Adding a political system

[Amineri]

IMHO, if governments and political systems are established, then they should be designed around service of the player to the community. NOT about self-aggrandizement and "shits and giggles" for a person elected.

Also, I fail to see just what the purpose of establishing player-run political systems would be? What function in the game world would it fill? Ultimately, I think the next step (after Grand Companies) is the player-run private companies. The private companies are (quite likely) going to have a role to fill within the Eorzean-Garlmald conflict, and I'm sure there will be plenty of politicking within them. What about starting with that before trying to create city-wide or server-wide dictatorships?

[Dyne]

IMHO, if governments and political systems are established, then they should be designed around service of the player to the community. NOT about self-aggrandizement and "shits and giggles" for a person elected.

Also, I fail to see just what the purpose of establishing player-run political systems would be? What function in the game world would it fill? Ultimately, I think the next step (after Grand Companies) is the player-run private companies. The private companies are (quite likely) going to have a role to fill within the Eorzean-Garlmald conflict, and I'm sure there will be plenty of politicking within them. What about starting with that before trying to create city-wide or server-wide dictatorships?

Yeah, it can be designed around a service to the community also, like allowing certain options to be available for your city. 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. 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.

[Amineri]

Yeah, it can be designed around a service to the community also, like allowing certain options to be available for your city. 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. 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.

There are a couple of positive aspects to player-run political systems.

First, they can increase the immersion factor of the game. I couldn't say with certainty for ALL such attempts, but in my experience, they tend to end up not working all that well -- they end up creating more frustration for more players then they do enhancing the fun.

Second, they can provide an opportunity for players to give back and contribute to the rest of the playerbase -- yes, I'm actually saying that I feel that such a system should NOT be about the people elected, but about the rest of the players. That is, an elected person is elected not to have fun, but to sacrifice in order to make everyone else's game more enjoyable.

Locking certain races out of cities (racism), levying massive taxes, destroying building, or raising monuments to praise oneself are, to my mind, EXACTLY the types of things that shouldn't be happening. Fun for the few at the expense of the many is not a good recipe to maintain a healthy subscription base.

My 2 gil

[Preypacer]

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.

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.

[Dyne]

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.

[Preypacer]

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.

[Dyne]

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.

[Amineri]

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?

[Dyne]

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?

[Preypacer]

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.