threads and affect the economy
playing politics with/against/affecting NPCs is another form of pve content,grind, and boredom. MMOs are about the social aspect, and FFA environments with guild alliances treaties truces and war declarations are the purest form of ingame politics
the rest is just unbearably carebear imo
Luminary Online also has the same feature in which you will elect a Goonzu (King) to lead your server. The Goonzu will also elect 5 officials of his own that will serve as his cabinet of members.
Politics is a nice features to add in a mmo with really massive players online (e.g. wow). However, that idea won't fly for lowly populated games.
Politics in WOW will induce more player interaction but politics in a small mmo with only a handful of players online will only lead to monopolies and dictorships eventually.
Shadowbane and Eve are good examples of games whose Politics werent presented as "Systems", although it existed and thrilled many players into it.
Actually having politics as a game mechanic and not the by product of other mechanics I think might actualy be pretty fun.
When you consider the form "politics" take now in games which is usually some guild bickering with another guild for control of a territory so they can get resources and make money, it just strikes me as very shallow, like arguing a business proposal, plus I don't want to have to listen to people prattle on about something I don't much care about outside of profit, those type of discussions are boring in real life much less a game.
But if you could actually convince NPCs to join your cause and such that would be pretty nice, especially if the conversation occured as a dialog with dialog options, admittedly you would have to write a lot of dialog, but the game would not seem arbitrary and abstract then if it were purely abilities.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit