Adding a political system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

Jailing people is too far... but suggesting that a ruler can dictate law that states only Lallafel can enter the city and all other races are attacked on sight is perfectly reasonable.

-roll eyes-

Yeah... you really thought this out, Dyne.

---

That was a joke. Why so serious?

Who says being "evil" is not "fun"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

Like free chocobo travel for everyone, in return you pay a little higher taxes. However, someone can hate paying higher taxes, then take away free chocobos when they win the election.

---

Wait... "they get chocobos for free.. but just have to pay higher taxes". So in other words... they're still paying for chocobos, just indirectly. Brilliant! Keep 'em coming, Dyne... You're really hitting it outta the park with these well thought-out concepts to support your idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

You can become a righteous ruler or a very bad one. It's all about role playing. The main purpose of player-run political system is exactly that, role playing. It's something that people could only dream of doing in real life. It would also promote loyalty to your nation and competition with other nations. How you make that happen is up to you, playing nice or playing dirty, it's your choice. In the end, it gets the community involved.

---

OH... So now it's really all about Role Playing.

Funny, for the past several pages, it's been all about being ruler of a region and all the perks that power brings with it. All the ways you can influence other people's gameplay.

Someone calls out the problems your previous sales-pitch could bring, so - on a dime - it now becomes "all about Role Playing".

It's amazing watching you jump from one foot to the other, morphing and changing the idea from one thing to another based on who you're replying to.

It's also undeniable proof of just how ill-conceived and poorly thought out this pet idea of yours really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

Wait... "they get chocobos for free.. but just have to pay higher taxes". So in other words... they're still paying for chocobos, just indirectly. Brilliant! Keep 'em coming, Dyne... You're really hitting it outta the park with these well thought-out concepts to support your idea.




OH... So now it's really all about Role Playing.

Funny, for the past several pages, it's been all about being ruler of a region and all the perks that power brings with it. All the ways you can influence other people's gameplay.

Someone calls out the problems your previous sales-pitch could bring, so - on a dime - it now becomes "all about Role Playing".

It's amazing watching you jump from one foot to the other, morphing and changing the idea from one thing to another based on who you're replying to.

---

Roleplaying being a good leader or a bad leader is what I'm talking about to make it that much more understandable for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

That was a joke. Why so serious?

---

Given some of the other examples you gave, I kinda doubt it was a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

Wait... "they get chocobos for free.. but just have to pay higher taxes". So in other words... they're still paying for chocobos, just indirectly. Brilliant! Keep 'em coming, Dyne... You're really hitting it outta the park with these well thought-out concepts to support your idea.




OH... So now it's really all about Role Playing.

Funny, for the past several pages, it's been all about being ruler of a region and all the perks that power brings with it. All the ways you can influence other people's gameplay.

Someone calls out the problems your previous sales-pitch could bring, so - on a dime - it now becomes "all about Role Playing".

It's amazing watching you jump from one foot to the other, morphing and changing the idea from one thing to another based on who you're replying to.

It's also undeniable proof of just how ill-conceived and poorly thought out this pet idea of yours really is.

---

I am merely throwing out ideas of possibilities of what you can and cannot do as leader. Instead of being a bitch, why don't you come up with ideas on what you will do if you are ruler of Uldah?

I hope the player being able to control whether people can use the AH or not was a joke, too... They'd pretty much be killed on sight for turning it off.

Generally I'm going to say no, I don't think this kind of thing is a good idea. I think successful private companies should hold some sway over things in the future, though. Also, company forts/housing out in the vast expanses of empty space we have would be awesome.

But that's another thread entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

Roleplaying being a good leader or a bad leader is what I'm talking about to make it that much more understandable for you.

---

No, it makes it clear that you have no clear idea of exactly what the system is, what kind of experience it's aimed at or how it would actually fit into the game's setting.

It makes it clear that you are willing to change your perspective, and how you pitch the idea, to suit who ever you happen to be responding to. For one person it's a BLT on Rye, for another it's a Ham Sandwich, for yet another it's a Hot Dog. Reading through all your posts in support of it for the last 7 pages or so, there is no consistency in how you're explaining the system. It changes almost from one post to the next.

It makes it clear that you have put no thought into the system, how it would play out or how players would affect or be affected by it.

It makes it clear that your thought process goes only so far as "I want to be able to rule a city and control stuff" and everything after that is "fluff that someone else can figure out.

Perhaps if you took more time to think the idea through, think of the ramifications, how it would fit into the gameworld, what abuses might be opened up by such a system, how it would affect how people experience the rest of the game... not to mention elements of the game that aren't even in the game yet or things SE has planned that we don't even know about yet... Perhaps if you set out a defined and consistent set of rules, restrictions and benefits that didn't change depending on who you were talking to and what their objection was... perhaps then your pet idea could be taken a bit more seriously and warrant serious discussion.

Perhaps a more limited form of political system could work. Elections and voting .... well, that hardly works in the real world; it seems unlikely in a gameworld.

The first step to having a political system is creating a resource system ... and not just any resources, but resources needed on a larger-than-individual scale. The Grand Companies are being founded on just that principle. The efficient collection and distribution of resources in order to combat a significant threat. Clearly, Garlemald is technologically superior, and has a superior military. Thus the limited resources of the city-states have to be carefully marshaled to try and combat the threat.

I could see fortifications, siege engines, etc being made available. There are two ways to accomplish this: first, allow guilds (private companies) to create them -- second, have Grand Companies make them. Both options are viable and could co-exist (although likely the more game-effecting effects would have to reserved for the Grand Companies). Players can contribute materials and time to the Grand Companies to create these fortifications and siege engines, but how would they be deployed?

NOW we have a need for a political system. Distribution of scarce resources in service of the city-state. One idea occurs to me: Have two sets of members in a Grand Council (for each city-state). One set of members is drawn from the leadership of the private companies that have demonstrated service to the city-state. Another could be selected from the population in general (perhaps a lottery system, with ability to vote people out, or something similar).

The function of the Grand Council is to vote upon placement of fortifications and siege equipment to resist the Garlemald Empire's military advances. The devs would establish viable alternatives, they would be presented to the Council, discussion would take place, followed by a vote.

The result would then effect players' ability to fight in campaign-style battles against the Empire.

P.S. After I wrote this, it occurred to me that the beast tribes are another possible threat. Same concept could be applied there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephr

I hope the player being able to control whether people can use the AH or not was a joke, too... They'd pretty much be killed on sight for turning it off.

Generally I'm going to say no, I don't think this kind of thing is a good idea. I think successful private companies should hold some sway over things in the future, though. Also, company forts/housing out in the vast expanses of empty space we have would be awesome.

But that's another thread entirely.

---

No, they will not be killed on site for turning off auction house, in fact, you are getting the wrong idea. Think of running an auction house as running a corporation, it needs money to run otherwise it goes bankrupt. As leader, it is your responsibility to try to keep that auction house running by collecting enough in taxes otherwise it closes down for your nation and you will be seen as a bad leader. Misusing taxes can result in not having enough funding to run certain services in the city. So, in general, people need to be careful who they elect as their ruler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

I am merely throwing out ideas of possibilities of what you can and cannot do as leader. Instead of being a bitch, why don't you come up with ideas on what you will do if you are ruler of Uldah?

---

Ah, so now we're resorting to ad hominems.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to my posts - especially the first one where I, in detail, explain why it wouldn't be a good idea in the first place, but I have no ideas of what I would do as ruler of Ul'dah, because I have no desire to be ruler of Ul'dah, because I think the idea is horrible, ill-conceived, whimsical at best, not thought out at all and should never be implemented.

You put forth the idea in your original post, others, and myself have given feedback on why we think it's a bad idea and wouldn't work. You seem to be ignoring those posts and instead are focusing on new ways to spin the idea as different objections and concerns are voiced about it.

I like the idea of having something like that, but not for the 3 starting cities.
They already HAVE leaders, if I may make you remember that..:rolleyes:
I don't want something like that anytime soon anyway.
Maybe one day we'll beat the Garleans and have to occupy their towns with our own (player-)leaders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

No, it makes it clear that you have no clear idea of exactly what the system is, what kind of experience it's aimed at or how it would actually fit into the game's setting.

It makes it clear that you are willing to change your perspective, and how you pitch the idea, to suit who ever you happen to be responding to. For one person it's a BLT on Rye, for another it's a Ham Sandwich, for yet another it's a Hot Dog. Reading through all your posts in support of it for the last 7 pages or so, there is no consistency in how you're explaining the system. It changes almost from one post to the next.

It makes it clear that you have put no thought into the system, how it would play out or how players would affect or be affected by it.

It makes it clear that your thought process goes only so far as "I want to be able to rule a city and control stuff" and everything after that is "fluff that someone else can figure out.

Perhaps if you took more time to think the idea through, think of the ramifications, how it would fit into the gameworld, what abuses might be opened up by such a system, how it would affect how people experience the rest of the game... not to mention elements of the game that aren't even in the game yet or things SE has planned that we don't even know about yet... Perhaps if you set out a defined and consistent set of rules, restrictions and benefits that didn't change depending on who you were talking to and what their objection was... perhaps then your pet idea could be taken a bit more seriously and warrant serious discussion.

---

Instead of just calling me "Lazy" why don't you come up with your own ideas instead on crapping on everyone elses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

Ah, so now we're resorting to ad hominems.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to my posts - especially the first one where I, in detail, explain why it wouldn't be a good idea in the first place, but I have no ideas of what I would do as ruler of Ul'dah, because I have no desire to be ruler of Ul'dah, because I think the idea is horrible, ill-conceived, whimsical at best, not thought out at all and should never be implemented.

You put forth the idea in your original post, others, and myself have given feedback on why we think it's a bad idea and wouldn't work. You seem to be ignoring those posts and instead are focusing on new ways to spin the idea as different objections and concerns are voiced about it.

---

Ok then, so you can't even imagine yourself in a leadership position. So what good are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atoli

I like the idea of having something like that, but not for the 3 starting cities.
They already HAVE leaders, if I may make you remember that..:rolleyes:
I don't want something like that anytime soon anyway.
Maybe one day we'll beat the Garleans and have to occupy their towns with our own (player-)leaders?

---

Yeah, that could work too and it would fit nicely with the lore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

Instead of just calling me "Lazy" why don't you come up with your own ideas instead on crapping on everyone elses.

---

I know I'm not the person you were replying to, but I did post an elaboration here.

Perhaps instead of slinging mud at each we could actually discuss the topic at hand? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amineri

Perhaps a more limited form of political system could work. Elections and voting .... well, that hardly works in the real world; it seems unlikely in a gameworld.

The first step to having a political system is creating a resource system ... and not just any resources, but resources needed on a larger-than-individual scale. The Grand Companies are being founded on just that principle. The efficient collection and distribution of resources in order to combat a significant threat. Clearly, Garlemald is technologically superior, and has a superior military. Thus the limited resources of the city-states have to be carefully marshaled to try and combat the threat.

I could see fortifications, siege engines, etc being made available. There are two ways to accomplish this: first, allow guilds (private companies) to create them -- second, have Grand Companies make them. Both options are viable and could co-exist (although likely the more game-effecting effects would have to reserved for the Grand Companies). Players can contribute materials and time to the Grand Companies to create these fortifications and siege engines, but how would they be deployed?

NOW we have a need for a political system. Distribution of scarce resources in service of the city-state. One idea occurs to me: Have two sets of members in a Grand Council (for each city-state). One set of members is drawn from the leadership of the private companies that have demonstrated service to the city-state. Another could be selected from the population in general (perhaps a lottery system, with ability to vote people out, or something similar).

The function of the Grand Council is to vote upon placement of fortifications and siege equipment to resist the Garlemald Empire's military advances. The devs would establish viable alternatives, they would be presented to the Council, discussion would take place, followed by a vote.

The result would then effect players' ability to fight in campaign-style battles against the Empire.

P.S. After I wrote this, it occurred to me that the beast tribes are another possible threat. Same concept could be applied there.

---

Now *that* is how you conceive and present an initial idea.

Give it a context that fits within the established setting of the game, give it a meaning and purpose within that context (ultimately fighting against a common enemy), define specific details and limitations of it, and present it in a well structured manner.

That idea actually sounds really interesting to me.

Dyne... Take notes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amineri

Perhaps a more limited form of political system could work. Elections and voting .... well, that hardly works in the real world; it seems unlikely in a gameworld.

The first step to having a political system is creating a resource system ... and not just any resources, but resources needed on a larger-than-individual scale. The Grand Companies are being founded on just that principle. The efficient collection and distribution of resources in order to combat a significant threat. Clearly, Garlemald is technologically superior, and has a superior military. Thus the limited resources of the city-states have to be carefully marshaled to try and combat the threat.

I could see fortifications, siege engines, etc being made available. There are two ways to accomplish this: first, allow guilds (private companies) to create them -- second, have Grand Companies make them. Both options are viable and could co-exist (although likely the more game-effecting effects would have to reserved for the Grand Companies). Players can contribute materials and time to the Grand Companies to create these fortifications and siege engines, but how would they be deployed?

NOW we have a need for a political system. Distribution of scarce resources in service of the city-state. One idea occurs to me: Have two sets of members in a Grand Council (for each city-state). One set of members is drawn from the leadership of the private companies that have demonstrated service to the city-state. Another could be selected from the population in general (perhaps a lottery system, with ability to vote people out, or something similar).

The function of the Grand Council is to vote upon placement of fortifications and siege equipment to resist the Garlemald Empire's military advances. The devs would establish viable alternatives, they would be presented to the Council, discussion would take place, followed by a vote.

The result would then effect players' ability to fight in campaign-style battles against the Empire.

P.S. After I wrote this, it occurred to me that the beast tribes are another possible threat. Same concept could be applied there.

---

Thank you, those are very nice ideas btw. I hate it when people just say "That's just not gonna work, kill it". I am glad there is someone out there that knows how to be constructive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

Ok then, so you can't even imagine yourself in a leadership position. So what good are you?

---

And another ad-hominem!

As much "good" as you are. You presented an idea. I pointed out the flaws and potential issues in that idea.

I realize you think "being useful" is basically "agreeing with your idea". However, that's not the way it works.

My criticisms have been very specific and consistent... Your idea is whimsical, not well thought out, not well planned, and you keep changing the way you're pitching it.

Perhaps if you were to take that away from the discussion, better think out the idea. Put it in a better and more clearly thought out format, even if only as an initial "pitch", like Amineri did... You'd have received a better reaction from it.

Instead, you get offended, get your panties in a wad, go into spin mode and start lashing out about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

Now *that* is how you conceive and present an initial idea.

Give it a context that fits within the established setting of the game, give it a meaning and purpose within that context (ultimately fighting against a common enemy), define specific details and limitations of it, and present it in a well structured manner.

That idea actually sounds really interesting to me.

Dyne... Take notes.

---

But that's not your ideas isn't it? Exactly. All I had was the basic idea, and left it to someone else in the forums to add to it and make it deeper. That is called brainstorming. You were out of line for calling me "lazy" and expecting me to present the whole entire thing by myself. Even her ideas can still be expanded on by someone else, but it cannot be done with a bunch of negative nancies who all they do is say "no" all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

And another ad-hominem!

As much "good" as you are. You presented an idea. I pointed out the flaws and potential issues in that idea.

I realize you think "being useful" is basically "agreeing with your idea". However, that's not the way it works.

My criticisms have been very specific and consistent... Your idea is whimsical, not well thought out, not well planned, and you keep changing the way you're pitching it.

Perhaps if you were to take that away from the discussion, better think out the idea. Put it in a better and more clearly thought out format, even if only as an initial "pitch", like Amineri did... You'd have received a better reaction from it.

Instead, you get offended, get your panties in a wad, go into spin mode and start lashing out about it.

---

You didn't mention anything constructive, and by that I mean, what would you do differently? I'm asking you to imagine yourself in a leadership position, and you respond by saying "No! I don't wanna! That's stupid! No! Just No! No! *stumps foots around* No! It's stupid, stupid, stupid! You're Stupid and Lazy! No!" So if you cannot even do anything metaphorically, then what good are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

But that's not your ideas isn't it? Exactly. All I had was the basic idea, and left it to someone else in the forums to add to it and make it deeper. That is called brainstorming. You were out of line for calling me "lazy" and expecting me to present the whole entire thing by myself. Even her ideas can still be expanded on by someone else, but it cannot be done with a bunch of negative nancies who all they do is say "no" all day.

---

Oh cut the bullshit already, will you?

For one, once again, I *did* present reasons why I felt it wouldn't work. Or maybe you just stop reading at the words "won't work" and ignore all the reasons why.

You presented little more than "wouldn't it be cool to be able to rule cities and have control over how people experience the game". And then left it to others to "fill out the idea" and make it workable instead of even trying to put in a hair of effort to that end yourself. That *is* lazy. You're asking people to endorse and stand behind an idea that you're not even willing enough to put more than a whimsical thought into before presenting it.

Amineri's post is *exactly* what your initial post should have been. Well thought out, thorough and shows a degree of effort beyond "gee, it'd be cool if people could be the rulers of a city... Hey, I'm gonna take this completely arbitrary idea to the forums so other people can develop the idea for me!"

Just read Amineri's post and keep it in mind for the next time you want to present an idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

Oh cut the bullshit already, will you?

For one, once again, I *did* present reasons why I felt it wouldn't work. Or maybe you just stop reading at the words "won't work" and ignore all the reasons why.

You presented little more than "wouldn't it be cool to be able to rule cities and have control over how people experience the game". And then left it to others to "fill out the idea" and make it workable instead of even trying to put in a hair of effort to that end yourself. That *is* lazy. You're asking people to endorse and stand behind an idea that you're not even willing enough to put more than a whimsical thought into before presenting it.

Amineri's post is *exactly* what your initial post should have been. Well thought out, thorough and shows a degree of effort beyond "gee, it'd be cool if people could be the rulers of a city... Hey, I'm gonna take this completely arbitrary idea to the forums so other people can develop the idea for me!"

Just read Amineri's post and keep it in mind for the next time you want to present an idea.

---

Ok, so if Amineri presented the same idea about having a political system, you are for it. So that means, adding a political system in the game could work. So I win.

Bottomline is, I wanted a political system added, it doesn't matter how they come up with it. They don't have to take my ideas on how to go about it, they can take somebody else's and that's totally fine. I have my way, they have their way, either way it's a political system. How would you go about it?

I hate the idea of any individual influencing my gameplay. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

If there were a political system implemented I would want to have the choice to vote for an NPC. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the time the NPC would be in power and keeping things the way they are. Giving people the option of giving someone else more power than them or keeping them on equal standing, the majority will always choose to be on equal standing.

Don't be a cynic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun_Anam

I hate the idea of any individual influencing my gameplay. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

If there were a political system implemented I would want to have the choice to vote for an NPC. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the time the NPC would be in power and keeping things the way they are. Giving people the option of giving someone else more power than them or keeping them on equal standing, the majority will always choose to be on equal standing.

---

This is an MMORPG. Every individual in the game influences your gameplay. What do you think a linkshell leader is? You are not hunting that NM or doing those leves with your linkshell just because you felt like it. At some point, the leader had to organize it. It wasn't an npc that took the effort to make an event happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preypacer

You presented little more than "wouldn't it be cool to be able to rule cities and have control over how people experience the game". And then left it to others to "fill out the idea" and make it workable instead of even trying to put in a hair of effort to that end yourself. That *is* lazy.

---

No, that's how a forum works.
Many people share their ideas, and maybe something great is the result:)
I'm not all in for the idea of a political system, I already saw it destroy another game I once enjoyed.
But I think the basic idea is good, and could bring lots of fun to the players if executed right.

Btw, Dyne: Gosh, stop triple-posting already!:mad:
There's a button called "Edit"-Button out there somewhere, learn how to use it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y594VfpRWbA

Here, watch FFXI Hitler. Enjoy!

While it sounds nice and all the game wasn't really built for that lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyne

But that's not your ideas isn't it? Exactly. All I had was the basic idea, and left it to someone else in the forums to add to it and make it deeper. That is called brainstorming. You were out of line for calling me "lazy" and expecting me to present the whole entire thing by myself. Even her ideas can still be expanded on by someone else, but it cannot be done with a bunch of negative nancies who all they do is say "no" all day.

---

how can we know what you are proposing to the game if it isn't clear what it is? I could ask for tonberries to be included but there are many ways how. Beastman tribe with Seraph as its primal, tour guides traveling to new dungeons to pawn serivces, popular plush dolls in Ishgard...

OP made me laugh~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun_Anam

I hate the idea of any individual influencing my gameplay. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

---

I completely understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, the reality is that there are individuals that influence your game play, whether you like it or not. For one, Yoshi-P (the man!) is an individual that certainly has a big influence on our gameplay. Matsui is another. Perhaps that's not what you meant, however.

For my part, I'm more comfortable with designers having a bigger influence, because the designers goal is to create a game that makes money -- ideally this comes about by making the game fun for the players, so their motivations line up nicely with mine. The issue I generally have with player control is that another player generally does NOT have the goal of making others' play experience better, but to have fun in their own right. And when their idea of fun is "mess with" other players ... well, that's when things tend to get ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flower

While it sounds nice and all the game wasn't really built for that lol.

---

I agree. While it is kind of an interesting thought experiment, there would have to be a lot of steps in-between now and any sort of player-influenced political system. And the level of effort may well not be worth the risk or investment by SE and the design team.

Probably what it will boil down to is this : how many players can enjoy a political system? By definition, not very many, so it would intrinsically be content designed for the few. Adding the risk that it could harm the play of quite a few, and that it is a "sandbox-style" mechanic, it likely won't ever show in FFXIV.

Dyne, you might check out Wakfu, one of the other SE MMO titles in development. They have multiple nations, player-elected governors, and laws that are set by the elected players. Might be your cup of tea.

good luck...

no thanks, how many people will try to become "president"? 1/3 of eorzea? how many publicity u will see? around 1000? and in the end, will win who have more friends or the biggest linkshell. I dont want a kid with nosense of economy to raise or down taxes, or decide about me.

I am agree with idea of different NPC rulers (3 or 5) and we deciding who of them can rule every 3 months or something like it, every one with diferent taxs values, diferent systems to implement (a system to players vote what we want in the game)

For example: Dev team want to know if we want Linkshell Houses/castles, 3 new dungeons, Personal Boats (and a huge sea map) to travel between citys or fishing in open sea, or to declare open war to Empire (with content for it) Each NPC could have one system, chocobo taxes and more attached to him, and players to vote their best choice.

Then dev team can work on that system and start to implement it before 3 months. That much better than a kid being ruler of us coz he have larger LS supporting him.

The only problem I have with this system is the fact that if it was implemented I would be the leader of my server every voting cycle, even if I don't want to be. That is a lot of pressure and all I really want to do is play the game without that burden. I guess thats just the downside of having such an amazing personality.

This isn't wokfu... -_- No thanks to any of this nonsense.

And I want to be a ruler of a world and be rich as hell. No thank you, I found this mispleasing in other mmorpgs I played. Just work hard as the others do.

So TERA announces a political system and you're suggesting it for FFXIV before their system is presented to the players? That'll work. Forget a political system. I want drug rings where players smuggle in gysahl greens, erm.... that players "feed to chocobos" *wink wink*! Or introduce the Eorzea mafia. They'll need to implement gun first though.